AI Visibility Index — Personal Injury, Q3 2026

The ranking

25 firms, 15 prompts, 4 engines. The top-ranked firm earned a 18% visibility score (cited links + named mentions out of total possible points). The bottom of the table earned zero — meaning the firm neither appeared as a cited link nor was named in any engine response across the entire prompt set.

Score = cited-link (2 pts each) + named-only mention (1 pt each) across 120 possible points (4 engines × 15 prompts with at least one cited response). SoV = share of all tracked-firm points in this run.

Read the zeros carefully. A 0/120 score means the firm was not named or cited in any engine response across the prompt set. For some firms that is partly explained by their site blocking LLM crawlers (HTTP 403); for others the zero is a genuine visibility finding. We tested every zero-score firm's crawler access — see the caveats section below for the measured results.

Top 5 — visual

Even the leader earns under 1 in 5 of the possible citation points. The rest of the 25-firm field is much further behind.

Read the zeros carefully

5 of 25 firms scored 0/120. Rather than guess why, we tested each zero-score firm's site by requesting its homepage with the GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and PerplexityBot user-agent strings (2026-07-17, redirects followed). The zeros split three ways:

1. Blocked — the site returns HTTP 403 to all three AI crawlers: Jim Adler & Associates and Anidjar & Levine. A zero here is partly a server-config story, not purely a visibility one. Partly — not fully: The Barnes Firm returns the same 403 to all three crawlers and still scored points in this run, because engines also learn about firms from directories, press, and third-party pages they can crawl. Blocking suppresses citations; it does not erase a firm with a strong third-party footprint.
2. Rate-limited (ambiguous): Mike Morse Injury Law Firm answered two of the three crawlers with HTTP 429. We can't call that a deliberate block, so we don't.
3. Open — the site serves all three crawlers normally (HTTP 200): Dolman Law Group and Stewart J. Guss Injury Lawyers. These zeros are the real finding: the engines could read these firms' sites and still never named or cited them across the entire prompt set.

One more failure mode we guard against: a wrong canonical domain in our own list, which would silently zero a firm's cited-link score. We live-fetched every domain on the 2026-07-17 verification pass and corrected one (Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers: rosenfeldinjurylawyers.com now redirects to rosenfeldinjurylaw.com). If you find a wrong domain in this table, tell us and we will correct it in the next run.

What we will never do is report a 0/120 as a definitive finding without disclosing what we measured about crawler access. Citation rankings published without that disclosure are the kind of surface that gets a marketing team a call from a journalist — and rightly so.

What this means for your firm

If the 25 largest, most-advertised, most-recognized US personal-injury firms score this poorly in AI answers, the long tail of smaller firms scores dramatically worse. The engines are not hiding good firms — they are not being given the structured, machine-readable, quotable content they need to cite anyone.

That is the entire FirmCited thesis: the inputs that move the score are well-understood (entity data, schema, crawler access, quotable Q&A content), the work is bounded, and the measurement is auditable. What we will not promise is that we will put your firm in a specific position in a specific answer on a specific day — because no honest vendor can. Read the full honesty page.