CaseGap AI
Find law firm revenue leaks, then fix them
86 followers
Find law firm revenue leaks, then fix them
86 followers
CaseGap AI helps law firms find and fix revenue leaks across SEO, local search, AI visibility, reviews, speed, and compliance. Run a 60-second audit to get a prioritized action plan, then deploy an AI marketing agent to work daily on the fixes: SEO updates, Google Business posts, review responses, outreach, directory improvements, and ad copy.
Payment Required
Launch Team / Built With
Render Sandboxes: a computer for every agentGive every agent its own machine. Starts in under a second
Promoted
@omer_legaltech Congrats on the launch Omer, how do you estimate a revenue figure for each gap?
@zolani_matebese Hi Zolani, thanks!
Each engine uses a funnel formula:
Missed Demand × Inquiry Rate × Consult Rate × Client Rate × Avg Matter Value
The inputs come from real benchmarks (Unbounce 6.3% legal landing-page conversion, BrightLocal local-pack data, etc.) plus per-practice-area matter values and a city-size demand multiplier.
Every number ships with a low–high confidence range — it's a directional estimate, not a forecast, and we show the math so firms can pressure-test it against their own numbers.
@omer_legaltech Hey Omer, congrats on the launch 👋
Answering your question first: from what I've seen, the hardest part isn't generating the audit - it's getting partners to agree which fixes to ship. Legal firms are partnership-governed and a "prioritized action plan" needs to survive three partners arguing over whether to invest in SEO vs reviews vs ads. Curious if CaseGap's agent surfaces ROI per recommendation in a way that's defensible in that conversation.
Adjacent question on ICP: where do you land on the firm size curve? 5-attorney PI vs 50-attorney commercial lit have completely different leak patterns and acquisition economics - is the 200+ check rubric size-aware?
Congratulations. I like the revenue-mapping feature. I do have a question on the Autopilot mode. Law firms have strict state bar advertising rules. If the AI agent auto-publishes content or tweaks SEO copy daily on autopilot, how does it handle compliance review?
@taimur_haider1 Totally fair concern — this is where most legal AI tools break.
Default mode is draft-for-review: the agent writes, the attorney approves, then it ships. Auto-publish is opt-in and limited to low-risk stuff (GBP posts, schema, technical fixes) — never testimonials, past results, or comparative claims.
Each firm's agent also gets its state bar rules baked into its instructions at setup (FL, CA, TX, NY have the strictest), and sensitive content categories are always flagged for human review.
We're not selling "fully autonomous." It's a marketing teammate that drafts fast and knows the rulebook — the attorney stays the final authority.
the 60-second audit is either genuinely useful or it's a lead gen form with extra steps. curious which one it actually is because those produce very different first impressions for a law firm that's already skeptical of marketing tools
@ansari_adin Fair callout. That pattern is real.
Real answer: it's an actual audit. 9 engines run live against law firm's domain — Avvo signals, SERP visibility (DataForSEO), AI citation testing (ChatGPT/Perplexity/Claude/Gemini), Core Web Vitals (PageSpeed), GBP signals, review data, etc.
You can watch them tick through in real time and there's no email gate — anyone can run it anonymously.
Every revenue number ships with its formula breakdown plus a confidence range, so you can pressure-test the math instead of taking our word for it. We also surface your local competitors.
@omer_legaltech that's a more substantive answer than i expected. the no email gate part specifically is the right call, it's the thing that would make a skeptical lawyer actually run it without feeling like they're walking into a sales funnel.
Love the concept but the tool keeps throwing the error "Please enter a valid website URL" when I try to test my client's firm. Any idea what we can do to get it to accept the URL?
When the AI system provides feedback in response to the client's review or even drafts an outreach message on behalf of the law firm, is there any human intervention where someone from the law firm gives approval prior to publishing it?