McKinley Irvin AI Visibility Market Strategy Report - Divorce Lawyers

Answer Capsule

McKinley Irvin holds a small but real position in AI-generated divorce lawyer recommendations, with 7.30% valid recommendation coverage in October 2026. The firm is visible but under-recommended relative to its presence: it appears in 7.87% of qualified AI answers but converts only 7.30% of those into valid recommendations. Its clearest win is a rank-one rate of 2.81%, which held up better than its broader shortlist share. Its clearest weakness is a decline of 8.30 points in valid recommendation coverage since July 2026, a move beyond normal month-to-month variation. Its clearest opportunity is converting its existing presence into stronger shortlist placement, particularly on Google AI Overviews, where the firm already earns its strongest recommendation signal.

Who This Report Is For

This report is for McKinley Irvin's marketing, business development, and firm leadership teams, and for anyone evaluating how divorce law firms are being surfaced and recommended inside AI-generated answers.

Report Card

Executive Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• Why is McKinley Irvin appearing in AI answers without converting that presence into recommendations?
• What separates the firm's rank-one rate from its overall shortlist share?
• Where does the firm's coverage decline since July 2026 show up by platform?

McKinley Irvin is visible in AI-generated divorce lawyer answers but is not converting that visibility into recommendation strength at the rate the category leader does. The firm recorded 14 mentions across 178 qualified observations in October 2026, a raw mention presence rate of 7.87%, but only 13 of those mentions converted into valid recommendations, producing 7.30% valid recommendation coverage. That gap between presence and recommendation is the central finding of this report.

The firm's recommendation coverage declined from 15.60% in July 2026 to 7.30% in October 2026, a drop of 8.30 points that moved beyond normal month-to-month variation. The largest single decline came in August at 9.20 points, followed by a partial recovery in September and a 0.90 point decline from September to October. This is a firm that lost shortlist position over the series rather than one that disappeared from AI answers entirely.

McKinley Irvin's strongest signal is its rank-one rate. The firm recorded 5 rank-one placements in October 2026 against 6 in July, even as its overall coverage roughly halved. That means the firm is still being named first on some prompts far more reliably than its overall shortlist share would suggest. This separates first-choice standing from general visibility and is the most defensible part of its current position.

The firm's weakest signal is its top-three rate, which fell from 10.60% in July 2026 to 5.60% in October 2026. It is being named first on a small set of prompts but is losing ground in the broader top-three shortlist, which is where most buyer shortlists are formed.

The strongest platform signal for McKinley Irvin is Google AI Overviews, where the firm recorded 6 valid recommendations, a 7.14% valid recommendation coverage rate, and 3 rank-one placements. Google AI Mode also produced 5 valid recommendations and 1 rank-one placement. Gemini produced 1 rank-one placement on 17 observations. ChatGPT, Copilot, and Perplexity produced no valid recommendations for the firm in October 2026.

The clearest platform gap is Copilot, where McKinley Irvin appeared in 1 of 8 observations but received no recommendation credit. The clearest cluster gap is structural: all 178 qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster, and the benchmark does not yet contain qualified observations in the Pricing and Value or Multi-Brand Comparison clusters. That means the firm's performance on cost-related and head-to-head comparison prompts cannot be assessed from this dataset.

What McKinley Irvin Is Winning

Questions This Section Answers

• How strong is McKinley Irvin's rank-one placement relative to its broader recommendation share?
• What does the firm's sentiment and Google AI Overviews performance say about its current position?

McKinley Irvin's clearest win is its rank-one rate. The firm recorded 5 rank-one placements in October 2026, a rank-one rate of 2.81%, against 6 rank-one placements in July 2026. That is a modest decline in absolute terms and a much smaller decline than its overall coverage, which fell 8.30 points over the same period. The firm is being named first on some prompts at a rate that is disproportionate to its overall shortlist share.

The firm's second win is its net sentiment score of 0.9286, based on 13 positive mentions, 1 neutral mention, and 0 negative mentions. That is a strong framing signal and indicates that when McKinley Irvin does appear in AI answers, it is described positively rather than neutrally or negatively.

The firm's third win is its performance on Google AI Overviews. McKinley Irvin recorded 6 valid recommendations on that platform, a 7.14% valid recommendation coverage rate, and 3 rank-one placements. Google AI Overviews is the platform with the largest observation base in this benchmark at 84 observations, so a 7.14% coverage rate there represents a meaningful pocket of recommendation strength.

These are real but narrow wins. The firm does not hold dominant recommendation power in this category, and its overall trajectory across the series is downward.

Where McKinley Irvin Has the Clearest AI Visibility Gaps

Questions This Section Answers

• How far behind Cordell & Cordell and Stange Law Firm is McKinley Irvin's recommendation coverage?
• Which platforms produced no valid recommendations for the firm in October 2026?
• Why is losing top-three shortlist placement a bigger risk than losing rank-one placement?

McKinley Irvin's clearest gap is recommendation conversion. The firm appeared in 14 of 178 qualified observations in October 2026 but received valid recommendation credit in only 13. That is a conversion rate of 92.86% of mentions into recommendations, which sounds high in isolation, but the underlying mention count is small and the firm's overall coverage rate of 7.30% places it well behind the category leader.

Cordell & Cordell holds 50.00% valid recommendation coverage in October 2026, with 89 valid recommendations and 34 rank-one placements. Stange Law Firm holds 33.10% coverage, with 59 valid recommendations and 24 rank-one placements. McKinley Irvin's 7.30% coverage places it third in the category but at roughly one-seventh of the leader's coverage and less than one-quarter of the second-place firm's coverage.

The gap is widening. The spread between Stange Law Firm and McKinley Irvin moved from 3.30 points in July 2026 to 25.80 points in October 2026, a widening of 29.10 points. That is a category-level observation about repositioning, and it shows that a firm that entered the series close to Stange Law Firm now sits roughly 26 points behind it.

McKinley Irvin's top-three rate fell from 10.60% in July 2026 to 5.60% in October 2026. The firm is losing ground in the broader shortlist even as it retains a small number of rank-one placements. That pattern suggests the firm is being named first on a narrow set of prompts but is being displaced from the wider top-three shortlist on prompts where it previously appeared.

The firm has no valid recommendations on ChatGPT, Copilot, or Perplexity in October 2026. Copilot is the most notable gap because McKinley Irvin appeared in 1 of 8 Copilot observations but received no recommendation credit. ChatGPT and Perplexity each produced no mentions for the firm at all in the qualified set.

Biggest Opportunity

Questions This Section Answers

• How can McKinley Irvin convert its rank-one standing on Google AI Overviews and AI Mode into consistent top-three placement?
• Why is the Brand Recommendation cluster the only measurable opportunity in this benchmark?

McKinley Irvin's biggest opportunity is converting its existing presence into stronger top-three shortlist placement on Google AI Overviews and Google AI Mode, the two platforms where it already earns recommendation credit.

The firm recorded 6 valid recommendations on Google AI Overviews and 5 on Google AI Mode in October 2026. Those two platforms together account for 11 of the firm's 13 valid recommendations. The firm's rank-one rate on Google AI Overviews was 3.57%, and its top-three rate on that platform was 7.14%. On Google AI Mode, its top-three rate was 3.17% and its rank-one rate was 1.59%.

The opportunity is specific: the firm is already being recommended on these platforms, but its top-three rate is low relative to its rank-one rate. That means the firm is being named first on a small number of prompts but is not consistently appearing in the top three on the broader set of prompts where it is mentioned. Closing that gap would move the firm from occasional first-choice standing to consistent shortlist presence, which is where most buyer shortlists are formed.

This opportunity is tied to the Brand Recommendation cluster, the only cluster with qualified observations in this benchmark. The firm's performance on pricing and comparison prompts cannot be assessed from this dataset, so the opportunity is bounded by what the benchmark can measure.

Competitive Landscape

Questions This Section Answers

• Where does McKinley Irvin rank in top-three and rank-one rates against the ten tracked divorce law firms?
• What does the firm's average recommended rank of 2.6154 suggest about the quality of its rank credit?

Cordell & Cordell and Stange Law Firm hold the strongest recommendation-stage positions in the divorce lawyer category, with Cordell & Cordell at 50.00% valid recommendation coverage and Stange Law Firm at 33.10%. McKinley Irvin sits third at 7.30%, well behind the two leaders but ahead of the remaining seven tracked firms.

Average recommended rank covers rank-eligible recommendations only.

McKinley Irvin's top-three rate of 5.62% places it third in the category but at roughly one-seventh of Cordell & Cordell's rate and less than one-fifth of Stange Law Firm's rate. Its rank-one rate of 2.81% is third in the category and roughly one-seventh of the leader's rate. Its average recommended rank of 2.6154 is third-best in the category, behind Stange Law Firm at 2.0000 and Boyd Law at 2.2500, which indicates that when the firm does receive rank credit, it tends to be placed near the top of the shortlist.

Prompt Evidence

Google AI Overviews / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "Who are some good divorce lawyers in Sedgwick County, KS?" Result: McKinley Irvin received a valid recommendation with rank-one placement, one of 3 rank-one placements the firm earned on Google AI Overviews in October 2026.

Google AI Mode / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "best divorce lawyer" Result: McKinley Irvin appeared in the answer but did not receive top-three recommendation credit, reflecting the firm's low top-three rate on Google AI Mode relative to its rank-one rate.

Gemini / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "divorce lawyers portland" Result: McKinley Irvin received a valid recommendation with rank-one placement on Gemini, one of only 1 valid recommendation the firm earned on that platform in October 2026.

Copilot / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "family law lawyers near me" Result: McKinley Irvin appeared in the answer but received no recommendation credit, reflecting the firm's absence from Copilot recommendations in October 2026.

What CiteWorks Studio Would Do Next

Phase 1: AI Visibility Market Discovery Audit Map the specific prompts and platforms where McKinley Irvin appears but does not convert to a recommendation, with priority on Google AI Overviews and Google AI Mode.

Phase 2: Recommendation Readiness Plan Identify the top-three shortlist gaps on prompts where the firm is mentioned but not recommended, and prioritize the prompts where the firm already holds rank-one standing.

Phase 3: Owned Answer Layer Buildout Strengthen the firm's owned pages on the practice areas, geographies, and attorney credentials that appear in the prompts where the firm is losing shortlist position.

Phase 4: Citation and Authority Layer Development Build the public evidence layer that AI systems retrieve from, including directory profiles, attorney credentials, and third-party sources that support recommendation-stage visibility.

Phase 5: Monthly AI Visibility and Recommendation Tracking Track the firm's top-three rate, rank-one rate, and platform-level recommendation coverage month over month to measure whether shortlist conversion is improving.

Why This Matters

AI presence alone is not enough. McKinley Irvin appears in 7.87% of qualified AI answers about divorce lawyers, but it converts only 7.30% of those into valid recommendations. The firm's rank-one rate of 2.81% shows it can be named first on some prompts, but its top-three rate of 5.62% shows it is not consistently appearing in the broader shortlist where most buyer decisions are formed.

The next move is targeted correction of the prompt, page, and citation layers that drive shortlist placement. The firm's strongest platform signal is Google AI Overviews, and its clearest gap is Copilot. Closing the gap between presence and recommendation on the platforms where the firm already appears is the most direct path to improving its position in AI-generated divorce lawyer recommendations.

Core Metrics

Sentiment Score

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

McKinley Irvin's sentiment score is 0.9286, based on 13 positive mentions, 1 neutral mention, and 0 negative mentions across 14 total mentions in October 2026.

This matters because unclassified mention counts are misleading. 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. Share of voice is a diagnostic metric, not a business KPI. Classified sentiment is required before interpreting AI visibility.

McKinley Irvin's high sentiment score indicates that when the firm does appear in AI answers, it is described positively. That is a strong framing signal. But it does not change the fact that the firm's overall recommendation coverage declined 8.30 points since July 2026. Sentiment quality and recommendation coverage are separate signals, and the firm's challenge is coverage, not framing.

Sentiment by Platform

Methodology

1. This report is a benchmark-based analysis of McKinley Irvin's AI recommendation visibility in the divorce lawyer category, produced from the LLM Authority Index AI Visibility Market Discovery Index for October 2026.
2. The reporting window is October 2026, with comparison points at July 2026, August 2026, and September 2026.
3. Six AI platforms were tracked: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and Google AI Mode.
4. The October 2026 run began with 248 prompt-surface observations and 228 unique questions. Of those, 247 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor, 220 were relevant, 27 were irrelevant, and 178 qualified for the public benchmark.
5. Ten divorce law firms were tracked: Cordell & Cordell, Stange Law Firm, McKinley Irvin, Goldberg Jones, Charles R. Ullman & Associates, Boyd Law, Sterling Lawyers, Wilkinson & Finkbeiner, Berenji & Associates, and Brian D. Perskin & Associates.
6. All 178 qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. The Pricing and Value and Multi-Brand Comparison clusters contained no qualified observations in October 2026.
7. Stage 0 extraction produced the prompt-level observations that retain the query, AI surface, answer, brand outcome, recommendation placement, sentiment, and where exposed, citations or attributable evidence sources.
8. A mention is counted when a tracked brand appears in an AI answer at all, regardless of whether it is recommended.
9. A valid recommendation is counted when a brand receives a clear, actionable recommendation in an AI answer. Negative, neutral, cautionary, comparison-anchor, and listed-only mentions are not counted as valid recommendations.
10. Brand-level percentages use the 178 qualified observations as the public denominator, not the raw collection of 248 prompt-surface observations.
11. The qualified surface breadth expanded from four AI surface families in July 2026 to six in October 2026, which broadens the denominator and should be weighed when interpreting coverage changes.
12. Movement between months identifies changes worth investigating but does not by itself establish the cause of those changes. Source presence is evidence about the information environment, not automatic proof that the source caused the recommendation.

See How AI Is Recommending Your Brand

The public benchmark shows where McKinley Irvin is winning and losing in AI-generated divorce lawyer recommendations. A company-level AI visibility audit maps the specific prompts, platforms, competitors, and citation sources behind those numbers into a prioritized strategy. Understanding which particular questions and surfaces drive the firm's recommendation coverage is the difference between reacting to a percentage change and acting on the underlying cause.