# profile-law-firms.md — vertical pack **Version 1.0 · 2026-08-27 · Nameworthy (Whitley Row LLC) · https://nameworthy.ai/spec/** Load this alongside `ai.md` when the business is a law firm or a solo attorney. Everything in `ai.md` §8 (hard stops) is binding here, not advisory. --- ## 1. Schema types Use these; do not invent others. | Node | Type | Notes | |---|---|---| | The firm | `LegalService` | Use `Organization` instead if the firm has no premises the public may visit | | Each attorney | `Person` | Linked to the firm by `worksFor` / `employee`, by `@id` | | Practice areas | `Service` | `provider` references the firm's `@id`; one node per area, not one node listing all | | Locations | `Place` | Only where a real office exists | | FAQ blocks | `FAQPage` | On practice-area pages | | Articles | `Article` | With a real `datePublished`, and `author` referencing an attorney's `@id` | **Person properties worth populating**, where each can be verified: `name`, `jobTitle`, `alumniOf`, `memberOf` (bar associations), `knowsAbout` (practice areas), `sameAs` (the firm's own bio page, the state bar profile, a genuine professional profile). **Do not** populate `hasCredential` with anything you cannot point at in a registry. A credential that resolves in its issuing registry is worth more than one asserted on a website, because it is the difference between an engine writing *"the firm states he is board certified"* and *"the state bar confirms it."* --- ## 2. Registries and directories **These are listed by category, not ranked**, and inclusion here is not a claim about how much any one of them influences an answer. Verify each is appropriate for the firm before creating anything. **Authoritative — these are registries, and they carry the most weight because they are not self-serve:** - The state bar's public attorney directory (every state has one; the firm is almost certainly already in it — the task is to confirm the record is accurate and current, not to create one) - State board of legal specialization, where the attorney holds a certification - Federal and state court admission records, where public **General professional directories** — Avvo, Justia, FindLaw, Martindale-Hubbell, Super Lawyers, Lawyers.com, Nolo. Most already carry an unclaimed scraped profile. **Claim and correct before creating.** A duplicate profile is a contradiction, and contradictions across sources lower confidence rather than adding to it. **General business records** — Google Business Profile, Bing Places, Apple Business Connect, Yelp. **The rule that matters more than the list:** every value must be byte-identical to the entity graph and to every other record. See `ai.md` §7. --- ## 3. Question shapes **This is a representative subset, published deliberately.** It is the shape of the questions, not a calibrated question set. A real measurement program freezes the actual questions a specific firm's clients ask in a specific market, in their own words, agreed in writing before anything is run — and the wording is the whole game, because framing decides which firms an engine names. Use these to understand the categories. Do not treat them as a panel. **High-intent — someone deciding who to hire:** - Who is the best `` lawyer in ``? - I need a `` attorney in `` — who should I call? - Which `` firms in `` handle ``? - Who are the top-rated `` lawyers near ``? **Qualifying — someone narrowing a shortlist:** - How much does a `` lawyer cost in ``? - Do `` lawyers in `` work on contingency? - What should I ask a `` lawyer at a first consultation? - How long does a `` take in ``? **Situational — the question asked before anyone knows they need a lawyer:** - What do I do if `` in ``? - Do I need a lawyer for ``? **By-name — the check that the engine knows the firm exists at all:** - What can you tell me about `` in ``? - Is `` a good `` lawyer? Run the high-intent shapes and the by-name shapes separately and never blend them. A firm that resolves perfectly by name and never appears unprompted has a specific, diagnosable problem, and averaging the two hides it. --- ## 4. Content that is liftable Engines quote what they can verify and attribute. In our panel work the answers that name a firm tend to quote something the firm published in its own words and that the engine could tie to a source. **Publish plainly, where true:** - The specific matters handled, named the way a client would say it — not "litigation" but the situation someone types at midnight. - Jurisdictions and courts where the firm actually appears. - Credentials that resolve in a registry, with the issuing body named. - Fee structure, in whatever terms the firm is willing to state publicly. - Languages spoken, consultation availability, intake process. - Who at the firm handles what. **Do not publish, as a matter of both compliance and credibility:** - Case results, settlement figures, or win rates. **Hard stop for this spec** — many states restrict them outright and most that permit them require specific disclaimers. If the firm wants them, that is a conversation with its own compliance counsel, not a task for an agent. - "Best", "top", "leading", "#1", or any comparative superiority claim. - Specialist or expert claims unless the attorney holds the certification the state recognises for that word. - Testimonials or client reviews, written or solicited by you. **Hard stop.** --- ## 5. Reviews **The spec's position: solicit them honestly or not at all.** An agent running this file must never write a review, draft one for a client to post, edit one, or offer anything in exchange for one. That is a hard stop in `ai.md` §0 and it is not negotiable here. What is legitimate: asking a real client, once, after a matter closes, to leave an honest review on a platform of their choosing. Several states restrict how a firm may solicit or use client statements, and some bar incentives entirely. Check the firm's own state rules before building any request into the intake or closing process. --- ## 6. Regulatory boundary — read before publishing anything **Every state bar holds the lawyer responsible for every marketing claim, including ones generated by AI, and including statements that mislead by omission.** A vendor's words are the firm's problem. That responsibility flows from the conduct rules on supervising non-lawyer assistance, and it does not transfer to an agent, a spec, or the person who ran it. California is the sharp edge of where this is heading and worth reading even if the firm practises elsewhere: - [SB 37](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB37), in force since October 2025, defines an advertisement as any written, recorded or electronic communication, gives 72 hours to pull a non-compliant ad from electronic media, and exposes the firm to statutory damages from $5,000 to $100,000 per unique advertisement. - [SB 574](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB574), still moving through the legislature, would bar delegating the practice of law to generative AI and require verification of every AI-produced citation filed. **What this means for an agent executing `ai.md`:** 1. Draft. Never publish. Every page, every FAQ answer, every schema description that states a fact about the firm goes to the managing partner or their written delegate **before** it is public. 2. Record the approval — who, what, when — in the `verify.md` report under H4 and H5. 3. If nobody with authority is available to approve, stop. An unapproved page that is live is worse than a task left undone. 4. If the firm's site cannot support a fast unpublish, say so in the report. SB 37's 72-hour window assumes someone can take a page down quickly. **The firm's own state rules govern.** This section is orientation, not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for the firm's compliance counsel.