Tully Rinckey AI Visibility Market Strategy Report - Bankruptcy Lawyers

Answer Capsule

Tully Rinckey recorded no measurable AI recommendation presence in the Bankruptcy Lawyers category in October 2026. Across 114 qualified benchmark observations, the firm appeared in zero AI-generated answers and received zero valid recommendations, leaving it outside the buyer shortlist entirely. Its own domain, tullylegal.com, still ranked seventh among the most cited domains in AI responses, so the content is retrievable even though the firm is not recommended. The clearest opportunity is not incremental improvement but first entry: building the prompt, page, and citation layers required for AI systems to surface the firm at all in bankruptcy discovery.

Who This Report Is For

This report is for Tully Rinckey's marketing, business development, and firm leadership teams, and for any multi-practice firm evaluating why a strong traditional reputation does not automatically translate into AI-led discovery within a specific practice area.

Report Card

Executive Summary

Tully Rinckey holds no recommendation-stage visibility in the Bankruptcy Lawyers category. The October 2026 benchmark recorded zero mentions, zero valid recommendations, zero top-three placements, and zero rank-one placements for the firm across all 114 qualified observations. Its raw mention presence rate and valid recommendation coverage both stand at 0.00%.

This is a total absence pattern, not a weak-conversion pattern. The distinction matters. DebtStoppers, by comparison, appeared in 5 qualified observations (4.39% presence) but converted none of that visibility into recommendations. Tully Rinckey did not appear at all. The firm is not being mentioned and passed over; it is not entering the answer set.

The benchmark's single qualified cluster, Best Bankruptcy Lawyers and Top Debt Relief Attorneys, covers consideration-stage prompts where buyers ask directly for recommended bankruptcy lawyers and firms. All 114 qualified observations fell into this cluster. Tully Rinckey was absent from every one of them.

The category leader, Upsolve, held 22.8% valid recommendation coverage in October 2026, down from 57.5% in July 2026. Even with that decline, Upsolve's coverage sits 15.8 points above second-place Sasser Law Firm. The gap between the leader and the firms at zero is wider still. Sasser Law Firm, John T. Orcutt, Allmand Law, and Cibik Law all recorded measurable recommendation coverage in October 2026, ranging from 2.6% to 7.0%.

One notable signal sits in the citation layer. Tully Rinckey's domain, tullylegal.com, ranked seventh among the top 10 cited domains across all AI platform responses in October 2026, with 39 citations and a 1.3% share, cited by Copilot, Gemini, and AI Mode. The firm's own web property is part of the public evidence layer that AI systems retrieve from, yet the firm itself does not appear in the recommendations those systems produce. This is a source footprint without recommendation conversion.

The benchmark cannot determine from public data alone whether Tully Rinckey's absence reflects a prompt-set mismatch, a source-citation gap, or a content structure issue. What the data does show is that the firm is not present in the answer set for the highest-intent bankruptcy discovery prompts measured in this category.

What Tully Rinckey Is Winning

Questions This Section Answers

• What measurable recommendation strength does Tully Rinckey show anywhere in the bankruptcy dataset?
• Which sources or platforms are citing tullylegal.com, and does that count as a recommendation win?

The evidence for wins is thin, and the report states that plainly. Tully Rinckey recorded zero mentions, zero recommendations, zero top-three placements, and zero rank-one placements across all 114 qualified observations in October 2026. There is no cluster, platform, or prompt type where the firm shows measurable recommendation strength.

The one positive signal in the dataset is indirect. Tully Rinckey's domain, tullylegal.com, appeared at rank 7 among the top 10 cited domains across all AI platform responses in October 2026, with 39 citations and a 1.3% share. The domain was cited by Copilot, Gemini, and AI Mode. This means AI systems are retrieving content from the firm's web property as a source, even though the firm is not being recommended in the answers those retrievals support.

That citation presence is a foundation, not a win. It indicates the firm's public content is discoverable and retrievable by AI systems. It does not indicate the firm is being recommended, shortlisted, or surfaced as a bankruptcy option. The gap between being cited as a source and being named as a recommendation is the central finding of this report.

Where Tully Rinckey Has the Clearest AI Visibility Gaps

Questions This Section Answers

• How severe is Tully Rinckey's absence compared with competitors that have measurable bankruptcy recommendation coverage?
• Which platforms show any Tully Rinckey presence in bankruptcy discovery answers?
• What gap exists between tullylegal.com citation activity and the firm being named as a bankruptcy recommendation?

Tully Rinckey's clearest gap is total absence from the recommendation set. The firm did not appear in any of the 114 qualified observations in October 2026. Its raw mention presence rate is 0.00%, and its valid recommendation coverage is 0.00%. This is the most severe form of AI visibility gap: not displacement by a competitor, but non-entry into the answer set entirely.

The contrast with competitors sharpens the picture. Sasser Law Firm, the category's strongest riser, held 7.0% valid recommendation coverage and 7.0% raw presence in October 2026, with 8 valid recommendations and 6 top-three placements. John T. Orcutt held 6.1% coverage and 7.0% presence, with 7 valid recommendations and 5 top-three placements. Allmand Law held 3.5% coverage with 4 valid recommendations. Cibik Law held 2.6% coverage with 3 valid recommendations. Each of these firms converted presence into recommendation credit. Tully Rinckey had no presence to convert.

The firm's absence spans all six tracked AI platforms. ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Overviews, and AI Mode all returned zero mentions and zero recommendations for Tully Rinckey in the qualified observation set. There is no platform where the firm shows even marginal presence.

The citation layer tells a different story. Tully Rinckey's domain was cited 39 times across AI platform responses, ranking seventh among all cited domains. This means the firm's content is being retrieved and referenced as a source, but the firm is not being named as a recommendation. The gap between citation presence and recommendation presence is the diagnostic question this report cannot answer from public data alone: whether the firm's content is being used to inform answers about other firms, or whether it is being retrieved but not surfaced in recommendation contexts.

The benchmark's single qualified cluster, Best Bankruptcy Lawyers and Top Debt Relief Attorneys, covers the consideration-stage prompts where buyers ask for recommended bankruptcy lawyers. Tully Rinckey's absence from this cluster means the firm is not entering the buyer shortlist at the point where AI systems are forming recommendations. The Pricing and Value and Multi-Brand Comparison clusters recorded zero qualified observations in October 2026, so the benchmark cannot yet assess whether the firm would appear in cost-related or head-to-head comparison prompts.

Biggest Opportunity

Questions This Section Answers

• What is the highest-value move available to Tully Rinckey in the bankruptcy lawyer category?
• Why is citation presence not translating into recommendation presence for the firm?

Tully Rinckey's biggest opportunity is first entry into the recommendation set for the Best Bankruptcy Lawyers and Top Debt Relief Attorneys cluster. The firm does not need to displace a competitor or improve its ranking position. It needs to become visible at all.

The path from citation to recommendation is the clearest opportunity. Tully Rinckey's domain is already being cited by AI systems, which means the firm's content is retrievable and relevant enough to be referenced. The gap is that this citation presence is not translating into recommendation presence. The firm's content may be structured as general legal information rather than as a direct answer to the question "who are the best bankruptcy lawyers," or it may lack the specific signals AI systems use to identify a firm as a recommendation candidate rather than a reference source.

The benchmark shows that firms with even modest recommendation coverage, such as Cibik Law at 2.6% with 3 valid recommendations, are converting presence into recommendation credit. Tully Rinckey has the citation foundation but not the recommendation conversion. Closing that gap is the single highest-value move available to the firm in this category.

Competitive Landscape

Questions This Section Answers

• Where does Tully Rinckey rank against Upsolve and the other tracked bankruptcy firms?
• How does Tully Rinckey's absence differ from DebtStoppers, which appeared but converted no recommendations?

Upsolve holds dominant recommendation power in the Bankruptcy Lawyers category, with 22.8% valid recommendation coverage in October 2026, though that figure has declined from 57.5% in July 2026. Sasser Law Firm is the strongest challenger at 7.0% coverage, followed by John T. Orcutt at 6.1%. Tully Rinckey sits at the bottom of the tracked set with zero recommendation coverage and zero presence.

Average recommended rank covers rank-eligible recommendations only.

Tully Rinckey's position at the bottom of the table reflects total absence from the recommendation set. The firm shares the 0.00% top-three rate with DebtStoppers, Fears Nachawati, Heupel Law, and The Semrad Law Firm, but differs from DebtStoppers in one respect: DebtStoppers appeared in 5 qualified observations as a neutral mention, while Tully Rinckey did not appear at all. The firm's zero presence across all metrics places it in the most severe absence category in the benchmark.

Prompt Evidence

Questions This Section Answers

• Which bankruptcy prompts show Tully Rinckey missing from AI recommendations?
• Do Tully Rinckey's absence patterns differ across English-language and Spanish-language bankruptcy queries?

AI Mode / Best Bankruptcy Lawyers and Top Debt Relief Attorneys Prompt: "bankruptcy lawyers dallas" Result: Tully Rinckey did not appear in the response. The firm's domain was cited elsewhere in the benchmark but not surfaced as a recommendation for this prompt.

Copilot / Best Bankruptcy Lawyers and Top Debt Relief Attorneys Prompt: "bankruptcy lawyer philadelphia pa" Result: Tully Rinckey received no mention or recommendation. Competitors including Upsolve and Sasser Law Firm appeared in recommendation contexts.

Gemini / Best Bankruptcy Lawyers and Top Debt Relief Attorneys Prompt: "how to file chapter 13" Result: Tully Rinckey was absent from the response. The prompt is a consideration-stage query where AI systems surface recommended firms.

Perplexity / Best Bankruptcy Lawyers and Top Debt Relief Attorneys Prompt: "abogados de banca rota" Result: Tully Rinckey did not appear. The firm's absence spans Spanish-language prompts as well as English-language queries.

What CiteWorks Studio Would Do Next

Phase 1: AI Visibility Market Discovery Audit Map every high-intent bankruptcy prompt where Tully Rinckey is absent, identify which competitors are being recommended instead, and document the citation and content patterns that distinguish recommendation candidates from reference sources.

Phase 2: Recommendation Readiness Plan Define the specific content structures, page types, and answer formats that AI systems use to identify a firm as a recommendation candidate rather than a general reference, and prioritize the gaps between Tully Rinckey's current content and those patterns.

Phase 3: Owned Answer Layer Buildout Build or restructure the firm's bankruptcy practice pages to directly answer the questions AI systems are asking, with clear firm positioning, service descriptions, and recommendation-eligible content formats.

Phase 4: Citation and Authority Layer Development Strengthen the source footprint that supports AI retrievability, including structured data, authoritative references, and third-party citations that reinforce the firm's relevance to bankruptcy discovery prompts.

Phase 5: Monthly AI Visibility and Recommendation Tracking Track Tully Rinckey's presence, recommendation coverage, top-three rate, and rank-one rate month over month to measure whether the firm is entering the recommendation set and converting citation presence into recommendation credit.

Why This Matters

AI presence alone is not enough, and Tully Rinckey's data proves the point. The firm's domain is cited by AI systems, but the firm itself is not recommended. Buyers asking AI systems for bankruptcy lawyer recommendations are not seeing Tully Rinckey in the answer. The firm is part of the evidence layer but not part of the shortlist.

The next move is targeted correction of the prompt, page, and citation layers. The firm needs content that directly answers the questions AI systems are asking, structured in formats that AI systems recognize as recommendation-eligible. It needs citation signals that reinforce the firm's relevance to bankruptcy discovery, not just general legal authority. And it needs to track whether those changes move the firm from citation presence to recommendation presence. The benchmark shows where the firm stands. The work is in closing the gap between being cited and being chosen.

Core Metrics

Sentiment Score

Sentiment Score = (positive mentions × 1 + neutral mentions × 0 + negative mentions × -1) / total mentions

Tully Rinckey's sentiment score is 0.0, calculated from zero positive mentions, zero neutral mentions, and zero negative mentions across zero total mentions. The score is undefined in practical terms because the firm received no mentions at all.

This matters because unclassified mention counts are misleading. A firm with zero mentions and a firm with equal positive and negative mentions both produce a sentiment score of zero, but they represent entirely different situations. Tully Rinckey's zero reflects absence, not balance. The firm is not being discussed positively, negatively, or neutrally. It is not being discussed.

Share of voice is a diagnostic metric, not a business KPI. A positive recommendation, a neutral reference, a cautionary mention, and a competitor-displaced mention are not equal. Counting all mentions as wins is bad measurement. Classified sentiment is required before interpreting AI visibility. In Tully Rinckey's case, the absence of any mentions means there is no sentiment to classify and no visibility to interpret. The diagnostic question is why the firm is absent, not how it is being framed.

Sentiment by Platform

Methodology

1. This report is a benchmark-based analysis of Tully Rinckey's AI recommendation visibility in the Bankruptcy Lawyers category, produced from the LLM Authority Index AI Visibility Market Discovery Index for October 2026. It is not a client implementation case study and does not reflect work performed by CiteWorks Studio on behalf of the firm.
2. The reporting month is October 2026. The benchmark compares October 2026 data to a July 2026 baseline and includes monthly measurements for August 2026 and September 2026.
3. Six AI platform families were tracked: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Overviews, and AI Mode. All six were represented in the qualified observation set.
4. The benchmark collected 361 prompt-surface observations in October 2026, representing 292 unique questions. Of these, 222 were relevant and 139 were irrelevant. The qualified benchmark set used for brand-level percentages contains 114 observations.
5. The competitor universe includes 10 tracked brands: Upsolve, Sasser Law Firm, John T. Orcutt, Allmand Law, Cibik Law, DebtStoppers, Fears Nachawati, Heupel Law, The Semrad Law Firm, and Tully Rinckey.
6. The public benchmark includes three high-intent clusters: Best Bankruptcy Lawyers and Top Debt Relief Attorneys (consideration stage), Bankruptcy Lawyer Comparisons and Alternatives (evaluation stage), and Bankruptcy Lawyer Costs and Pricing (decision stage). Only the first cluster recorded qualified observations in October 2026.
7. Stage 0 extraction retains the query, AI surface, answer, brand outcome, recommendation placement, sentiment, and, where exposed, citations or attributable evidence sources. Source presence is evidence about the information environment and is not automatically proof that the source caused the recommendation.
8. A mention is defined as any appearance of the brand in an AI-generated response, regardless of whether the brand is recommended. A valid recommendation is defined as a response where the brand is explicitly recommended or shortlisted, as marked by the benchmark's qualification process.
9. Raw mention presence rate is the share of qualified observations where the brand is mentioned at all. Valid recommendation coverage is the share of qualified observations where the brand receives a valid recommendation. Top-three rate is the share of qualified observations where the brand appears in a top-three recommendation. Rank-one rate is the share of qualified observations where the brand is the first-ranked recommendation.
10. Average recommended rank covers rank-eligible recommendations only. A brand with no rank-eligible recommendations receives N/A for this metric.
11. The benchmark does not measure market share, commercial performance, attributable sales or client conversions, every possible AI response including private or personalized outputs, organic-search rankings on traditional engines, social media mention volume, private or sponsored channels, or causality from a metric movement alone.
12. Available observations are small for most brands in this category. Several brands operate at 0.0% to 7.0% coverage, where a single recommendation shifts the rate by more than a point. Treat these figures as directional, not definitive. Month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating and does not by itself establish the cause of those changes.

See How AI Is Recommending Your Brand

The public benchmark shows where Tully Rinckey stands in AI-generated bankruptcy recommendations. A company-level AI visibility audit maps the specific prompts, platforms, competitors, and citation patterns that determine whether the firm enters the buyer shortlist. It tells a firm not just where it stands, but what to change and in what order.