How AI Search Is Recommending Bankruptcy Lawyers: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Upsolve remains the coverage leader in September 2026 at 48.8%, holding a 45.2-point gap over the next-highest brands. The category's second tier tightened into a three-way tie: John T. Orcutt, Sasser Law Firm, and Cibik Law each ended September at 3.6% coverage. No brand's coverage moved enough this month to register as more than routine variation, making this the second consecutive quiet month for the category after the churn seen earlier in the summer.

Cibik Law was the month's standout riser, and across the full three-month series its climb stands out as the period's one clear mover. The firm climbed from 0.0% coverage in July to 2.4% in September, a 2.4-point rise large enough to register as a genuine change for a brand at its observation count. This follows its first entry into the benchmark in August at 1.4%, giving the firm a two-month upward streak. The largest coverage declines belong to the long-tail brands that had thin presence in July: DebtStoppers and The Semrad Law Firm each fell 0.7 points from 0.7% to 0.0%, and both moves stayed within normal variation.

The commercial picture for the broader category is a slowly narrowing leader gap. Upsolve's coverage has declined from 57.5% in July to 48.8% in September, a movement that remains within the benchmark's normal range but marks a two-month downward streak. Its top-three recommendation rate fell from 19.1% to 3.6% over the same window, a considerably steeper decline than the coverage figure, and signals the leader is now recommended as the top answer in a much smaller share of qualified observations.

This benchmark tracks 409 prompt-surface observations (328 unique questions) collected in September 2026, up from 301 observations (252 unique questions) in July 2026 and 385 observations (322 unique questions) in August 2026. Of the September observations, 409 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 294 were relevant and 115 were irrelevant. The public benchmark uses the 166 observations that passed both qualification stages in September, compared with 141 in July and 146 in August.

Key Findings

Benchmark Context

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

The qualified set grew from 141 in July to 166 in September, even as the raw collection expanded by 108 prompts across the full series. August sat in between at 146 qualified observations. The reserved pool of relevant-but-not-yet-qualified prompts also grew across the series, from 64 in July to 128 in September, which may be drawn into future months.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The recommendation-shaped answer share and valid recommendation shortlist share both peaked in July and have since declined, with August (6.2% and 11.6%) representing the lowest point in the series before a modest partial recovery in September.

AI Recommendation Trend

A Single Leader With a Tightening Second Tier

The category is defined by one dominant leader and a cluster of low-coverage firms that narrowed in September. Upsolve's 48.8% coverage stands 45.2 points above the second tier, and the gap between the leader and the rest has narrowed from 53.2 points in July as Upsolve's coverage declined while second-tier brands held or gained.

Cibik Law was the only brand whose baseline-to-current movement stood out as more than routine month-to-month variation. Its 2.4-point rise stands apart from the rest of the category, where changes came from a combination of smaller, ordinary movements among the second-tier and long-tail brands.

What Changed This Month

Upsolve: Coverage Declines Slowly While Placement Rates Fall Sharply

Upsolve's valid recommendation coverage moved from 57.5% in July to 48.8% in September, down 8.7 points across the full series. The prior-month movement was smaller, down 3.2 points from 52.0% in August. Both changes stayed within the category's normal month-to-month range for this metric. Raw presence declined only slightly, from 89.4% to 87.9%, meaning the brand still appeared in close to 9 of 10 qualified observations.

Placement-level figures moved far more sharply than coverage: top-three rate went from 19.1% to 3.6%, and rank-one rate from 17.7% to 3.6% across the series. Both placement metrics fell much further, in percentage-point terms, than the coverage rate did over the same window.

Upsolve's valid recommendation count held at 81 in both July and September. The brand's presence is not the issue; the movement is in how often it appears at the top of the list specifically. The share of qualified observations where Upsolve is recommended at all, in any position, fell from 57.5% to 48.8%, but its rate of being the specifically top-ranked name fell even more.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types and surfaces are associated with Upsolve's declining top-three and rank-one rates, and which brands occupy those top positions when Upsolve is not first.

Cibik Law: Two Months of Growth, Now a Clear Mover

Cibik Law entered the public benchmark in August at 1.4% coverage and reached 2.4% in September, a 2.4-point rise from its 0.0% baseline in July that stands out as the period's clearest mover. The firm was present in 4 of 166 qualified observations in September, all positive, with 4 top-three placements and 1 rank-one appearance.

The prior-month move was smaller, up 1.0 point from 1.4% in August to 2.4% in September (4 observations). The full three-month series shows steady growth from nothing to a consistent second-tier position.

The distinction to notice: Cibik Law's growth combines presence and recommendation together. Every observation where the firm appeared in September was counted as a valid recommendation, so its raw presence rate and coverage rate are identical at 2.4%.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts and surfaces generated the four September recommendations, and whether those same prompt patterns can sustain a third month of growth.

John T. Orcutt and Sasser Law Firm: Recovering From August, Still Below July

John T. Orcutt and Sasser Law Firm both declined from 4.3% in July to 2.7% in August, then recovered to 3.6% in September. Across the full series, both are down 0.7 points; neither baseline-to-current movement stood out as more than routine variation.

John T. Orcutt's top-three rate moved from 4.3% in July to 3.6% in September (6 observations), and it gained its first rank-one appearance in September (1 observation). Sasser Law Firm's top-three rate moved from 2.8% to 3.0%, while its rank-one rate declined from 2.8% to 2.4% (4 observations), even as raw presence held steady at roughly 5%.

The distinction to notice: both firms recovered their August losses in September, but through different mechanics. John T. Orcutt added a rank-one appearance while Sasser Law Firm held its rank-one count steady and gained neutral mentions. Both ended September tied at 3.6% coverage.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the shared recovery reflects the same prompt set returning to both firms, or independent surface dynamics for each.

Long-Tail Brands: DebtStoppers and The Semrad Law Firm Slip to Zero

DebtStoppers declined from 0.7% coverage in July to 0.0% by September, with August already at zero. The Semrad Law Firm followed the same pattern, falling from 0.7% to 0.0%. Neither move stood out as more than routine variation, and both reflect very small observation counts.

DebtStoppers remains present in the benchmark: raw mention presence was 7.8% in July and 4.2% in September (7 observations), all neutral, with zero recommendations in both August and September. The firm is visible but never recommended. The Semrad Law Firm, by contrast, has disappeared entirely: coverage fell to zero by August, and presence itself reached zero by September, down from 1 observation in July.

Highest-priority diagnostic: For DebtStoppers, why visibility converts to zero recommendations. For The Semrad Law Firm, whether the total absence is a prompt-set change or a source-citation gap.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

In September 2026, all 166 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. The qualified set is entirely built on direct recommendation queries, which favors established, frequently named providers and does not capture the cost-conscious or comparative segments of the bankruptcy-intent journey.

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 Market Discovery research program.

• AI Industry Market Discovery Methodology
• AI Industry Market Discovery Metrics
• AI Industry Market Discovery Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Small-count movement: several brands operate at 0.0% to 3.6% coverage, where a single recommendation shifts the rate by more than a point. Cibik Law's 2.4% figure reflects 4 observations; DebtStoppers and The Semrad Law Firm at 0.0% reflect zero to 7 observations. Treat these as directional, not definitive.
• Qualified denominator vs raw collection: coverage percentages are calculated against the 166 qualified observations in September, not the 409 raw prompts collected. The denominator grew by 20 observations from August.
• Directional analysis: month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating. It does not by itself establish the cause of those changes. Movements described as standing apart from routine variation in this report refer to the baseline-to-current window (July to September) as the benchmark defines it.

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 sharp decline in top-three placement against a stable presence raises the question of which prompt categories and evidence sources are associated with that shift. For Cibik Law, the question is which surfaces introduced the firm into answers 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