Harrity & Harrity AI Market Strategy Report - Patent Attorneys

Answer Capsule

Harrity & Harrity is visible in AI-generated recommendations for patent attorney searches, but that visibility is not converting into buyer shortlist placement. In September 2026, the firm appeared in 4 of 76 qualified observations, a raw mention presence rate of 5.26%, and earned only 2 valid recommendations, a valid recommendation coverage rate of 2.63%. The clearest win is sentiment: every mention was positive or neutral, with no negative framing. The clearest weakness is recommendation conversion, where the firm sits seventh of ten tracked brands. The clearest opportunity is the single top-three placement it already holds, which shows AI systems will recommend the firm when the right prompt and source conditions are present.

Who This Report Is For

This report is for Harrity & Harrity partners, business development leaders, and marketing decision-makers who need to understand how AI and search surfaces present the firm during patent attorney discovery, and where the firm is losing shortlist placement to competitors.

Report Card

Executive Summary

Harrity & Harrity holds a small but positive position in AI-generated recommendations for patent attorney searches. The firm recorded 4 mentions across 76 qualified observations in September 2026, a raw mention presence rate of 5.26%, and converted 2 of those mentions into valid recommendations, a valid recommendation coverage rate of 2.63%. That places the firm in the lower tier of the 10 tracked brands, ahead of only Cantor Colburn, Banner Witcoff, and Schwegman Lundberg, all of which recorded zero coverage.

The firm's sentiment profile is clean. Of its 4 mentions, 3 were positive and 1 was neutral, producing a net sentiment score of 0.75. No negative framing appeared in any qualified observation. That matters because it means the visibility problem is not reputational. AI systems are not cautioning buyers away from Harrity & Harrity. They are simply not surfacing the firm often enough, and when they do, they are not placing it near the top of the recommendation set.

The strongest cluster for the firm is the only active cluster in the benchmark, Brand Recommendation, which covers queries seeking a recommended patent attorney or firm. All 76 qualified observations in September 2026 fell into this cluster. Harrity & Harrity's single top-three placement and 2 valid recommendations both came from this cluster. There is no measurable activity for the firm in the Pricing & Value or Multi-Brand Comparison clusters, because the current public prompt set produced zero qualified observations in either.

The strongest platform signal for the firm is Google AI Overviews. Both of the firm's valid recommendations and its single top-three placement were recorded there, along with 2 positive mentions. The firm also appeared twice on Copilot, but those mentions remained neutral or reference-level and did not convert into recommendations. The firm recorded no presence on ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, or Google AI Mode in the September 2026 qualified set.

The clearest gap is recommendation conversion. Harrity & Harrity's raw mention presence rate of 5.26% is nearly double its valid recommendation coverage of 2.63%, meaning roughly half of the firm's appearances do not convert into a recommendation. By comparison, Fish & Richardson converted 33 of 51 appearances into valid recommendations, and Wolf Greenfield converted 13 of 19. The firm is being referenced, but it is not being chosen at the same rate.

The category context sharpens the picture. The September 2026 benchmark recorded broad declines across most tracked brands, with Finnegan falling 20.1 points and Fish & Richardson falling 15.1 points in valid recommendation coverage since July 2026. Harrity & Harrity also declined, from 7.4% coverage in July 2026 to 2.6% in September 2026, a drop of 4.8 points. The firm's absolute numbers are small, so month-to-month movement carries limited statistical weight, but the direction matches the category pattern.

What Harrity & Harrity Is Winning

Questions This Section Answers

• Which AI visibility and recommendation signals are actually working for Harrity & Harrity?
• How strong is the firm's sentiment profile compared with other tracked patent attorney brands?

The firm's clearest win is framing quality. Every mention recorded in September 2026 was either positive or neutral, with zero negative mentions. The net sentiment score of 0.75 is the fourth highest among tracked brands, behind Wolf Greenfield and Sterne Kessler at 1.0 and Knobbe Martens at 0.89. AI systems are not associating the firm with cautionary language, complaints, or competitive displacement narratives.

The firm also holds a top-three placement. One of its 4 appearances placed Harrity & Harrity among the top three recommendations for a patent attorney query. That placement came on Google AI Overviews, the platform with the second largest observation base in the benchmark at 32 qualified observations. The average recommended rank for the firm was 6.5, which reflects the fact that its second valid recommendation landed outside the top three.

The firm's presence on Copilot is a minor positive signal. Harrity & Harrity appeared twice on Copilot across 6 qualified observations, a 33.3% raw mention presence rate on that platform. One of those mentions was positive and one was neutral. Neither converted into a valid recommendation, but the appearances show the firm is retrievable on that surface.

These are narrow wins. The firm does not lead any cluster, does not lead any platform, and does not hold a rank-one placement anywhere in the September 2026 dataset. The wins are real but small, and they should be read as evidence that the firm can be recommended, not as evidence that it is being recommended consistently.

Where Harrity & Harrity Has the Clearest AI Visibility Gaps

Questions This Section Answers

• Why do Harrity & Harrity's AI mentions fail to convert into valid recommendations?
• Which platforms and competitive patterns explain the firm's shortlist gap?

The most significant gap is the distance between presence and recommendation. Harrity & Harrity appeared in 4 qualified observations but earned only 2 valid recommendations. That 50% conversion rate trails every brand above it in the standings. Fish & Richardson converted 64.7% of its appearances, Wolf Greenfield converted 68.4%, Sterne Kessler converted 100% of its 5 appearances, and Knobbe Martens converted 78.9%. The firm is being mentioned in AI answers without being placed on the buyer shortlist.

The second gap is platform concentration. Both of the firm's valid recommendations came from Google AI Overviews. The firm recorded zero valid recommendations on ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, or Google AI Mode. ChatGPT alone accounted for 11 qualified observations in September 2026, and the firm recorded no presence there at all. Gemini accounted for 10 qualified observations, and the firm again recorded no presence. Perplexity, newly added to the qualified surface set in September 2026, produced 5 qualified observations with no Harrity & Harrity presence.

The third gap is competitive displacement. When AI systems recommend patent attorney firms, they are choosing a small set of brands. Fish & Richardson alone captured 33 valid recommendations, Finnegan captured 17, Knobbe Martens captured 15, and Wolf Greenfield captured 13. Those four firms account for 78 of the 93 valid recommendations recorded across the tracked set. Harrity & Harrity's 2 recommendations represent roughly 2% of the category's recommendation volume. The firm is not losing to a single competitor. It is losing to a concentrated recommendation pattern that favors a handful of firms.

The fourth gap is the absence of rank-one positioning. Harrity & Harrity recorded zero rank-one recommendations in September 2026. Its average recommended rank of 6.5 is the lowest among brands with any rank-eligible recommendations, well behind Fish & Richardson at 1.77, Finnegan at 2.13, Wolf Greenfield at 2.23, Knobbe Martens at 2.53, Sterne Kessler at 2.75, and Kilpatrick Townsend at 3.0. When the firm does appear in a recommendation set, it appears near the bottom.

The fifth gap is the July-to-September decline. The firm's valid recommendation coverage fell from 7.4% in July 2026 to 2.6% in September 2026, a drop of 4.8 points. Its valid recommendation count fell from 7 in July to 2 in September. The benchmark notes that small-count brands carry limited statistical weight, so this decline should be treated as a directional signal rather than an established trend. Even so, the direction is consistent with the broader category pullback.

Biggest Opportunity

Questions This Section Answers

• Where can Harrity & Harrity convert existing AI visibility into top-three recommendations?
• What evidence layer would make Google AI Overviews recommend the firm more consistently?

The clearest opportunity is to convert existing mentions into top-three recommendations on Google AI Overviews, the one platform where the firm already has a valid recommendation and a top-three placement. Google AI Overviews produced 32 qualified observations in September 2026, the second largest platform base in the benchmark, and the firm appeared in only 2 of them. The platform is already recommending Harrity & Harrity when the right conditions are present. The opportunity is to make those conditions present more often by strengthening the public evidence layer that AI systems retrieve when answering patent attorney recommendation queries.

This is a recommendation-conversion opportunity, not a visibility opportunity. The firm does not need to be mentioned more often for its own sake. It needs its existing and future mentions to carry enough authority and specificity that AI systems place the firm in the top three rather than listing it as a reference. That means building the citation architecture, practice-area evidence, and third-party source footprint that AI systems appear to draw on when forming patent attorney shortlists.

Competitive Landscape

Questions This Section Answers

• Who dominates AI recommendation power among patent attorney firms?
• How does Harrity & Harrity's top-three, rank-one, average rank, and sentiment compare with the leading brands?

Fish & Richardson holds dominant recommendation power in the patent attorney category, with Finnegan, Knobbe Martens, and Wolf Greenfield forming a second tier. Harrity & Harrity sits in the lower tier, with positive framing but minimal recommendation-stage strength.

Average recommended rank covers rank-eligible recommendations only.

Harrity & Harrity ranks seventh by top-three rate and holds no rank-one placements. Its average recommended rank of 6.5 is the lowest among brands with any rank-eligible recommendations, meaning that when the firm does appear in a recommendation set, it appears near the bottom of that set.

Prompt Evidence

Questions This Section Answers

• Which patent attorney prompts produced Harrity & Harrity mentions, and which ones did not?
• How did recommendation placement differ across Google AI Overviews, Copilot, and ChatGPT?

Google AI Overviews / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "best patent lawyer" Result: Harrity & Harrity appeared in the recommendation set with a top-three placement, one of only 2 valid recommendations the firm earned in September 2026.

Copilot / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "intellectual property law firm" Result: Harrity & Harrity was mentioned but not recommended, contributing to the firm's neutral mention count without converting into a valid recommendation.

Google AI Overviews / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "top ip law firms" Result: Harrity & Harrity appeared in the broader answer set but did not place in the top three, reflecting the firm's average recommended rank of 6.5.

ChatGPT / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "intellectual property attorney nyc" Result: Harrity & Harrity did not appear. ChatGPT produced 11 qualified observations in September 2026 with no Harrity & Harrity presence.

What CiteWorks Studio Would Do Next

Phase 1: AI Market Discovery Audit Map every prompt where Harrity & Harrity appears, every prompt where competitors appear instead, and the exact recommendation placement the firm earns on each surface.

Phase 2: Recommendation Readiness Plan Identify which practice areas, attorney profiles, and firm differentiators are missing from the public evidence layer that AI systems retrieve when forming patent attorney shortlists.

Phase 3: Owned Answer Layer Buildout Strengthen the firm's owned pages so they answer the specific recommendation-shaped queries where the firm currently appears without converting, starting with the Google AI Overviews prompts where the firm already has a top-three placement.

Phase 4: Citation / Authority Layer Development Build the third-party source footprint, directory presence, and practice-area evidence that AI systems appear to draw on when ranking patent attorney firms, with priority on the platforms where the firm has zero presence today.

Phase 5: Monthly AI Visibility and Recommendation Tracking Track valid recommendation coverage, top-three rate, rank-one rate, and average recommended rank month over month, with platform-level breakdowns to confirm whether the firm is converting mentions into shortlist placements.

Why This Matters

Questions This Section Answers

• Why isn't AI visibility enough for Harrity & Harrity without recommendation placement?
• What does the gap between presence and recommendation coverage mean for the firm's buyer shortlist position?

AI presence alone is not enough. Harrity & Harrity is already being mentioned in AI answers for patent attorney queries, and every mention is positive or neutral. But mentions do not win work. Recommendations do. When a buyer asks an AI system for the best patent attorney firm, the answer that matters is the shortlist, not the reference list. Right now, Harrity & Harrity appears in the reference list far more often than it appears in the shortlist.

The gap between 5.26% presence and 2.63% recommendation coverage is the gap between being findable and being chosen. Closing it requires targeted correction of the prompt, page, and citation layers that AI systems use to form recommendations. The firm does not need to be more visible in the abstract. It needs its existing visibility to carry enough authority and specificity that AI systems place it in the top three, on more platforms, for more of the queries that patent attorney buyers actually ask.

Core Metrics

Sentiment Score

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

For Harrity & Harrity in September 2026: (3 × 1 + 1 × 0 + 0 × -1) / 4 = 0.75.

This score matters because unclassified mention counts are misleading. A firm can appear frequently in AI answers and still be losing buyer shortlist placement if those appearances are neutral references, cautionary mentions, or competitor comparison anchors. Counting all mentions as wins is bad measurement. 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, and they should not be counted as if they were.

Harrity & Harrity's sentiment score of 0.75 is a genuine positive. It means the firm's framing is clean. But sentiment alone does not win shortlist placement. The firm's 2 valid recommendations and single top-three placement are the metrics that reflect whether AI systems are actually choosing the firm when buyers ask. Classified sentiment is required before interpreting AI visibility, and in this case it tells a clear story: the firm is framed well but recommended rarely.

Sentiment by Platform

Methodology

1. This report is a benchmark-based analysis of how AI and search surfaces present Harrity & Harrity in the patent attorney category. It is not a client result and does not imply that any remediation work has been performed.
2. The reporting month is September 2026, with comparison data from July 2026 and August 2026 where available.
3. Six AI and search surface families were tracked: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and Google AI Mode. All six produced at least one qualified observation in September 2026.
4. The September 2026 collection began with 575 prompt-surface observations across 394 unique questions. Of those, 93 were relevant to the patent attorney category, and 76 survived qualification to form the public denominator.
5. Ten brands were tracked: Fish & Richardson, Banner Witcoff, Cantor Colburn, Finnegan, Harrity & Harrity, Kilpatrick Townsend, Knobbe Martens, Schwegman Lundberg, Sterne Kessler, and Wolf Greenfield.
6. All 76 qualified observations in September 2026 fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. The Pricing & Value and Multi-Brand Comparison clusters produced zero qualified observations, so this report cannot speak to how AI systems frame pricing or head-to-head comparisons for Harrity & Harrity.
7. Stage 0 extraction retained the query, surface, answer, brand outcome, recommendation placement, sentiment, and, where exposed, citations or attributable evidence sources for each observation.
8. A mention is counted when Harrity & Harrity appears anywhere in an AI or search surface answer for a qualified observation, regardless of placement or framing.
9. A valid recommendation is counted only when the dataset explicitly marks the appearance as a recommendation with rank credit. Neutral references, cautionary mentions, and listed-only appearances 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. Small-count brands, including Harrity & Harrity, carry limited statistical weight. Month-to-month movement for these brands should be treated as directional rather than established.
12. Source presence in the evidence layer is treated as information about the environment AI systems retrieve from. It is not treated as proof that any specific source caused a recommendation.

See Where AI Is Recommending Your Brand

The public benchmark shows where Harrity & Harrity stands in AI-generated recommendations for patent attorney searches. A company-level AI visibility audit shows why. It maps the specific prompts where the firm appears, the prompts where competitors appear instead, the platforms where the firm has no presence, and the evidence sources shaping each answer. For a firm with clean sentiment but minimal recommendation conversion, that prompt-level view is the fastest path to understanding where shortlist placement is being won and lost.