Two engagements, two models, and the numbers we can publish.

Discovery

The firm's growth was limited to the pace of its network. A single closed engagement was worth $200,000 to $400,000 in fees over the resolution timeline. They had never done outbound and were skeptical.

The discovery call covered what a typical matter looks like, who signs the engagement letter, what triggers the decision to bring in outside specialists, and what objections come from buyers who ultimately do not engage. The most common objection, ahead of price and timeline, was that buyers did not believe a dispute could be resolved without escalating it. The letter had to answer that first.

List build

Built from bar association directories and business registrations. Target: general counsel and outside counsel at companies with revenue above $50M in the vendor and commercial contract sectors.

Final list: 340 companies. The client reviewed and approved a representative sample before any letter went out. Twelve companies were removed on client instruction because of existing relationships or potential conflicts. The remaining 328 were cleared.

Copy and launch

The letter named a specific scenario: a vendor contract dispute where the counterparty's legal position was stronger on paper than the client's first read suggested. It described the resolution mechanism in two sentences, asked one question the recipient could answer in one sentence, and was signed by the managing partner by name. The client returned the first draft with one change, because the opening scenario excluded a category of disputes the firm regularly handled. The second draft was approved without revision.

Cycle one was physical mail only: 328 first-class letters sent over three days. General counsel at this company size were unlikely to answer unsolicited email from an unknown firm, so the letter went by name, in an envelope, from a managing partner.

Two cycles of results

Cycle one: 328 letters. 9 responses. 5 conversations. A monthly call covered what each response said, which conversations were progressing, and what the non-responses implied about the list. Two companies were flagged for cycle two. One conversation stopped because the buyer's dispute settled before a meeting could be arranged. One engagement signed in month seven, worth $280,000 over the resolution timeline. That is later than the typical four to six months to a first signed engagement.

Cycle two: 310 letters. 12 responses. 6 conversations. Non-responders were refreshed and fourteen companies were replaced, using match criteria from the first round: the disputes that produced the best meetings shared a profile the original list had only partly captured. The letter's opening scenario and closing question were revised based on what had worked in those conversations. Two more engagements signed by month eleven, each worth approximately $35,000 to $70,000 over the resolution timeline.

Setup

Seven business days from the start of the build to the first ad going live on Google.

The campaign was built around the exact queries a buyer in a contract dispute types, not one generic category campaign, and it sent the click to a landing page built for that search so the visit did not end on a thin page. Google is where a buyer in this position looks when the problem lands, so that was the channel.

Launch

Targeted paid search for a contract resolution practice in Latin America. Total ad spend over the first 10-day window was $184.

A buyer with a live contract dispute searches when the problem hits and does not wait for a letter, so the work was making sure the practice was in front of that search. The $184 is ad spend paid to Google. It does not include ROI Wire's revenue share agreement, and we do not claim the spend alone produced the result.

Inquiry and calls

An inbound inquiry came in from the campaign, followed by a first call that was a review of the situation. It took two calls, within a week of the first inquiry, for the client to sign an $84,000 engagement.

The fee was structured in two parts: a deposit, and payment in full after the situation was resolved. The situation was resolved and the fee was paid in full.

The inquirer found the practice and reached out on their own. Nobody was added to a list, and nobody was written to or phoned who had not asked to be contacted. That is the line this program holds on every engagement.

After the first engagement

The program kept running for the rest of the term of the agreement and brought in one to two high-value inquiries a month. About 40% of the inquiries became engagements.

Ad spend and the program retainer were reviewed as the campaign ran, as they are on every Visibility Program, rather than set on day one and left alone.

What we do not publish

The keywords, the query list, the landing page, click and inquiry volumes, cost per inquiry, and the type of matter. The client has not given permission to publish anything that could identify it, and these details could.

The platform, the spend, the timing, the fee, and the region are what we can say.