From a Proprietary Platform to Owning the Site: How a Personal Injury Firm Migrated Without Losing Rankings
“I haven’t seen this level of service from any of our providers in the past.”
Engagement: Website redesign and platform migration, launched November 1, 2024
Services: WordPress build, search continuity planning, conversion architecture, post-launch monitoring
Three numbers
None
After BSPE (6 mo)
Ranking decline observed two weeks after launch
32
After BSPE (6 mo)
Completed forms, first 60 days
62.5%
After BSPE (6 mo)
Case-seeking share of reviewed forms
Where the Firm Started
The firm had search visibility that was already producing demand. The problem was where that visibility lived.
The site sat on a proprietary platform the firm did not control. Leaving meant risking the rankings that were driving inquiries, and staying meant continued dependence on an outgoing provider for a business asset the firm had every reason to own.
There was a second problem too. The site needed to do more than survive the move. It needed to give someone arriving from a search result a stronger reason to trust the firm and pick up the phone.
One of the firm’s attorneys described what he wanted the site to become:
“Our Internet, our website, has to be our conference room.”
What We Built
The WordPress build was treated as two projects running at once: a migration that had to preserve everything the firm had already earned, and a persuasion system that had to work harder than what it replaced.
Search continuity
URLs, content, and page-level relevance signals were carried forward through the move. The objective on this track was measured in the absence of loss rather than in gains.
Credibility, made visible
Attorney experience, client reviews, video, and firm-specific imagery were brought to the front of the experience rather than buried on interior pages.
Decision clarity
Headlines were strengthened and the path to a call or a form was shortened for people arriving from search and from advertising.
Ownership
The site moved to a maintainable platform the firm controls after launch, which removes the dependency that made the original migration necessary.
The new site launched November 1, 2024.
What it produced inside the practice
“I signed up a case out of Tennessee… She said, ‘I looked at your website. You’re the right people.'”
One of the firm’s attorneys described a matter the firm signed following a remote consultation:
“I signed up a case out of Tennessee… She said, ‘I looked at your website. You’re the right people.’”
That is a website-influenced decision described by the lawyer who signed the matter. It is one account rather than a rate, and it is reported here as what he observed.
The firm’s own read on the project is the part worth sitting with:
“I haven’t seen this level of service from any of our providers in the past.” — Firm attorney, after the website migration
That sentence arrived from a firm that had just left a provider relationship. It describes the experience of the work rather than a number, and for a migration project, where the client spends weeks watching to see whether something breaks, it is the outcome that determined whether the relationship continued.
What the data shows
Rankings held through the migration. Two weeks after launch, the team reviewed live ranking behavior and found no decline. Local map positions for the core term, personal injury attorney, sampled after business hours:
Sample point | Position |
|---|---|
Point 1 | 2 |
Point 2 | 4 |
Point 3 | 11 |
These were checked outside business hours, when local results typically show weaker placement for a firm with staffed hours. Open-hours results were expected to be stronger.
The strength of this evidence is that it is contemporaneous. It was recorded two weeks after the move rather than reconstructed months later, which is when migration damage usually gets discovered.
“I didn’t see any drops in rankings.” Post-launch ranking review, two weeks after migration
The new site produced form activity. Every submission was classified from its content, so genuine requests for legal help were separated from spam, vendor solicitations, internal tests, and administrative notes.
Evidence window | Completed forms | Case-seeking | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
First 60 days after launch | 32 | 20 | 62.5%
|
Later five month export | 50 | 33 | 66.0% |
The case-seeking share held steady across both windows and rose slightly in the longer one. That consistency matters more than either individual number, because a single window can be a spike and two windows describe a pattern.
How the messages were classified.
Category | Definition |
|---|---|
Case-seeking | The message requested help with an accident, injury, workers’ compensation, or another legal matter |
Spam or sales | The message promoted unrelated services, link building, marketing, or other solicitations |
Admin or other | A test, general note, media link, congratulations, or anything that was not a case request |
Qualified or retained | Not counted. Qualification and retention require intake or CRM disposition data |
Get the Full Case Study
Enter your email to access the rest of the case study and see the complete results, strategy, and outcomes.
How to read these numbers
Sourcing and method, stated plainly:
- The ranking review was conducted two weeks after the November 1, 2024 launch and reflects live positions observed at that time across three mapped sample points, after business hours. Local map positions vary by searcher location and time of day.
- Form counts come from two sources. The first 60 day window was counted from website form emails. The five month window was counted from the retained leads export. Personally identifying details were excluded from both.
- Case-seeking means the message requested legal help. It does not mean the matter was qualified, accepted, or retained.
- This case study reports migration continuity and inquiry activity. Qualification and retention require intake or CRM disposition data, which sits with the firm.
- A percentage comparison between the old site and the new one is available in neither direction. The outgoing provider's definition of a contact was unclear and tracking changed at launch, so the two records measure different things and are reported separately rather than joined.
- The Tennessee matter is the firm attorney’s contemporaneous account of a website-influenced decision. It describes one matter rather than a conversion rate.
- Quotations are drawn from recorded calls and are lightly edited for punctuation and verbal fillers only.
- Every market, practice area, and starting position behaves differently, and results vary accordingly.
A lot of attorneys already did
The work continues
The migration achieved what it needed to achieve: the firm kept its rankings, took ownership of its site, and launched something that converts.
The next proof step is already identified. Pairing an old-site export with post-launch intake dispositions, using matched definitions and equal length windows, would convert the current inquiry evidence into a measured before and after. That analysis depends on records the firm holds, and it is the work that would let this engagement report qualified lead performance rather than message intent.
If your site sits on a platform you do not own and you have been putting off the move because you are afraid of what it will cost you in rankings, that fear is reasonable and the problem is solvable. Let’s talk about what a safe migration looks like for your firm.
Prepared by BSPE Legal Marketing. Client review draft. Quotation approval required before publication.