The company is already in a live commercial dispute.

A general counsel who used you at the last employer may not remember the name at the new one. A referring litigator moves practice groups. The commercial fight does not wait for that dinner: defective components, a software implementation that never went live, a joint venture that diverted revenue, a supply agreement that failed, an earnout that will not close. Writing to GCs and CFOs who might someday sue is the outbound program. It is the wrong ethics conversation for this practice.

We do not write to those companies, and we do not mail the GC the week of the demand. The job is to be findable in the days the breach creates, and to be the name a conflicted litigator already has when they finally look up from the file they cannot keep.

How These Deals Actually Work

The fight starts specific: defective components that failed inspection, a software implementation that never went live, a joint venture partner diverting revenue, a supply agreement breached mid-term, an earnout dispute holding up a closing. The GC or CFO living it did not plan for litigation. They planned for a delivery, a launch, or a closing, and the breach forced a decision they were not staffing for.

A referring litigator with a conflict, or simply too many files, passes what they cannot keep. That is real, but it depends on the litigator remembering your name at the right moment, and a GC who changed jobs or a litigator who moved practice groups breaks the connection without warning. The company mid-breach does not wait for that memory to reconnect.

Every commercial dispute is specific to its facts, but the buyer behavior is consistent: they search once the breach is undeniable, not before.

What a Buyer Is Actually Searching

The GC or CFO mid-breach searches specifically: breach of contract attorney, supply agreement dispute, earnout dispute lawyer, joint venture litigation. They usually know exactly what kind of agreement failed.

A referring litigator with a conflict searches differently: commercial litigation co-counsel, contract dispute firm to refer. They have a client and a file they cannot keep, and they need a name today.

A generic "commercial litigation" campaign catches too broad a net and misses the specificity that makes a buyer trust the click: their breach type, named plainly.

Objections We Hear

Our outside GC-network relationships already send us this. Those relationships depend on a GC staying at the same company and remembering your name. Turnover breaks that chain constantly, and the company mid-breach right now is not in anyone's memory.

We already rank for commercial litigation. A generic ranking misses the buyer searching by their specific breach type: earnout, supply agreement, joint venture. That specificity is what a real buyer searches, not the category label.

Referring litigators send us enough work. Enough work until a litigator changes firms or a GC moves companies. The pipeline built entirely on that memory has no floor under it.

Who This Is Actually For

Firms that actually litigate commercial disputes, in the contract types and industries they know, with the capacity to pick up a live breach quickly. The lead worth the spend is a company already in a breach, not one shopping for general corporate counsel.

This is a poor fit for a firm that wants to be a generalist litigation shop, or one without a defined specialty inside commercial disputes. Bid the breach types you actually litigate.

How the campaign runs

Google ads for the people in the fight. Not one generic “business lawyer” campaign. Operating companies and their GCs searching a live supplier, software, distribution, or JV dispute. PE operating partners and in-house litigation managers searching a specialist they can hire without a full RFP. Keywords are always custom to the contract types and industries you actually try. Brand bidding and competitor-brand bidding only when the strategy calls for it. Details: paid search.

Foundational work in parallel: the website, local directories, and general search appearance, so the click lands on a commercial trial or resolution practice and not a volume mill. Bios and listings in the language of the agreement, the forum, and the remedy, not “trusted business counsel.” A landing page may be included; a full website is quoted separately. Directories and bios: online profile development.

LinkedIn ads aimed at referring counsel: CLE and lunch-and-learns on the dispute the deal lawyer should not keep, and on the conflict that sends the file out. Paid ads only. We do not offer LinkedIn message outreach (InMail, connection sequences, or DMs). That is a different channel, we do not run it, and it is not part of this program.

Ads produce inbound while the fight is live. Foundation is why a GC or a referring lawyer trusts the firm enough to call.

Ready to grow your pipeline?

Share a few details and we'll follow up with exactly how this works for a firm like yours.

Leave blank

Name *

Firm / Company *

Email *

Phone

Send

Why we're not generalists

Generalist marketing agencies will not take the time to understand how this practice actually wins work. The practice is too specialized, the file count is too small, and the work of understanding it bores them. They want large spend and a lot of traffic to a landing page. We will run a tight campaign for a shop that closes fewer files at a higher value. That is the point of this page.

Most agencies do not understand specialized industries well enough to advertise them honestly. We take the time to learn how the work is sold so the keywords and the page the click lands on match the work you actually take. A complex practice deserves that. A generic landing page does not.

How fast this can run

We can get ads live in under a week. What usually slows that down is approval on your side: the keywords, the spend, the page the click lands on. Directories, bios, and a site a buyer will trust take longer to finish. The website and listings are why the person who clicks trusts you. It is not the same as going live on search.

Lawyer-to-lawyer, in select circumstances

Lawyers may solicit other lawyers. In select circumstances, when the target is referring counsel rather than the company in the fight, direct mail or similar correspondence to other lawyers can be part of the work. That is an exception, not the default. It is not a list of general counsel at companies with a live breach. It is not a list of CFOs. It is not LinkedIn message outreach. Bar rules still vary; the firm confirms what it can run. We do not represent that any channel is permitted everywhere.

How this is billed

This is Visibility Program work, not the outbound program. You pay ad spend directly to the platforms (Google and, where we run it, LinkedIn). ROI Wire is billed on a retainer that scales with that spend. That is not a flat project fee, not a percentage of closed files, and not an outbound retainer.

A landing page may be included at no additional cost. A full website build is always quoted and billed separately. Foundational services (copywriting, CRM, multichannel sequences, web design) sit under this track as the credibility layer, not as a correspondence program.

Scope is on the Visibility Program. Search mechanics are on paid search. Surfaces are on online profile development.

What is not included

We do not build a solicitation list of companies in a commercial fight. We do not write, mail, or phone GCs, CFOs, or principals who did not ask. We do not sit the matter, try the case, or recover the claim. We make the firm findable. The firm does the work.

This is not the vendor-contract-recovery or government-contract-claims leaf on this hub. Those stay outbound. Construction, employment, franchise, real estate, and international disputes are different pages.

Program pages

Visibility Program

How this work is scoped and billed.

Paid search

Google ads. You pay the ad spend. We bill a retainer that scales with it.

Online profile development

Directories, bios, and reputation surfaces a buyer checks after they see you.