Turn SEO Work Into Evidence, Owners, Corrections, and Re-Checks

This checklist is for solo practitioners, small law firms with 2-10 attorneys, and firm managers who need a defensible way to decide what SEO work is actually necessary. It is most useful when the firm can access its website, search performance data, business profile, and basic publishing workflow.

Each check should produce a small audit record rather than a vague to-do. For every item, capture the evidence required, the pass or fail condition, the severity if it fails, the person or vendor who owns the correction, the corrective action, and the validation step that proves the issue is resolved.

• Evidence required: identify the page, report, profile field, source record, or screenshot that supports the decision.
• Pass or fail condition: state what acceptable looks like before anyone changes the site.
• Severity: distinguish blockers from material gaps and housekeeping so low-risk work does not displace higher-risk fixes.
• Owner: assign the task to marketing, the website team, intake operations, the responsible attorney, or outside counsel as appropriate.
• Corrective action: describe the smallest change that addresses the failed condition.
• Validation: re-check the same evidence after the change and record whether it now passes.
• Timing: note whether remediation can be reviewed in 1-2 weeks or belongs to ongoing work.

Use all 47 checks even if several pass immediately. A clean pass is still useful evidence because it keeps the firm from spending on work that is not the current bottleneck.

Many smaller practices can use the first pass to resolve 20-25 items internally, then decide which remaining failures require technical, editorial, local-search, or legal review support. That keeps the checklist focused on decisions rather than on buying a predetermined package.

Technical checks answer a narrow question: can search systems and users reliably access the pages the firm expects to be discoverable? Do not assume a polished design means the underlying site is healthy. Work from Search Console, a crawler, browser tests, and server or CMS settings.

Crawl and index evidence (4 checks)

• Search Console coverage. Evidence: current indexing and crawl reports for the domain. Pass or fail: important practice-area, attorney, and location pages are eligible for indexing and no critical resource is blocked unintentionally. Severity: critical when a revenue-relevant page cannot be crawled or indexed. Owner: technical SEO or website team. Corrective action: remove the unintended directive, access restriction, or routing defect. Validation: request or await re-crawl and confirm the affected URL changes status.
• XML sitemap integrity. Evidence: the submitted sitemap and a crawl of the URLs it contains. Pass or fail: the sitemap lists canonical, indexable pages the firm wants discovered and excludes obsolete or redirected URLs. Severity: material when discovery is inconsistent or the sitemap is polluted. Owner: website team. Corrective action: regenerate the sitemap from canonical content. Validation: re-submit and compare the next crawl against the intended inventory.
• Robots controls. Evidence: the live robots file and page-level index directives. Pass or fail: attorney bios, service pages, and legitimate location pages are not blocked by mistake. Severity: critical when a core page is excluded. Owner: developer. Corrective action: remove the unintended block while preserving deliberate exclusions. Validation: test the live directive and confirm the target page is crawlable.
• Canonical consistency. Evidence: rendered page source and crawler output. Pass or fail: each indexable page points to the intended canonical version and duplicate variants do not compete unnecessarily. Severity: material where competing versions fragment signals. Owner: developer or technical SEO. Corrective action: fix template-level canonical logic. Validation: re-crawl the affected page set and confirm one consistent canonical target.

Performance and mobile evidence (5 checks)

• Representative speed sample. Evidence: PageSpeed Insights or equivalent field and lab data on the homepage plus 2-3 important service pages. Pass or fail: no major mobile rendering failure is present and the prior internal benchmark of 2.5 seconds is treated as a diagnostic reference, not a ranking guarantee. Severity: material when slow rendering blocks interaction. Owner: developer. Corrective action: optimize the largest images, fonts, scripts, or server response contributing to the measured issue. Validation: repeat the same test after deployment.
• Mobile interaction. Evidence: hands-on testing on common mobile browsers and viewport sizes. Pass or fail: navigation, forms, consent controls, and tap targets work without zooming or horizontal scrolling. Severity: critical when a prospective client cannot contact the firm. Owner: website team. Corrective action: repair responsive layout and form behavior. Validation: repeat the same intake path on mobile after release.
• Layout stability. Evidence: Core Web Vitals data and visual testing. Pass or fail: important controls do not move unexpectedly during load. Severity: material if layout movement causes misclicks or obscures the call to action. Owner: developer. Corrective action: reserve space for media and defer nonessential widgets carefully. Validation: compare field data when available and re-run lab tests.
• Asset delivery. Evidence: network waterfall and server configuration. Pass or fail: images, scripts, and styles are compressed and delivered efficiently without breaking critical functionality. Severity: moderate unless the defect materially delays the page. Owner: developer or host. Corrective action: enable appropriate compression and remove unnecessary payload. Validation: inspect the deployed headers and re-run the page test.
• Script priority. Evidence: browser performance trace. Pass or fail: nonessential scripts do not prevent the primary page content and intake controls from becoming usable. Severity: material where third-party widgets block interaction. Owner: developer. Corrective action: defer or conditionally load noncritical scripts. Validation: repeat the trace and confirm the primary content becomes usable without regression.

Transport and redirect evidence (3 checks)

• Secure delivery. Evidence: browser certificate details and a crawl of secure pages. Pass or fail: public pages load securely without certificate or mixed-content warnings. Severity: critical where browsers display trust warnings. Owner: developer or host. Corrective action: renew the certificate and replace insecure asset calls. Validation: re-crawl and confirm the warnings are gone.
• Protocol consolidation. Evidence: direct requests to alternate protocol and hostname variants. Pass or fail: obsolete versions resolve through a 301 redirect to the intended canonical URL rather than remaining indexable. Severity: material where duplicates persist. Owner: developer. Corrective action: implement server-level redirects. Validation: test the redirect chain and confirm a single destination.
• Broken internal links. Evidence: crawler report for internal destinations. Pass or fail: navigational and contextual links reach live, intended pages without dead ends. Severity: material on practice-area and contact paths. Owner: website editor. Corrective action: update or remove stale references. Validation: re-crawl the corrected source pages and confirm the links resolve.

Planning note: the earlier workload estimate for this layer was 6-10 hours. Use that only for rough resourcing because site size, CMS access, and developer availability vary. Re-run these checks as part of periodic technical SEO reviews rather than assuming a prior pass remains valid.

Use the profile section to verify identity, eligibility, accuracy, client-facing usefulness, and review operations. For firms starting this work, the first 2 weeks can be used to document the current state and correct obvious accuracy problems. Do not treat profile activity or posting cadence as an official ranking requirement unless Google documents it as such.

• Ownership and verification. Evidence: profile manager access and current verification status. Pass or fail: an authorized firm representative controls the profile and there is no unresolved suspension or ownership conflict. Severity: critical if the firm cannot manage its own listing. Owner: marketing lead or designated administrator. Corrective action: complete Google's ownership or verification workflow using truthful business information. Validation: confirm management access and the live status.
• Core identity data. Evidence: the profile name, address, phone, website, and firm records. Pass or fail: the profile reflects the real business identity and contact details without keyword stuffing or invented location information. Severity: critical when clients could reach the wrong office. Owner: operations and marketing. Corrective action: align the listing to source records. Validation: compare the live profile with the website and office records.
• Description and categories. Evidence: current profile text, selected categories, and the firm's actual practice mix. Pass or fail: the primary category accurately reflects the principal service and secondary categories describe services the firm really provides. The prior checklist used 160 characters as an editorial shorthand; that is not presented here as a Google field limit. Severity: material if the profile misstates what the firm does. Owner: marketing with attorney review. Corrective action: choose accurate categories and rewrite the description for clarity. Validation: re-open the live profile and confirm the published selections.
• Photo evidence. Evidence: the live image gallery and source files. Pass or fail: current, authentic office and team images are available where appropriate and do not misrepresent the firm. An inspection sample of 10-15 real images can be a practical operating check, not a ranking threshold. Severity: moderate. Owner: marketing. Corrective action: remove misleading or outdated images and add accurate current assets. Validation: inspect the public gallery after processing.
• Profile updates. Evidence: the firm's content calendar and recent profile activity. Pass or fail: updates are accurate, useful, and reviewed before publication. If the team uses a 2-4 updates-per-month operating cadence, treat it as a workflow choice rather than an official ranking factor. Severity: low unless an update is inaccurate or noncompliant. Owner: marketing and content reviewer. Corrective action: publish only when there is useful, supportable information. Validation: review the live update for accuracy and links.
• Review request and response process. Evidence: request templates, recipient criteria, response log, and review platform policy. Pass or fail: eligible clients are asked consistently for honest feedback without incentives, discouraging negative feedback, or selecting only satisfied clients; responses protect confidentiality. A 48-hour internal response target can be used for service management, but it is not a documented ranking requirement. Severity: high where review gating or confidential disclosure occurs. Owner: client experience lead with attorney oversight. Corrective action: replace selective outreach with neutral criteria and approved response language. Validation: sample recent requests and responses against the policy.
• Hours, services, and service area accuracy. Evidence: current intake coverage, office hours, and service descriptions. Pass or fail: the profile states when and where the firm can actually serve clients and does not imply an office where none exists. Severity: material when the listing can misdirect a searcher. Owner: operations. Corrective action: update hours, services, and geographic information to match reality. Validation: compare the live profile with internal intake rules.
• Outcome measurement. Evidence: profile performance data and the linked benchmark source. Pass or fail: the firm distinguishes observed clicks, calls, and directions from unsupported claims about ranking causation. The prior edition cited 30-40% higher click-through performance; treat that figure as historical until the supporting source is reconciled, not as a guaranteed result. Severity: high if the firm uses an unsupported statistic in public claims. Owner: analytics lead and editor. Corrective action: label historical figures appropriately or remove them from claims where evidence is insufficient. Validation: confirm the published wording matches the evidence available.

Planning note: the earlier setup estimate was 4-6 hours, with 2-3 hours used as a monthly operating estimate. Treat both as resourcing examples, not a required cadence or performance promise.

On-page checks should prove that each important page has a clear purpose, matches a real legal service the firm provides, and gives searchers enough context to decide whether to contact the firm. Avoid generic location swapping, unsupported superlatives, and content written only to repeat a keyword.

Titles and snippets (3 checks)

• Unique page titles. Evidence: crawler export of title elements mapped to the page inventory. Pass or fail: each core service page has a unique, accurate title aligned with its service and genuine location context. Severity: material when duplicates blur page purpose. Owner: SEO editor. Corrective action: rewrite duplicate or misleading titles. Validation: re-crawl and confirm uniqueness.
• Meta description quality. Evidence: CMS fields and search-result previews. Pass or fail: descriptions accurately summarize the page and avoid outcome promises. If the editorial team uses a 150-160 character drafting target, treat it as a preview convention rather than a ranking requirement. Severity: low to moderate. Owner: editor. Corrective action: rewrite for clarity and accuracy. Validation: re-check the source field and rendered markup.
• Support for experience claims. Evidence: firm records supporting statements about tenure, recognition, or results. Pass or fail: any claim such as serving a market since 2010 is factually supportable and appropriately reviewed. Severity: high for unsupported legal advertising claims. Owner: responsible attorney and editor. Corrective action: substantiate, qualify, or remove the claim. Validation: retain the source record with the approved copy.

Headings and intent alignment (4 checks)

• Primary heading. Evidence: rendered page outline. Pass or fail: the page has a clear H1 that states its actual service purpose, and the H1 is not a generic welcome message. Severity: material when the page purpose is unclear. Owner: editor. Corrective action: align the heading to the page's real intent. Validation: inspect the rendered page and source outline.
• Subheading hierarchy. Evidence: document outline showing H2 and H3 elements. Pass or fail: headings form a logical hierarchy that helps readers scan the legal issue without using headings solely to repeat keywords. Severity: moderate. Owner: editor. Corrective action: reorganize sections around reader questions. Validation: review the outline and perform a 10-second scan test.
• Location context. Evidence: page copy and service records. Pass or fail: any H2 or early location reference corresponds to a jurisdiction or market the firm genuinely serves and adds useful local context. Severity: high for doorway-style or misleading location claims. Owner: editor with attorney review. Corrective action: remove nominal city references or add substantive local information only for genuine locations. Validation: compare the page with intake coverage and office records.
• Intent consistency. Evidence: target query set, page copy, and calls to action. Pass or fail: the H1, body, and next step answer the same user need. Severity: material when informational and consultation intent are mixed confusingly. Owner: SEO editor. Corrective action: narrow the page purpose or move secondary topics to supporting content. Validation: read the page from query to call to action without relying on keyword lists.

Practice-area depth (5 checks)

• Question coverage. Evidence: intake questions, Search Console queries, and page copy. Pass or fail: the page answers the material questions a prospective client needs before deciding whether the firm may be relevant. The previous checklist used 400-800 words as a drafting range; treat that as a historical editorial planning example, not a ranking threshold. Severity: material for thin service pages. Owner: legal content editor. Corrective action: add specific, accurate explanations rather than filler. Validation: compare the revised copy with the identified question set.
• Firm-specific evidence. Evidence: attorney bios, office records, practice descriptions, and approved credentials. Pass or fail: differentiators are factual, supportable, and tied to the service rather than generic claims of superiority. Severity: high if unsupported results or credentials are used. Owner: responsible attorney. Corrective action: replace vague superiority language with verifiable facts. Validation: retain source support for each material claim.
• Reader questions. Evidence: query research and intake notes. Pass or fail: the page includes answers to 4-6 recurring questions where they genuinely help readers, without claiming that FAQ markup will create a Google rich result. Severity: moderate. Owner: editor. Corrective action: add concise answers or remove redundant questions. Validation: confirm each answer is supported by the page and current firm policy.
• Internal links. Evidence: crawler graph and page review. Pass or fail: relevant service, attorney, and contact pages are connected with descriptive anchors that help a reader continue the task. Severity: moderate. Owner: SEO editor. Corrective action: add contextually useful links and remove misleading ones. Validation: click every new link and re-crawl the source page.
• Contact path. Evidence: page on desktop and mobile plus intake workflow. Pass or fail: the next step is clear, works, and does not make claims the intake team cannot honor. Severity: critical if the contact route fails. Owner: marketing and intake operations. Corrective action: repair the form, phone link, or instructions. Validation: submit a controlled test inquiry and confirm routing.

Images and accessibility (3 checks)

• Image relevance. Evidence: page media and source library. Pass or fail: images represent the firm, attorneys, office, or useful explanatory content and are not mislabeled with generic text such as Image 1. Severity: low unless imagery is misleading. Owner: content editor. Corrective action: replace irrelevant or inaccurate imagery. Validation: inspect the final page.
• Alternative text. Evidence: rendered image attributes. Pass or fail: informative images have concise descriptive alternative text and decorative images are handled appropriately. Severity: material for accessibility. Owner: web editor. Corrective action: rewrite missing or misleading text. Validation: inspect source and test with accessibility tooling.
• File efficiency. Evidence: media file sizes and page waterfall. Pass or fail: images are right-sized for the layout; the former target of 200KB can be used as an internal compression checkpoint where image quality remains acceptable, not as a universal rule. Severity: moderate when oversized media slows the page. Owner: web editor or developer. Corrective action: resize, compress, and use appropriate formats. Validation: compare transferred bytes and visual quality after deployment.

Planning note: the previous estimate was 20-30 hours across 5-8 service pages, paced at 1-2 pages per week. Use that only for workload planning; complexity, legal review, and source gathering can materially change the schedule.

Content and authority work should start only after core technical and service-page issues are understood. The goal is not maximum publishing volume. The goal is accurate, attributable material that supports the firm's real services and earns legitimate references without manipulative link schemes.

Educational content (4 checks)

• Editorial cadence. Evidence: topic backlog, publishing calendar, and production capacity. Pass or fail: the firm has a sustainable review process for useful topics. If the team chooses 2 posts per month, treat that as an operating example rather than a ranking requirement. Severity: low unless rushed publishing creates accuracy or compliance problems. Owner: content lead. Corrective action: reduce volume until research and review are reliable. Validation: confirm each published item completed the documented workflow.
• Depth matched to the question. Evidence: query intent, competing result types, and source material. Pass or fail: the page is as detailed as needed to answer the question without padding. The earlier checklist used 800-1,500 words as a planning range; it is not a search-engine threshold. Severity: moderate for shallow content on material legal topics. Owner: editor and responsible attorney. Corrective action: add missing substance or shorten repetitive text. Validation: compare the draft against the reader questions and source record.
• Internal connections. Evidence: the content outline and live links. Pass or fail: educational pages connect readers to genuinely relevant service or attorney pages without forced anchors. An older workflow example suggested 2-4 links per article; use relevance, not a fixed count, to decide what belongs. Severity: moderate. Owner: SEO editor. Corrective action: add or remove links based on reader usefulness. Validation: click-test links and review anchor clarity.
• Source discipline. Evidence: research notes, citations where available, and editorial annotations. Pass or fail: legal, regulatory, procedural, and statistical statements can be traced to appropriate sources or are clearly framed as firm-specific observations. Severity: high for unsupported YMYL claims. Owner: editor and responsible attorney. Corrective action: verify, qualify, or remove the claim. Validation: reviewer signs off against the source packet.

Attorney credentials and source support (4 checks)

• Attorney profiles. Evidence: bar records, education, practice history, and firm-approved biography materials. Pass or fail: bios are current, specific, and do not imply credentials that cannot be substantiated. Severity: high for false or stale qualifications. Owner: attorney and marketing. Corrective action: update the bio to match source records. Validation: compare the live page with the approved record.
• Practice attribution. Evidence: staffing and matter assignment information. Pass or fail: service pages identify or link to attorneys who actually handle that work where such attribution is useful and accurate. Severity: material when attribution misleads prospective clients. Owner: practice lead. Corrective action: revise attorney references. Validation: confirm with current staffing information.
• Awards and recognition. Evidence: issuer records, selection criteria where available, and current permission to use marks. Pass or fail: a recognition claim, including one dated 2024, is accurate, contextualized, and not presented as a guarantee of future results. Severity: high for misleading advertising. Owner: responsible attorney and editor. Corrective action: qualify or remove unsupported claims. Validation: retain issuer evidence with the approved copy.
• External profile links. Evidence: state bar and professional profiles the firm controls or can verify. Pass or fail: links point to current, accurate profiles and do not imply endorsements beyond what the destination states. Severity: moderate. Owner: marketing. Corrective action: update or remove stale references. Validation: open each destination and compare the details.

Compliance and disclaimer review (2 checks)

• Advertising review. Evidence: the firm's applicable rules, approved disclaimers, and reviewer notes. Pass or fail: public claims are reviewed against relevant requirements, including ABA Model Rules 7.1-7.3 where applicable, without assuming the model rules replace jurisdiction-specific rules. Severity: critical for potentially misleading or prohibited advertising. Owner: responsible attorney or ethics counsel. Corrective action: revise claims and disclosures to match governing requirements. Validation: retain dated approval for the published version. This checklist cannot guarantee compliance, and responsible legal or regulatory reviewers remain required before publication.
• Change control. Evidence: revision history for service pages, testimonials, results, and review procedures. Pass or fail: material changes are traceable and routed through the required legal review. Severity: high when unreviewed edits can alter legal advertising meaning. Owner: editor and compliance reviewer. Corrective action: implement a documented approval path. Validation: sample recent changes and confirm the approval record exists.

Review requests and responses (2 checks)

• Neutral review requests. Evidence: request criteria and message templates. Pass or fail: eligible clients are asked consistently for honest feedback, with no incentives, no review gating, no discouragement of negative feedback, and no selection limited to satisfied clients. Severity: high for manipulative or policy-violating practices. Owner: client experience lead. Corrective action: use neutral eligibility rules and neutral wording. Validation: audit a sample of sent requests.
• Confidentiality-safe responses. Evidence: response templates and public replies. Pass or fail: replies avoid confirming representation or disclosing matter details and use a 48-hour service target only as an internal workflow choice, not a ranking factor. Severity: critical where confidentiality could be compromised. Owner: responsible attorney or approved reviewer. Corrective action: replace improvised responses with reviewed language and an escalation path. Validation: audit recent public replies against the policy.

Planning note: the previous workload example was 4-6 hours per week for ongoing content and 2-3 hours for initial profile-related setup. Use these figures only to scope capacity; they do not predict rankings, cases, or return.

Do not treat all 47 checks as equally urgent. Prioritize failures by user harm, crawl or index impact, misleading information risk, and the effort required to validate a correction. A pass should be documented just as clearly as a failure.

Week 1-2: blocker pass, 6-8 hours

• Profile control and accuracy. Evidence: complete the 8 business-profile checks and capture screenshots or source records. Pass or fail: the listing is controlled, accurate, and policy-aligned. Severity: critical for ownership or identity defects. Owner: marketing and operations. Corrective action: resolve access and factual errors. Validation: compare the live profile with firm records.
• Critical technical access. Evidence: Search Console, secure delivery, and index status. Pass or fail: core service pages are crawlable, indexable where intended, and reachable securely. Severity: critical. Owner: developer. Corrective action: repair blocking directives, certificate issues, or broken routes. Validation: repeat the same crawl and browser tests.
• Top-page snippet review. Evidence: titles and descriptions for the top 5 service pages by business importance. Pass or fail: each page is unique, accurate, and aligned with a real service. Severity: material. Owner: editor. Corrective action: revise misleading or duplicate metadata. Validation: re-crawl the page set.

Week 3-4: foundation pass, 15-20 hours

• Priority service pages. Evidence: the top 3 service pages, intake questions, and attorney source material. Pass or fail: each page has clear intent, supportable claims, useful answers, and a working contact path. Severity: high for inaccurate or unusable pages. Owner: editor and responsible attorney. Corrective action: revise content and attribution. Validation: complete editorial and legal review.
• Internal navigation. Evidence: crawl map and manual click path. Pass or fail: service, attorney, and contact pages connect logically. Severity: moderate. Owner: SEO editor. Corrective action: add descriptive links where useful. Validation: re-crawl and click-test.
• Review workflow. Evidence: outreach criteria and response policy. Pass or fail: review requests are neutral and responses protect confidentiality. Severity: high for selective solicitation or disclosure risk. Owner: client experience lead and reviewer. Corrective action: standardize the process. Validation: audit recent examples.

Week 5-8: authority and depth pass, 20-30 hours

• Attorney and service evidence. Evidence: attorney profiles, practice assignments, and source records. Pass or fail: credentials and service claims are accurate and current. Severity: high for unsupported claims. Owner: practice lead and editor. Corrective action: update or remove unsupported material. Validation: source-check the live pages.
• Educational publishing. Evidence: editorial backlog and approved sources. Pass or fail: publish the first 4-6 useful items only when each topic supports a real reader need and completes review. Severity: moderate. Owner: content team. Corrective action: narrow or reschedule weak drafts. Validation: post-publication review against source notes.
• Authority review. Evidence: backlink and citation sources. Pass or fail: the firm prioritizes legitimate legal, local, and professional references rather than purchased or irrelevant links. Severity: high for manipulative link practices. Owner: SEO lead. Corrective action: stop risky acquisition and focus on legitimate earned references. Validation: review new referring sources for relevance and provenance.

Month 3+: maintenance and evidence refresh

• Editorial rhythm. Evidence: production capacity and search demand. Pass or fail: if the team chooses 2 educational posts per month, each one still meets source, legal review, and usefulness standards. Severity: low for missed cadence, high for low-quality publication. Owner: content lead. Corrective action: reduce volume instead of lowering review standards. Validation: audit completed briefs and approvals.
• Search performance review. Evidence: Search Console queries, page impressions, clicks, and index status. Pass or fail: the team can explain material changes with observed data without claiming causation it cannot prove. Severity: material. Owner: SEO analyst. Corrective action: revise priorities based on validated gaps. Validation: compare the next review period with the documented baseline.
• Link and citation maintenance. Evidence: current referring domains and local directory records. Pass or fail: important references remain accurate and legitimate. Severity: moderate. Owner: SEO lead. Corrective action: correct inaccurate citations and investigate suspicious links without reflexive disavowal. Validation: re-check the affected sources.

Reality check: the earlier workload model suggested that a smaller firm might resolve 20-25 checks in 8-12 weeks while allocating 4-5 hours per week. Treat that as capacity planning, not a promise. The right sequence depends on the severity of what fails and on how quickly technical, editorial, intake, and legal reviewers can validate corrections.