Yes, AI engines can misstate your law firm's services, and the fix starts with your source content
AI search tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews can and do misstate what a law firm offers. They might describe a firm as handling personal injury when it stopped taking those cases years ago, or leave out a growing elder law practice entirely. These tools generate answers by summarizing whatever web content, directory listings, and profiles they can find, so the fix is correcting those underlying sources, not arguing with the chatbot.
Why AI engines produce outdated or incorrect claims about your practice
AI engines don't verify facts with your firm directly. They pull from whatever content exists across your website, legal directories, review sites, and old press mentions, then blend it into a summary. If your website still lists a practice area you dropped, or a directory profile hasn't been updated since a past partner left, the engine may repeat that outdated detail as current fact. Conflicting information across sources makes this worse, since the engine has to choose which version to trust.
Auditing what AI currently says about your firm right now
An audit means asking several AI tools direct questions about your firm and recording exactly what they say, treating each answer as evidence rather than assumption. Ask ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity what practice areas your firm handles, where it's located, and what makes it different from competitors. Compare the answers against what your firm actually does today. Write down every discrepancy, including small ones, because each one points to a source that needs correcting.
Run this check every few weeks rather than once. AI engines update their sense of a business gradually as they crawl new content, so a correction you made last month might not show up yet, and a new discrepancy might appear as engines pick up outdated information from a source you hadn't checked. Treat the audit as ongoing maintenance rather than a one-time cleanup project.
Correcting the underlying sources engines actually read
Correcting AI's description of your firm means fixing the web pages, directory profiles, and listings that feed these answers, because engines summarize existing content rather than accepting direct corrections. Start with your own website: make sure the practice areas page lists exactly what you handle now, with no outdated services still mentioned in old blog posts or attorney bios. Check your Google Business Profile, state bar directory listing, and any legal-specific directories like Avvo or Justia for the same accuracy.
Pay close attention to attorney bio pages, since AI tools often pull individual lawyer credentials and specialties when answering questions about who handles a specific type of case at your firm. If an attorney has shifted from litigation to transactional work, or a new associate now handles family law matters, that change needs to appear consistently everywhere the attorney is listed. Inconsistent bios across your site and third-party profiles give AI engines conflicting signals to summarize.
Old press mentions, guest posts, and outdated case result pages can also anchor an AI engine's understanding of your firm to a past version of your practice. You may not be able to edit content on sites you don't control, but you can add updated context on your own site that directly and clearly states current services, since fresh, specific content on your own domain tends to carry weight when engines look for the most accurate current answer.
Rechecking after updates to confirm the correction actually landed
Rechecking means repeating the same AI queries you used in your original audit, on a set schedule, to see whether the corrected information has replaced the outdated version. Because AI engines don't update in real time, a correction to your website or directory listing might take time to surface in chatbot answers. Ask the same questions you asked during your first audit, using the same phrasing, so you can compare answers directly rather than guessing whether anything changed.
If an AI engine still repeats outdated information weeks after you've corrected your sources, look for other places that outdated detail might still exist. A single overlooked directory listing, an old cached version of a page, or a review site profile you didn't check the first time can keep feeding the wrong answer even after your primary sources are accurate. Persistence matters more than any single fix, since engines re-crawl and re-summarize content on their own schedule, not yours.
Run this diagnostic on your own firm this week
Open three tabs: ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity. In each one, type the same question: "What legal services does your firm name offer, and where is it located?" Write down every answer word for word, including specific practice areas, attorney names, and location details mentioned.
Now open your own website, your Google Business Profile, and your state bar or directory listing side by side. Compare each detail from the AI answers against what's actually true today. Circle every mismatch: a dropped practice area still listed, an attorney no longer with the firm, an address that's changed, a specialty that's missing entirely.
For each mismatch, trace it back to a specific source. If ChatGPT mentioned a practice area you no longer offer, check whether it's still sitting in an old blog post, an outdated bio, or a directory profile you forgot about. Fix that source directly. Then set a reminder to repeat this exact exercise in a few weeks, using the same questions, to see whether the correction has taken hold. That repeat check is what tells you whether the fix worked or whether another outdated source is still feeding the wrong answer.