Finnegan AI Market Strategy Report - Patent Attorneys

Answer Capsule

Finnegan holds the second-strongest recommendation position in the Patent Attorneys category with 22.37% valid recommendation coverage in September 2026, but that position is contracting. The firm's coverage fell 20.1 points from 42.5% in July 2026, the largest decline of any tracked brand, and its rank-one rate sits at just 3.95%. Finnegan remains visible in AI-generated recommendations at a 36.84% presence rate, yet it converts a shrinking share of those appearances into shortlist placements. The clearest opportunity is closing the recommendation conversion gap in the brand-recommendation cluster where the firm already appears but is not being chosen.

Who This Report Is For

This report is written for law firm managing partners, business development leaders, and marketing executives at patent attorney firms who need to understand how AI systems are recommending their firm relative to competitors, and where the gap between visibility and recommendation is widening.

Report Card

Executive Summary

Finnegan is the second most recommended patent attorney firm in AI-generated answers, holding 22.37% valid recommendation coverage across 76 qualified observations in September 2026. That position is under significant pressure. The firm's coverage fell 20.1 points from 42.5% in July 2026, the steepest decline of any tracked brand in the benchmark, and its presence rate dropped 21.7 points to 36.84% over the same period.

The firm appeared in 28 of 76 qualified observations in September 2026, generating 17 valid recommendations. In July 2026, Finnegan appeared in 55 of 94 observations with 40 valid recommendations. The contraction is visible across every primary metric: top-three rate fell 20.7 points to 19.74%, rank-one rate slipped 4.6 points to 3.95%, and net sentiment softened from 0.9 to 0.79.

Finnegan's strongest platform signal comes from Google AI Overviews, where the firm holds 25.00% valid recommendation coverage and 25.00% top-three rate across 32 observations. Google AI Mode also shows meaningful presence at 16.67% coverage. The weakest platform signal is Copilot, where Finnegan holds 16.67% coverage but generated zero recommendation value, suggesting the firm is mentioned without being recommended.

The clearest competitive gap is the distance between Finnegan and Fish & Richardson. Fish & Richardson holds 43.42% valid recommendation coverage, nearly double Finnegan's rate, and leads on every placement metric including a 36.84% top-three rate and 18.42% rank-one rate. The gap between the two firms stands at 21.0 points, wider than Finnegan's own coverage decline might suggest.

The most urgent diagnostic question is which prompt categories drove the presence decline from August to September, when coverage fell 16.6 points from 39.0% to 22.4%. The benchmark data shows the decline is not uniform across platforms, which suggests the loss is concentrated in specific query types or surface families rather than a category-wide retreat.

What Finnegan Is Winning

Questions This Section Answers

• Which platforms and metrics is Finnegan still winning on despite the overall decline?
• How does Finnegan's recommendation quality compare with competitors when it does get recommended?

Finnegan retains meaningful recommendation strength despite the decline. The firm holds the second-highest valid recommendation coverage in the category at 22.37%, well ahead of Knobbe Martens at 19.74% and Wolf Greenfield at 17.11%. This position is not marginal; Finnegan remains one of only three firms with coverage above 19%.

The firm's strongest platform is Google AI Overviews, where it holds 25.00% valid recommendation coverage and 25.00% top-three rate across 32 observations. This platform represents the largest single opportunity pool in the benchmark, and Finnegan's position there is competitive. The firm also shows positive sentiment across all platforms where it appears, with a net sentiment score of 0.79 overall and no negative mentions recorded.

Finnegan's average recommended rank of 2.13 is the second-best in the category, behind only Fish & Richardson at 1.77. When the firm does receive a valid recommendation, it typically appears near the top of the shortlist. This placement quality suggests that when AI systems choose to recommend Finnegan, they position the firm strongly.

Where Finnegan Has the Clearest AI Visibility Gaps

Questions This Section Answers

• Why is Finnegan appearing in AI answers but not converting those appearances into recommendations?
• Which competitors are outranking Finnegan on rank-one recommendations?
• What does Finnegan's presence decline from July to September 2026 mean for its recommendation pipeline?

The most significant gap is the conversion rate from presence to recommendation. Finnegan appeared in 28 qualified observations in September 2026 but generated only 17 valid recommendations, a conversion rate of 60.7%. Fish & Richardson converted 33 recommendations from 51 appearances, a rate of 64.7%. The gap is not dramatic in percentage terms, but it compounds across the category.

The larger issue is the absolute decline in presence. Finnegan's raw mention presence rate fell from 58.5% in July 2026 to 36.84% in September 2026, a loss of 21.7 points. The firm is appearing in fewer AI-generated answers overall, which reduces the pool from which recommendations can be drawn. This decline is steeper than the category average and steeper than Fish & Richardson's 18.0-point presence decline.

On Copilot, Finnegan holds 16.67% valid recommendation coverage but generated zero recommendation value, suggesting the firm is mentioned in AI answers without being positioned as a recommendation. This pattern, visible but not recommended, represents a specific remediation opportunity. The firm is present in the answer but not converted into the shortlist.

The rank-one rate presents another gap. Finnegan holds a 3.95% rank-one rate, meaning the firm is the first recommendation in fewer than 4% of qualified observations. Wolf Greenfield, with lower overall coverage at 17.11%, holds a 7.89% rank-one rate. Finnegan is being recommended less often as the top choice than a firm with smaller overall presence.

Biggest Opportunity

Questions This Section Answers

• Which platform offers Finnegan the clearest path to improving its rank-one recommendation rate?
• How far behind is Finnegan from Fish & Richardson on rank-one placements in Google AI Overviews?

The clearest opportunity is improving recommendation conversion in the Google AI Overviews platform, where Finnegan already holds 25.00% coverage and 25.00% top-three rate. This platform represents the largest opportunity pool in the benchmark at 11,730 total monthly opportunity value, and Finnegan's position there is stronger than its overall category position. The firm is already being recommended on this platform at a competitive rate.

The specific opportunity is to increase the share of Google AI Overviews observations where Finnegan appears as the first recommendation. The firm currently holds a 6.25% rank-one rate on this platform, compared to Fish & Richardson's 18.75%. Closing this gap would improve Finnegan's overall rank-one rate and strengthen its position in the buyer shortlist.

This opportunity is grounded in the data because Finnegan already appears in Google AI Overviews answers at a 37.50% presence rate. The firm is visible. The task is converting that visibility into first-position recommendations more consistently.

Competitive Landscape

Questions This Section Answers

• How does Finnegan compare with Fish & Richardson and other tracked firms on top-three rate, rank-one rate, and average recommended rank?
• Which competitor with lower overall coverage is beating Finnegan on first-position recommendations?

Fish & Richardson holds dominant recommendation power in the Patent Attorneys category, with nearly double the valid recommendation coverage of the next closest brand. Finnegan holds second position but its buffer over the firms behind it has compressed significantly, from 36.1 points over Sterne Kessler in July 2026 to 15.8 points in September 2026.

Average recommended rank covers rank-eligible recommendations only.

Finnegan's position in the table shows a firm with strong top-three placement but weak first-position conversion. The firm's 19.74% top-three rate is second only to Fish & Richardson, but its 3.95% rank-one rate is tied with Knobbe Martens and well behind Wolf Greenfield's 7.89%. Finnegan is being shortlisted but not selected first.

Prompt Evidence

Google AI Overviews / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "best patent law firms" Result: Finnegan appeared in the answer with a valid recommendation, contributing to its 25.00% coverage rate on this platform.

Copilot / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "intellectual property law firm" Result: Finnegan was mentioned in the answer but did not receive a valid recommendation, reflecting the platform's zero recommendation value for the firm.

Google AI Mode / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "What is the best IP law firm?" Result: Finnegan received a top-three placement but not a rank-one position, consistent with its 16.67% coverage and 0% rank-one rate on this platform.

ChatGPT / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "intellectual property attorney nyc" Result: Finnegan appeared with a rank-one recommendation, one of only three rank-one placements the firm received across all platforms.

What CiteWorks Studio Would Do Next

Questions This Section Answers

• What are the five phases of the recommended remediation plan for Finnegan?
• Which platforms and prompt categories does the plan prioritize first?

Phase 1: AI Market Discovery Audit Map every prompt where Finnegan appears without a recommendation, and identify which competitors are being recommended instead. This establishes the baseline for remediation.

Phase 2: Recommendation Readiness Plan Prioritize the Google AI Overviews and Google AI Mode platforms where Finnegan already has presence but underperforms on rank-one placement. Define the specific prompt categories where conversion improvement is most achievable.

Phase 3: Owned Answer Layer Buildout Develop firm-authored content that directly addresses the high-intent prompts where Finnegan is visible but not recommended. Focus on comparison and selection queries where the firm's expertise can be clearly articulated.

Phase 4: Citation / Authority Layer Development Strengthen the public evidence layer that AI systems draw from when forming recommendations. This includes ensuring that third-party sources, directories, and industry references consistently position Finnegan as a top-tier recommendation.

Phase 5: Monthly AI Visibility and Recommendation Tracking Monitor Finnegan's coverage, top-three rate, and rank-one rate across all six platforms to measure whether remediation efforts are closing the gap with Fish & Richardson and defending against Wolf Greenfield's rank-one gains.

Why This Matters

AI presence alone is not enough. Finnegan appears in more than a third of qualified AI answers about patent attorneys, yet it converts only a portion of those appearances into recommendations. The firm is visible but under-recommended relative to its presence, and the gap is widening.

The next move is targeted correction of the prompt, page, and citation layers that drive recommendation conversion. Finnegan does not need to appear more often in AI answers; it needs to be chosen more often when it appears. That requires understanding which prompts drive recommendations, which sources AI systems cite when forming those recommendations, and how competitors are positioning themselves in the same answer space.

Core Metrics

Sentiment Score

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

Finnegan's sentiment score for September 2026 is 0.79, calculated from 22 positive mentions, 6 neutral mentions, and 0 negative mentions across 28 total appearances. This score indicates that when Finnegan appears in AI-generated answers, the framing is overwhelmingly positive or neutral, with no negative characterizations recorded.

This matters because unclassified mention counts are misleading. A firm that appears 28 times but is framed negatively in half those appearances is in a weaker position than a firm that appears 15 times with consistently positive framing. Finnegan's positive sentiment score is a strength, but it does not compensate for the decline in recommendation coverage.

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, and Finnegan's classification shows a firm with strong framing but declining recommendation conversion.

Sentiment by Platform

Methodology

1. This report is a benchmark-based analysis of AI-generated recommendations for patent attorney firms, produced by CiteWorks Studio using data from the LLM Authority Index AI Market Discovery Index.
2. The reporting window covers September 2026, with comparative data from July 2026 and August 2026 where available.
3. Six AI platforms were tracked: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and Google AI Mode.
4. The September 2026 benchmark analyzed 76 qualified observations drawn from 575 total prompt-surface observations and 394 unique questions.
5. The competitor universe includes 10 tracked brands: Fish & Richardson, Finnegan, Knobbe Martens, Wolf Greenfield, Kilpatrick Townsend, Sterne Kessler, Harrity & Harrity, Banner Witcoff, Cantor Colburn, and Schwegman Lundberg.
6. All qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. No observations were recorded in the Pricing & Value or Multi-Brand Comparison clusters.
7. Stage 0 extraction retained the query, AI surface, answer, brand outcome, recommendation placement, sentiment, and, where exposed, citations or attributable evidence sources.
8. A mention is defined as any appearance of a tracked brand in an AI-generated answer, regardless of whether the brand is recommended.
9. A valid recommendation is defined as an observation where the brand is explicitly recommended or shortlisted, as marked by the dataset. Neutral, cautionary, or comparison-anchor mentions are not counted as valid recommendations.
10. Brand-level percentages use the 76 qualified observations as the public denominator, not the raw collection of 575 prompt-surface observations.
11. The qualified denominator is smaller than the raw collection because many collected prompts fell outside the patent attorney category scope.
12. Movement between months identifies changes worth investigating, not established causes. Small-count brands carry limited statistical weight.

See Where AI Is Recommending Your Firm

The public benchmark shows where Finnegan is winning and losing in AI-generated recommendations. A company-level AI visibility audit maps the specific prompts, platforms, and competitor substitutions driving those outcomes, and identifies the citation and content gaps that can be corrected.