How AI Search Is Recommending Bankruptcy Lawyers: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Upsolve remains the coverage leader in October 2026 at 22.8%, but that position is now considerably weaker than it was three months ago. The gap to the next-highest brand is 15.8 points, down from 53.2 points in July 2026. This is the category's defining story: a leader whose recommendation coverage is contracting sharply even as a cluster of smaller firms edges upward.

Upsolve is the month's largest decliner and the only brand whose movement this month meets the benchmark's bar for a significant change. Its valid recommendation coverage fell from 48.8% in September 2026 to 22.8% in October 2026, a decline of 26.0 points, and from 57.5% in July 2026, a total decline of 34.7 points across the full series. This marks a three-month downward streak, distinguishing Upsolve's movement from the routine month-to-month fluctuation recorded elsewhere in the category.

Sasser Law Firm is the strongest upward mover with meaningful coverage. Its valid recommendation coverage rose from 4.3% in July 2026 to 7.0% in October 2026, a gain of 2.7 points, and from 3.6% in September 2026, a prior-to-current rise of 3.4 points. The firm's top-three recommendation rate climbed from 2.8% in July 2026 to 5.3% in October 2026 (6 top-three placements), while its rank-one rate held nearly steady, down 0.2 points from 2.8% to 2.6% (3 rank-one appearances).

John T. Orcutt also moved upward across the series, rising from 4.3% coverage in July 2026 to 6.1% in October 2026, a gain of 1.8 points, with a prior-to-current rise of 2.5 points from 3.6% in September 2026. Its top-three rate rose from 4.3% to 4.4% (5 placements), and its rank-one rate climbed from 0.0% to 1.8% (2 rank-one appearances).

The category now sits in a different competitive shape than it did at the start of the series. In July 2026, Upsolve's 57.5% coverage dominated a field where no other brand exceeded 4.3%. By October 2026, the leader holds 22.8% while three brands (Sasser Law Firm at 7.0%, John T. Orcutt at 6.1%, and Allmand Law at 3.5%) have gained ground, and Cibik Law has sustained a three-month upward streak.

This benchmark tracks 361 prompt-surface observations (292 unique questions) collected in October 2026, down from 409 observations (328 unique questions) in September 2026 and 301 observations (252 unique questions) in July 2026. Of the October observations, 361 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 222 were relevant and 139 were irrelevant. The public benchmark uses the 114 observations that passed both qualification stages in October 2026, compared with 166 in September 2026 and 141 in July 2026. The qualified set contracted by 52 observations from September to October.

Key Findings

AI Response Inconsistency Alerts

Questions This Section Answers

• What contradictory information did AI platforms give about Upsolve's eligibility criteria?
• How did ChatGPT and Copilot differ on Upsolve's minimum debt requirement for free filing?

AI platforms provided one high-severity factual inconsistency across two platforms in October 2026. The conflict concerns eligibility criteria and was detected with high confidence.

Upsolve

When asked "What disqualifies you from using Upsolve?", ChatGPT and Copilot provided conflicting information about the minimum debt requirement for Upsolve's free filing tool.

ChatGPT stated that Upsolve "generally isn't a good fit when you have less than $10,000 in dischargeable debt, although there's no legal minimum debt amount for bankruptcy itself," citing Upsolve's FAQ page and a help center article about state residency requirements.

Copilot stated that Upsolve "requires at least $10,000 in unsecured debt to use its free filing tool; if you owe less, you won't qualify through their platform," citing Upsolve's article on debt requirements for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, its Chapter 7 income limits page, and its means test calculator.

The flagged source page "how-much-debt-do-i-need-to-file" was cited by both platforms and contains language that may have contributed to the divergence: "There is no debt minimum or debt limit for filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy... You must have at least $10,000 in unsecured debt to be eligible to use Upsolve's free filing tool." One platform interpreted the $10,000 threshold as a soft fit guideline, while the other treated it as a hard disqualifier.

Benchmark Context

Questions This Section Answers

• How did the qualified benchmark set change from July to October 2026?
• Why does the qualified observation count differ from the raw prompt collection?

The report separates the raw collection universe from the qualified analysis set. Brand-level recommendation percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set.

The raw collection grew from 301 prompts in July 2026 to 361 in October 2026, but the qualified set contracted from 141 to 114 over the same window. September 2026 sat at the peak with 166 qualified observations. The reserved pool of relevant-but-not-yet-qualified prompts stood at 108 in October 2026, down from 128 in September 2026, which may be drawn into future months.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The recommendation-shaped answer share and valid recommendation shortlist share both reached their series low in August 2026 (6.2% and 11.6% respectively), then recovered through September 2026 (8.4% and 10.8%) and October 2026. October's valid recommendation shortlist share of 24.6% is the highest in the series.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• How much has the gap between Upsolve and the next-highest brand narrowed since July 2026?
• Which bankruptcy law firms gained recommendation coverage as the leader's share declined?

A Narrowing Leader Gap Reshapes the Category

Upsolve's 22.8% coverage in October 2026 stands 15.8 points above second-place Sasser Law Firm, down from a 53.2-point gap in July 2026. The gap has narrowed in each month of the series as the leader's coverage declined and several second-tier brands gained ground.

Upsolve's decline is the only baseline-to-current movement in the category that the benchmark classifies as significant; the gains recorded by Sasser Law Firm, John T. Orcutt, and Cibik Law each stayed within the benchmark's normal range for month-to-month variation.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• How did Upsolve's recommendation coverage and placement rates shift in October 2026?
• Which bankruptcy law firms recorded the strongest gains this month, and how significant were they?

Upsolve: Significant Coverage Decline With Placement Falling Sharply

Upsolve's valid recommendation coverage fell from 57.5% in July 2026 to 22.8% in October 2026, a decline of 34.7 points across the full series. The prior-to-current movement was even sharper: down 26.0 points from 48.8% in September 2026. Both movements are classified by the benchmark as significant, making this the category's only confirmed significant change this month.

The brand's valid recommendation count fell from 81 in July 2026 to 26 in October 2026. Raw presence declined from 89.4% in July 2026 to 83.3% in October 2026, a drop of 6.1 points. The gap between raw presence and recommendation coverage widened considerably: in July 2026, the brand appeared in 126 of 141 qualified observations but was recommended in 81; in October 2026, it appeared in 95 of 114 but was recommended in only 26.

Placement figures moved more sharply than coverage. The top-three rate fell from 19.1% in July 2026 to 12.3% in October 2026 (14 placements), a decline of 6.8 points. The rank-one rate fell from 17.7% to 12.3% (14 rank-one appearances), down 5.4 points. The average recommended rank stands at 1.0 in October, meaning that when the brand was recommended, it typically occupied the top position.

The distinction to notice: Upsolve remains visible in most qualified observations but is converting that visibility into recommendations at a much lower rate. The brand is present but less often recommended, and when recommended, it still tends to occupy the top position. The October decline continues a three-month downward streak in coverage.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types, surfaces, and competitor patterns are associated with Upsolve's declining recommendation conversion, and which brands are capturing the recommendations that previously went to Upsolve.

Sasser Law Firm: The Category's Strongest Riser With Meaningful Coverage

Sasser Law Firm's valid recommendation coverage rose from 4.3% in July 2026 to 7.0% in October 2026, a gain of 2.7 points. The prior-to-current movement was larger: up 3.4 points from 3.6% in September 2026. Neither move reached significance, but the firm now holds the second-highest coverage in the category.

The firm's valid recommendation count rose from 6 in July 2026 to 8 in October 2026. Its top-three rate climbed from 2.8% to 5.3% (6 top-three placements), a gain of 2.5 points. Its rank-one rate held nearly steady, down 0.2 points from 2.8% to 2.6% (3 rank-one appearances). Raw presence rose from 5.0% in July 2026 to 7.0% in October 2026.

The distinction to notice: Sasser Law Firm's gain combines presence and recommendation together. Its raw presence rate and coverage rate both stand at 7.0%, meaning every qualified observation where the firm appeared was counted as a valid recommendation. The firm has moved from a marginal presence in July to a consistent second-place position by October.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts and surfaces generated the October recommendations, and whether the firm's rank-one share can grow alongside its top-three share.

John T. Orcutt: Steady Gains Across the Series

John T. Orcutt's valid recommendation coverage rose from 4.3% in July 2026 to 6.1% in October 2026, a gain of 1.8 points. The prior-to-current movement was larger: up 2.5 points from 3.6% in September 2026. Neither movement reached significance.

The firm's valid recommendation count rose from 6 in July 2026 to 7 in October 2026. Its top-three rate moved only slightly, from 4.3% to 4.4% (5 top-three placements), a gain of 0.1 points. Its rank-one rate climbed from 0.0% to 1.8% (2 rank-one appearances), a gain of 1.8 points. Raw presence rose from 4.3% to 7.0%.

The distinction to notice: John T. Orcutt's gains came primarily from rank-one appearances rather than top-three expansion. The firm added two rank-one placements while its top-three count stayed nearly flat, suggesting it is winning higher positions within a similar set of prompts.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts generated the firm's first rank-one appearances, and whether those prompts can sustain the higher placement.

Cibik Law: A Three-Month Upward Streak

Cibik Law's valid recommendation coverage rose from 0.0% in July 2026 to 2.6% in October 2026, a gain of 2.6 points. The prior-to-current movement was smaller: up 0.2 points from 2.4% in September 2026. The firm has now recorded three consecutive monthly gains, classified as a watch item because the cumulative movement remains within normal variation.

The firm's valid recommendation count rose from 0 in July 2026 to 3 in October 2026. Its top-three rate rose from 0.0% to 2.6% (3 top-three placements). Its rank-one rate remained at 0.0% (0 rank-one appearances). Raw presence rose from 0.0% to 2.6%.

The distinction to notice: Cibik Law's growth is consistent but small, with no rank-one appearances yet. The firm has established presence and top-three placements but has not yet reached the top position in any qualified observation.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts and surfaces generated the three October recommendations, and whether those patterns can extend the streak into a fourth month.

Allmand Law: A Rate Gain Shaped by the Smaller Qualified Set

Allmand Law's valid recommendation coverage rose from 2.8% in July 2026 to 3.5% in October 2026, a gain of 0.7 points. The prior-to-current movement was larger: up 1.1 points from 2.4% in September 2026. Neither move reached significance.

The firm's valid recommendation count held flat at 4 across the series. Its top-three count rose from 3 to 4 placements, lifting the top-three rate from 2.1% to 3.5%, a gain of 1.4 points. Its rank-one count remained unchanged at 2 across the series; the rank-one rate moved from 1.4% to 1.8%, a shift driven in part by the smaller qualified-observation denominator in October. Raw presence rose from 2.8% to 3.5%.

The distinction to notice: Allmand Law's rate gain reflects the shrinking qualified denominator as much as it reflects added placements. The firm's recommendation count was flat and its rank-one count was unchanged, while its top-three count grew by one.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt patterns are associated with the one added top-three placement, and whether Allmand Law's absolute recommendation count can grow beyond 4 in future months.

Long-Tail Brands: DebtStoppers, The Semrad Law Firm, Fears Nachawati, Heupel Law, and Tully Rinckey Remain at Zero

DebtStoppers declined from 0.7% coverage in July 2026 to 0.0% by October 2026. The firm remains present in the benchmark with raw mention presence at 4.4% (5 observations), all neutral, with zero recommendations. The Semrad Law Firm also fell from 0.7% to 0.0%, with presence reaching zero by October 2026.

Fears Nachawati, Heupel Law, and Tully Rinckey have recorded 0.0% coverage and 0.0% presence across the entire series. None of the three appeared in any qualified observation in October 2026.

The distinction to notice: DebtStoppers is visible but never recommended, while The Semrad Law Firm, Fears Nachawati, Heupel Law, and Tully Rinckey have no presence at all. The five firms represent different diagnostic questions: one concerns conversion of visibility into recommendations, the others concern total absence from AI-generated answers.

Highest-priority diagnostic: For DebtStoppers, why visibility converts to zero recommendations. For the remaining four, whether the absence is a prompt-set change or a source-citation gap.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• Which buyer-intent clusters did October's qualified observations cover, and which were absent?
• What can the benchmark not yet say about pricing associations or head-to-head comparisons among bankruptcy firms?

In October 2026, all 114 qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. None of the qualified observations fell into the Pricing & Value or Multi-Brand Comparison clusters, so the public benchmark cannot yet answer questions about pricing associations or head-to-head comparisons. This remains consistent with the pattern across the full series.

The absence of Pricing & Value observations means the benchmark cannot assess which firms AI systems associate with cost information or whether those associations are positive. The absence of Multi-Brand Comparison observations means the benchmark cannot report which brands win when AI systems are asked to compare two or more bankruptcy providers directly.

Brand Opportunity Summary

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why.

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

The aggregate metrics are built from prompt-level observations (query, surface, recommendation outcome, rank, sentiment, and citations where exposed). Company-level analysis can go deeper into prompt, competitor, surface, and evidence patterns. Source presence is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

About This Benchmark

This report is part of the LLM Authority Index AI Visibility Market Discovery research program.

• AI Visibility Industry Market Methodology
• AI Visibility Industry Market Metrics
• AI Visibility Industry Market Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Small-count movement: several brands operate at 0.0% to 7.0% coverage, where a single recommendation shifts the rate by more than a point. Sasser Law Firm's 7.0% figure reflects 8 observations; Cibik Law's 2.6% reflects 3 observations; DebtStoppers at 0.0% reflects zero to 5 observations. Treat these as directional, not definitive.
• Qualified denominator vs raw collection: coverage percentages are calculated against the 114 qualified observations in October 2026, not the 361 raw prompts collected. The denominator contracted by 52 observations from September 2026.
• Directional analysis: month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating. It does not by itself establish the cause of those changes. Movements described as significant in this report refer to the benchmark's defined criteria for baseline-to-current variation, not a formal statistical test.

Next Step

The Public Benchmark Shows Where a Brand Is Winning or Losing. A Company-Level Audit Shows Why.

Beneath the aggregate percentages sit questions the public benchmark cannot answer at a brand level: which high-intent prompts are won, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources shape those answers. For a leader like Upsolve, the significant decline in recommendation coverage against a smaller decline in raw presence raises the question of which prompt categories and evidence sources are associated with that shift. For Sasser Law Firm, the question is which surfaces are generating the firm's gains and whether that pattern can extend. For brands at or near zero coverage, the question is whether the absence is a visibility gap or a source-citation gap.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It tells a firm not just where it stands, but what to change and in what order.

Request an AI visibility audit