Fall 2025 Structured data

Structured data adoption across 303 law firm websites

We analyzed structured data markup on 303 law firm websites across 25 high-growth, mid-size U.S. markets. Only half use legal-specific schema. This is the full picture of what firms are doing right and what they are missing.

Last updated October 15, 2025 Original research by Constellate

About this research

Structured data is the language search engines use to understand a page. For law firms, it is the difference between Google guessing that a page describes a legal practice and Google knowing it: knowing the practice areas, office locations, attorney credentials, and client reviews. Correctly implemented, structured data unlocks rich results in search, including star ratings, FAQ accordions, an enhanced local pack presence, and knowledge panel features that plain HTML cannot produce on its own.

Constellate is a research-first firm. This work is open: the sample, the methods, and the limitations are published alongside the findings, and the raw data and analysis scripts are available for review. The evidentiary standard here is the same one our clients receive before any site is designed.

Key findings

79.2% of law firm websites have some form of structured data, but presence alone means little. One in five sites (20.8%) has none at all.
JSON-LD dominates at 78.5%. Microdata appears on 18.5% of sites, and RDFa usage is effectively zero across all 303 sites analyzed.
Only 49.2% use legal-specific schema. Half of all law firm websites fail to tell search engines they are a legal practice using LegalService, Attorney, or LocalBusiness types.
LegalService is the most common legal type at 37.6%, but Attorney schema appears on just 6.3% of sites, a large missed opportunity for individual practitioner visibility.
Generic types dominate: WebSite (61.7%), WebPage (54.8%), and Organization (51.2%) are far more common than any legal-specific markup, suggesting most structured data comes from CMS defaults rather than intentional SEO strategy.

Methodology

We conducted 50 Google searches across 25 markets and two practice areas each, using the query format "[practice area] lawyer in [city], [state]". The top organic results were deduplicated to 303 unique law firm domains. For each domain, we fetched the homepage HTML and parsed it three ways.

For JSON-LD, we extracted all <script type="application/ld+json"> blocks, parsed the JSON, and recursively walked the object tree for every @type value. For Microdata, we scanned elements bearing itemscope and itemtype attributes and extracted the type from each itemtype URL. For RDFa, we searched for elements with typeof and vocab attributes referencing schema.org.

We classified a site as using "legal-specific schema" if it included any of LegalService, Attorney, or LocalBusiness (when used on a law firm site). All parsing was done with Cheerio, capturing exactly what search engine crawlers see.

The numbers at a glance

79.2%

With any structured data

78.5%

Use JSON-LD

49.2%

Legal-specific schema

20.8%

Have no schema at all

Format adoption

JSON-LD is the clear winner, and its dominance reflects a deliberate industry shift. Google has recommended it since 2015, citing the ease of implementation and the clean separation it maintains from page markup. Microdata, an older attribute-based format, still appears on roughly one in five sites, typically as a remnant of WordPress themes or earlier builds predating the JSON-LD transition. RDFa, which uses a similar attribute-based approach under different names, is effectively extinct in this sample.

Structured data format adoption across 303 law firm homepages
Format	Sites	% of 303	Notes
JSON-LD	238	78.5%	Google-recommended; script-tag based
Microdata	56	18.5%	Attribute-based; often from CMS themes
RDFa	0	0.0%	Effectively unused in legal websites
None	63	20.8%	No structured data of any kind

Some sites use both JSON-LD and Microdata simultaneously, typically with explicit JSON-LD blocks alongside Microdata embedded in theme markup. This is why the individual format percentages sum to more than 79.2%.

Most common schema types

The most frequent schema types across the sample are generic web infrastructure types: WebSite, WebPage, and Organization. These are the types most CMS platforms inject automatically via plugins and theme defaults. The first legal-specific type, LegalService, does not appear until the tenth position in the frequency ranking. The pattern suggests that most law firm structured data is CMS-generated boilerplate rather than a deliberate SEO strategy.

Top 15 schema types by frequency across 303 law firm homepages
#	Schema type	Sites	% of 303
1	WebSite	187	61.7%
2	WebPage	166	54.8%
3	Organization	155	51.2%
4	SearchAction	149	49.2%
5	PostalAddress	143	47.2%
6	ImageObject	141	46.5%
7	BreadcrumbList	133	43.9%
8	ListItem	133	43.9%
9	ReadAction	117	38.6%
10	LegalService	114	37.6%
11	EntryPoint	112	37.0%
12	PropertyValueSpecification	104	34.3%
13	GeoCoordinates	94	31.0%
14	Person	56	18.5%
15	OpeningHoursSpecification	52	17.2%

Two notable absences from the top 15: AggregateRating (15.2%), which enables star ratings in search results, and Attorney (6.3%), the schema type purpose-built for individual legal practitioners.

Legal-specific schema

Only 149 of 303 sites (49.2%) include any legal-specific schema markup. The breakdown among those that do:

Legal-specific schema types across 303 law firm homepages
Legal schema type	Sites	% of 303	What it signals
LegalService	114	37.6%	The firm provides legal services (practice areas, jurisdiction)
LocalBusiness	31	10.2%	A physical business location (address, hours, geo)
Attorney	19	6.3%	An individual legal practitioner (name, credentials, bar number)

LegalService: common but incomplete

LegalService is the most widely adopted legal schema type at 37.6%, yet adoption alone tells only part of the story. Many implementations include only the basics: name, address, phone. The high-value properties that transform a generic listing into a rich, searchable legal entity in Google's knowledge graph are frequently omitted. Properties such as areaServed (the geographic areas a firm covers), knowsAbout (specific practice areas), and hasOfferCatalog (a structured list of services offered) go unused on the majority of sites that declare the LegalService type at all.

Attorney: the biggest missed opportunity

Only 19 sites (6.3%) use Attorney schema, a number that is remarkable given how central attorney profiles are to how clients select firms. The Attorney type supports properties for credentials, bar admissions, areas of practice, education, and professional affiliations: precisely the signals that Google's quality assessment framework (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) weighs when evaluating a legal page. For firms with multiple practitioners, the opportunity is compounded. Each attorney page should carry its own Attorney markup, and very few do.

LocalBusiness: the generic fallback

Thirty-one sites (10.2%) use LocalBusiness instead of, or alongside, LegalService. This is not incorrect, but it is imprecise. LocalBusiness is a broad type that describes any physical business. LegalService is a more specific subtype that inherits all LocalBusiness properties while adding legal-industry context. Firms using only LocalBusiness are telling Google they have a location. Firms using LegalService are telling Google what kind of location it is. The specificity gap is real, and it matters for how search engines classify and surface the firm.

What top sites do differently

Comparing sites with comprehensive structured data (legal-specific types combined with supporting types such as AggregateRating, FAQPage, and BreadcrumbList) against sites with no structured data reveals consistent patterns in both directions.

Sites with rich schema tend to:

Use JSON-LD exclusively, with no legacy Microdata mixed in
Declare LegalService or Attorney as the primary type, not just Organization
Include PostalAddress with a full street address and GeoCoordinates for Google Maps integration
Add OpeningHoursSpecification so Google can display business hours directly in search results
Implement BreadcrumbList for navigation-aware search snippets
Include AggregateRating where client reviews exist, enabling star ratings in search results

Sites with no schema tend to:

Be older WordPress installations running outdated themes
Lack any SEO plugin (tools such as Yoast and RankMath auto-generate basic schema by default)
Have no meta descriptions, incomplete title tags, and other signs of minimal SEO investment overall
Miss rich result opportunities entirely, competing only for a plain blue link in every search

The gap is not subtle. A site with complete LegalService schema, AggregateRating, and FAQPage markup is eligible for multiple rich result slots in a single search. A site with no schema is not eligible for any of them. Before we build or optimize any site, NitroCMS unifies five data sources (Google Analytics, Search Console, Google Ads, independent SEO and competitor intelligence, and the Constellate Analytics Engine, a first-party analytics layer) and hands them to Claude Opus for a ranked set of recommendations, so schema priorities are grounded in evidence rather than guesswork.

Limitations

Homepage only. This study analyzed structured data on each site's homepage. Inner pages (practice area pages, attorney bio pages, blog posts) may have additional or different schema that this study does not capture.
Point-in-time snapshot. All data was collected in a single point-in-time crawl. Websites update markup regularly, and CMS plugin updates can add or remove schema overnight.
Organic results only. The sample comes from Google's top organic search results, which may skew toward sites with stronger SEO fundamentals. The true adoption rate across all law firm websites is likely lower.
Property completeness not scored. We measured whether a schema type was present, not whether every recommended property was populated. A site declaring LegalService with only a name and URL was counted the same as one with full address, hours, practice areas, and reviews.
No causal claims. This report documents correlations between schema completeness and other site characteristics. We cannot determine whether structured data implementation drives better rankings or whether better-resourced firms simply do both.

Frequently asked questions

Questions, answered.

What is structured data and why does it matter for law firms?

Structured data is code added to a website that helps search engines understand the content on the page. For law firms, it means explicitly telling Google that your page describes a legal service, an attorney, a location, or a review, rather than hoping Google figures it out from the text alone. Proper structured data can unlock rich results in search, including star ratings, FAQ dropdowns, practice area details, and enhanced local pack listings. Sites with complete legal schema give Google more confidence in what they offer, which can translate to better visibility.

What is the difference between JSON-LD, Microdata, and RDFa?

These are three different formats for embedding structured data in HTML. JSON-LD uses a JavaScript-based notation placed in a script tag. It is the format Google recommends, and the one used by 78.5% of the law firm sites in our study. Microdata uses HTML attributes (itemscope, itemtype, itemprop) sprinkled throughout the page markup. RDFa is a similar attribute-based format that uses different attribute names. In our sample, zero sites used RDFa, and only 18.5% used Microdata. JSON-LD has become the industry standard because it is easier to implement, maintain, and debug.

What schema types should a law firm website include?

At minimum, a law firm website should include LegalService or Attorney schema with complete properties: name, address, phone, URL, practice areas (areaServed, knowsAbout), opening hours, and geo-coordinates. Adding AggregateRating (if you have reviews), FAQPage (for FAQ sections), and BreadcrumbList (for navigation) further strengthens the structured data profile. In our study, only 37.6% of sites used LegalService and just 6.3% used Attorney, meaning there is significant opportunity for firms that implement these properly.

Does structured data directly improve search rankings?

Google has stated that structured data is not a direct ranking factor. However, it enables rich results: enhanced search listings with star ratings, FAQ accordions, and other visual elements that increase click-through rates. Higher click-through rates send positive engagement signals back to Google. Additionally, structured data helps Google understand entity relationships (this firm practices personal injury law in Austin, Texas), which supports topical authority and local relevance signals. The indirect benefits are well-documented across the SEO industry.

How can I check what structured data my law firm website has?

The easiest method is Google's Rich Results Test (search.google.com/test/rich-results). Paste your URL and it will show every structured data block detected, highlight errors, and confirm which rich result types you are eligible for. Google Search Console also has a dedicated "Enhancements" section that reports structured data issues across your entire site over time. For a quick manual check, view your page source and search for "application/ld+json". Any JSON-LD blocks will appear in script tags with that type attribute.

Is your schema helping or hurting?

The studies above are public. The engagement is private: before we build, we audit how your firm's structured data appears to search engines, then give you what we find. If that is how you want to be written for, write to us.