Custom Legal Marketing review

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 17% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 5 · Strong 7 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 5 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Uses stakeholder/customer research, analytics, content modeling, journeys, and tested information architecture.

Scores low — Evidence-led UX scores 4-5; sitemap-by-opinion scores 1-2.

What we found — The design page states 'We research your firm's brand, clients, and competition' and 'We focus group test all designs'; portfolio entries list 'Focus Group Testing' as a service, and the Brill case study describes what the testing found. The Wirtz case study describes behavioral analytics (cursor flow, drop-off points, CTA hesitation). Information architecture and content modeling are not described.

On the record — “The website design page states 'We research your firm's brand, clients, and competition.' and 'We focus group test all designs to make sure page layouts are communicating as intended.'” custom.legal ↗

On the record — “The website design portfolio lists 16 law firms, including Briskman Briskman & Greenberg, Steinberg Law Firm, Sommers Schwartz and Brill Legal Group, with 'Visit Website' links to their sites.” custom.legal ↗

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 17% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 7 · Strong 5 · Adequate 1. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and 7 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Portfolio demonstrates distinctive, on-brand responsive systems with strong typography, interaction, and component logic.

Scores low — Recycled templates or visual trend copying score 1-2.

What we found — Sixteen named law-firm sites with live links; projects credit named art directors and photographers and custom illustration (Brill Legal Group). Visual quality was not judged from rendered pages, only from the portfolio's descriptions and the live-site credit.

On the record — “brill-legal.com carries the footer credit 'Website by Law Firm SEO Agency, Custom Legal Marketing'.” brill-legal.com ↗

On the record — “The website design portfolio lists 16 law firms, including Briskman Briskman & Greenberg, Steinberg Law Firm, Sommers Schwartz and Brill Legal Group, with 'Visit Website' links to their sites.” custom.legal ↗

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 17% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 8 · Strong 4 · Adequate 1. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and 12 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Deep capability in the selected CMS/stack, integrations, component systems, QA, environments, and deployment.

Scores low — Production-quality builds score 4-5; design-only handoff or outsourced mystery development scores 1-2.

What we found — Sites are built on WordPress with the agency's own 'CLM Builder'; the agency credits itself with 'Web Design & Development' on each portfolio entry and runs a helpdesk. No integrations, environments, QA or deployment practice is described.

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 13% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 3 · Strong 7 · Adequate 3. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 10 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Targets Core Web Vitals, WCAG, semantic markup, crawlability, redirects, security, and cross-device QA.

Scores low — Measured standards score 4-5; silence scores 1-2.

What we found — The technical SEO page covers redirects, XML sitemaps, schema, crawlability, Core Web Vitals (defined, no targets) and keeping WordPress current. The design page claims sites are 'fast, responsive' but publishes no measured target and does not mention accessibility; the WCAG 2.1 AA statement covers the agency's own site via a third-party tool.

On the record — “The technical SEO page states that technical SEO 'means fixing broken links, creating an XML sitemap, setting up proper redirects'.” custom.legal ↗

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 12% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 8 · Adequate 2 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 2 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Connects journeys and content to qualified conversions, product adoption, ecommerce revenue, or another business outcome.

Scores low — Quantified post-launch results score 4-5; aesthetic awards alone score 1-2.

What we found — Quantified post-launch figures: 'conversions jumped 47% sitewide within 2 months', '673%' more conversions than the original FindLaw site (Brill), and a 62% increase in calls in the month after a UX change (Wirtz). All are the agency's own, with no baselines, and the four stat cards on the design page all link to one firm's page.

On the record — “The website design page reports 'CLM redesigned site launched and conversions jumped 47% sitewide within 2 months.'” custom.legal ↗

On the record — “The Brill Legal Group case study says 'we use research and focus groups to help us understand how visitors respond emotionally to website imagery' and reports '673%' more conversions than the original Findlaw site.” custom.legal ↗

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 7 · Strong 5 · Adequate 1. The typical agency here scores Excellent, and 7 of them score higher than this one.

Scores high — Recent live sites, named clients, verified reviews, and projects of comparable complexity score 4-5.

Scores low — Mockups, dead links, or logo walls score 1-2.

What we found — Sixteen named law-firm sites with 'Visit Website' links and per-project pages; brill-legal.com was read and credits 'Custom Legal Marketing' in its footer. No independent review base: a Clutch profile at clutch.co/profile/custom-legal-marketing showed 0 reviews, and the Google, BBB and Facebook ratings are badge images on the agency's own homepage. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “brill-legal.com carries the footer credit 'Website by Law Firm SEO Agency, Custom Legal Marketing'.” brill-legal.com ↗

On the record — “The website design portfolio lists 16 law firms, including Briskman Briskman & Greenberg, Steinberg Law Firm, Sommers Schwartz and Brill Legal Group, with 'Visit Website' links to their sites.” custom.legal ↗

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 8% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 6 · Strong 6 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 12 of them score higher than this one.

Scores high — Clear discovery, milestones, content ownership, feedback limits, change control, QA, migration, launch, and rollback plan score 4-5.

Scores low — Vague timelines and surprise change orders score 1-2.

What we found — No process, discovery phase, milestones, timeline, feedback limits, QA, migration or launch plan is published on the homepage, design page, about page or case studies. The homepage says only 'It all starts with a conversation'. Clients are said to have access to ranking and analytics reports at any time. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The website design page reports 'CLM redesigned site launched and conversions jumped 47% sitewide within 2 months.'” custom.legal ↗

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Stronger here: Adchitects scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 6% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 13 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 3 · Adequate 6 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 10 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Client owns code, design files, accounts, domains, analytics, and documentation; pricing and post-launch support are explicit.

Scores low — Proprietary lock-in or withheld source files score 1.

What we found — No price on the site. Who owns the code, design files and domain is not stated. Sites run on the proprietary 'CLM Builder' and 'Updates are free for CLM marketing accounts', which ties ongoing maintenance to a marketing retainer. The about page publishes a territorial 'No Competition' commitment, not an ownership term.

On the record — “The website design page states 'The CLM Builder, paired with WordPress, allows you to easily update any page' and 'Updates are free for CLM marketing accounts.'” custom.legal ↗

On the record — “The about page states 'we will not work with any competing lawyers in your city' and publishes no pricing, contract or asset-ownership terms.” custom.legal ↗

retainer — a fixed monthly fee regardless of hours or output — predictable, but worth tying to a defined scope.

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Stronger here: B12 scores Excellent on the same dimension.