Since the SRA's transparency rules came into force, firms have had to publish price and service information for a defined set of work: residential conveyancing, uncontested probate involving UK assets, immigration other than asylum, summary motoring offences, employment tribunal claims for unfair or wrongful dismissal, debt recovery for businesses, and licensing applications for business premises. The published information has to state what is and is not included, deal with VAT and disbursements, give indicative timescales, and identify who will do the work and their qualifications. Firms also have to display the SRA's digital badge. Most firms treat all of this as a compliance obligation, bury it behind a footer link and write it defensively. That is a mistake, because it is the one page on the site that a prospective client genuinely wants, arrives at with high intent, and uses to compare you against two other firms. A pricing page written to be read rather than written to be compliant does both jobs at once.
Underneath the firm's single brand sit practice areas that behave like unrelated businesses. Conveyancing is volume work, price-sensitive, tied to transaction volumes in the housing market, fed heavily by estate agent and broker referrals, and searched for with a quote in mind — the conversion event is a quote request and speed of response decides most of it. Family law is the opposite: low volume, high emotional load, searched late at night on a mobile phone by somebody who has not told anyone yet, and repelled by the aggressive commercial framing that works fine for conveyancing. Immigration intent is organised by route rather than by profession, so people search for the visa category or the refusal they are appealing, not for a solicitor, and the audience is frequently multilingual. Personal injury sits in a market reshaped by the whiplash reforms and the low-value claims portal, and where referral fees have been prohibited for over a decade, which makes direct search one of the few compliant acquisition routes left. A single set of pages, one tone of voice and one enquiry form cannot serve those four.
The last problem is that most firms cannot see what their marketing produced. Work arrives by phone, by referral from a professional contact, and from repeat clients — search is incremental for many firms rather than primary, which is worth being honest about before setting a budget. The enquiry that does come through the website is taken by reception, passed to a fee earner, and opened as a matter in a practice management system weeks later, by which time nothing connects it back to the campaign that produced it. So the marketing report says the site generated a number of form fills, and the partners have no way of knowing which of those became instructions, in which practice area, at what value. That gap is why firms cut the campaigns that were working and keep the ones that were not, and closing it is usually worth more than any change to the campaigns themselves.