How AI Search Is Recommending DUI Lawyers: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

The AI search landscape for DUI Lawyers remained stable in September 2026, with no brand exceeding normal month-to-month variation for valid recommendation coverage. Wallin & Klarich continues to lead the category at 20.3% coverage in September 2026, up slightly from 19.7% in July 2026. The gap to the next brand stands at 8.1 percentage points, with Manshoory Law Group holding the second position at 12.2% coverage.

Manshoory Law Group was the strongest upward mover for the month and across the full series. Its coverage rose from 6.6% in July 2026 to 7.3% in August 2026 and then to 12.2% in September 2026, an overall gain of 5.6 points across the tracked period. This extends the brand's streak to two consecutive months of increase since the baseline. The sharpest movement in the opposite direction came from Chambers Law Firm, which fell from 1.6% valid recommendation coverage in July 2026 to 0.0% in September 2026, though the decline falls within normal variation.

The broader picture shows a category where AI systems are concentrating recommendations around two firms while most of the field remains largely invisible. Wallin & Klarich has held coverage above 19% in all three months, while Manshoory Law Group has grown steadily from 6.6% to 12.2%. Four of the ten tracked brands — Bruno Nalu, DUI Defense Lawyers, Hawk Law Group, and The Kavinoky Law Firm — recorded no valid recommendation in any of the three months.

Each monthly run begins with 219 prompt-surface observations (214 unique questions) in July 2026, 273 prompt-surface observations (266 unique questions) in August 2026, and 267 prompt-surface observations (258 unique questions) in September 2026 across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. Of those, 219 in July, 273 in August, and 267 in September mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 76 in July, 82 in August, and 84 in September were relevant, while 143 in July, 191 in August, and 183 in September were irrelevant. The public metrics use the 61 qualified observations in July 2026, 68 in August 2026, and 74 in September 2026 that survive both qualification stages.

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.

Category-wide indicators below summarize how the qualified observation pool and recommendation-shaped answer behavior moved between the two comparable months.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

Qualified observations grew from 61 in July 2026 to 74 in September 2026, reflecting a larger pool of relevant prompts surviving the qualification stages. August 2026 sat between the two at 68 qualified observations.

AI Recommendation Trend

Wallin & Klarich Leads a Two-Brand Recommendation Core

Wallin & Klarich held the top position across both comparable months, with recommendation coverage of 19.7% in July 2026 and 20.3% in September 2026, while Manshoory Law Group strengthened its second-place position from 6.6% to 12.2% over the same period. No brand exceeded normal month-to-month variation in September 2026: the category-level change came from the combination of several smaller movements, including Manshoory Law Group's continued climb, new first-time coverage for Esfandi Law Group and The Nieves Law Firm, and Chambers Law Firm's retreat to zero. The remaining six tracked brands recorded no valid recommendation in September 2026.

What Changed This Month

Manshoory Law Group

Manshoory Law Group's valid recommendation coverage moved from 7.3% in August 2026 to 12.2% in September 2026, a gain of 4.9 points in a single month and the brand's largest single-month move of the series. Across the full three-month series, coverage grew from 6.6% in July 2026 to 12.2% in September 2026, an overall gain of 5.6 points. The brand's coverage now rests on 9 valid recommendations out of 74 qualified observations, up from 4 out of 61 in July 2026.

The brand's placement profile strengthened across the board. Its top-3 rate rose from 3.3% in July 2026 to 8.1% in September 2026, and its rank-one rate rose from 3.3% to 6.8% over the same period, with 5 rank-one recommendations in September. Its average recommended rank tightened from 2.8 in July 2026 to 1.2 in September 2026, meaning when Manshoory Law Group was recommended in September, it was most often the first choice.

The distinction to notice is between coverage growth and recommendation quality. Manshoory Law Group grew both its coverage and its share of rank-one placements simultaneously, with raw mention presence more than doubling from 6.6% in July 2026 to 14.9% in September 2026. The brand is being mentioned more often and recommended at the top of the list more often.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which specific prompts drove the jump from 4 to 9 valid recommendations, and which evidence sources are supporting the increased rank-one placements?

The Nieves Law Firm

The Nieves Law Firm gained its first valid recommendation coverage of the series in September 2026, moving from 0.0% in both July and August to 2.7% in September. The brand's coverage rests on 2 valid recommendations out of 74 qualified observations in September.

The brand's raw mention presence moved from 0.0% in July 2026 to 5.4% in September 2026. Its recorded mentions were predominantly positive in sentiment, though neither of its two valid recommendations placed within the top three.

The Nieves Law Firm has entered the recommendation set but has not yet achieved top-3 ranking. The brand appeared in 4 of 74 qualified observations in September.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts generated the first recommendations for the firm, and what would it take for those recommendations to appear within the top three?

Esfandi Law Group

Esfandi Law Group recorded its first presence of the series in September 2026, appearing in 3 of 74 qualified observations with 4.0% raw mention presence. Its valid recommendation coverage rests at 4.0% (3 observations), though none of those recommendations placed within the top three.

The brand's movement from 0.0% baseline coverage to 4.0% in September remained within the range of normal month-to-month variation for this metric. Its recorded mentions were uniformly positive in sentiment.

Esfandi Law Group went from zero presence to being mentioned and recommended in the same month, but its recommendations have not yet reached the top-3 tier where the most commercially relevant placement occurs.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts brought Esfandi Law Group into the recommendation set for the first time, and which brands are taking the top-3 slots in those prompts?

Chambers Law Firm and Greg Hill & Associates

Chambers Law Firm moved from 1.6% valid recommendation coverage in July 2026 to 0.0% in September 2026, having also recorded 0.0% in August. The brand's single July recommendation at rank one did not repeat in either subsequent month, and its raw mention presence fell from 3.3% in July to 1.4% in September, with one positive mention but no valid recommendation.

Greg Hill & Associates moved from 1.6% valid recommendation coverage in July 2026 to 1.4% in September 2026, a decline of 0.2 points. The brand's single recommendation returned in September after a zero-coverage August, appearing at rank three. Its raw mention presence held steady at 2.7% in September against a 3.3% baseline.

These are small-count movements. Chambers Law Firm's decline reflects a loss from 1 recommendation out of 61 observations in July to 0 out of 74 in September. Greg Hill & Associates' coverage rests on 1 valid recommendation out of 74 observations in September.

Highest-priority diagnostic for Chambers Law Firm: Which prompt previously produced the rank-one recommendation, and has that prompt stopped surfacing the brand entirely?

Highest-priority diagnostic for Greg Hill & Associates: Which prompt produced the rank-three recommendation in September, and is its presence now limited to a single consistent query?

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

In September 2026, all 74 qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster, with no observations in the Pricing & Value or Multi-Brand Comparison clusters. This was also the case in July and August 2026, when all qualified observations fell into the same cluster. The public benchmark therefore captures which firms AI systems recommend and rank, but cannot yet answer commercial questions about how price, value, or head-to-head comparisons are framed. For this vertical, AI systems are functioning primarily as referral engines rather than as comparative or cost-analysis tools.

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 movements: Changes based on one or two observations carry inherent uncertainty; a single recommendation can move coverage by roughly 1.4 to 1.6 points in this vertical.
• Qualified denominator vs raw collection: Brand-level percentages use the qualified observation count (74 in September 2026), not the raw collection size (267), which includes irrelevant and reserved prompts.
• Directional analysis: Month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating; it does not by itself establish cause.

Next Step

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

The aggregate percentage tells a brand whether it gained or lost AI recommendation share, but not why that movement happened. Beneath the 20.3% coverage number for the category leader, or the 12.2% for the second-place firm, lie specific questions: 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.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It turns the benchmark's directional signal into actionable intelligence for a single firm.

Request an AI visibility audit