Legal content gets the strictest scrutiny of any category. Being AI-readable means being verifiable

Every attorney should carry their own Person schema entry: name, job title, the firm they work for, the law school they attended, and the practice areas they actually handle. Where a state bar publishes a public attorney profile, linking to it directly gives an AI system an independent record to verify against, rather than asking it to take the firm's word alone.

Practice-area pages need the same specificity. A page titled "personal injury" that could describe any firm in the country gives a machine nothing to distinguish this firm from the next one. A page that states which kinds of cases the firm actually takes, and in which jurisdiction, is the specific claim an AI system can attribute and repeat accurately.

One rule matters more here than almost anywhere else on a website: structured data must match what the visible page actually says. Google has been explicit that schema is only useful when it mirrors the page's real content, and for legal information that is not a minor technicality, it is the difference between a verifiable claim and one an AI system is right to distrust.

FAQ content earns its place here too, when it answers a real, narrow legal question rather than a marketing one, in the same structure this site's own structured data glossary describes generally.

Reviews are worth naming as a caution rather than a tactic to copy from other local businesses. Many bar associations restrict how attorneys can present client testimonials or imply a guaranteed outcome, so any review strategy needs a firm's own jurisdiction's advertising rules checked before it is built into the site, not treated as a generic AEO checklist item.