Two models. Two results. Every step we can document.
An outbound engagement and a Visibility Program engagement. Different clients, different channels, different economics. The firm names are not on this page. They have not given permission to publish them.
We do not publish client names. We do not describe their matters. We do not use their results as marketing without permission. These clients have not given that permission, and we have not asked twice.
What follows is our account. The clients can confirm or dispute any of it. If you want to speak with them directly, ask us. We will try to arrange it.
Case 1. Outbound. Direct mail. Domestic vendor / commercial contract resolution.
A contract resolution firm doubled its annual revenue from clients we introduced through a physical-mail program. Referral-fed, eleven years in, never done outbound. List of 340, then 328 cleared. Vendor and commercial disputes, company revenue above $50M. Three engagements in year one. Combined first-year fees slightly more than the firm's full annual fee base before the program started.
Discovery
The firm had been in contract resolution for eleven years. Referral-fed, well-regarded, and growing only as fast as the network allowed. A single closed engagement was worth $200,000 to $400,000 in fees over the resolution timeline. They had never done outbound. They were skeptical.
The discovery call covered four things: what a typical matter looked like, who signed the engagement letter, what triggered the decision to bring in outside resolution specialists, and what objections they heard from buyers who ultimately did not engage. That last question produced the most useful information of the call. The most common objection was not price or timeline. It was that the buyer did not believe resolution was possible without escalating the dispute. The letter had to address that before anything else.
List Build
Built from court filings, bar association directories, and commercial litigation databases. Target: general counsel and outside counsel at companies with active or probable commercial disputes above a threshold value. Filtered by dispute type (contract breach, vendor disputes, supplier claims) and by company revenue above $50M.
Final list: 340 companies. A representative sample was reviewed and approved by the client before any letter was sent. Twelve companies were removed on client instruction: existing relationships and potential conflicts they identified in the review. The remaining 328 were cleared.
Copy Development
The letter named a specific dispute scenario: a vendor contract dispute where the counterparty's legal position was stronger on paper than the client's initial read suggested. It described the resolution mechanism in two sentences. It asked one question the recipient could answer in one sentence. It was signed by the firm's managing partner by name.
The client reviewed two drafts. The first draft was returned with one structural change: the opening scenario was too narrow and excluded a category of disputes the firm regularly handled. The second draft was approved without revision.
Launch
Physical mail. 328 letters, first-class, sent over three days. No email component in cycle one. General counsel at the target company size were unlikely to respond to unsolicited email from an unknown firm. A letter addressed to them by name, in an envelope, from a managing partner, was a different communication: one that matched the formality of the work they did.
First Cycle Results and Monthly Call
328 letters. 9 responses. 5 converted to conversations. The monthly coordination call covered what each response said, which conversations were progressing, and what the non-responses implied about the list. Two companies were flagged for follow-through in cycle two. One conversation was paused: the buyer's dispute had settled before a meeting could be arranged.
One engagement signed in month seven. Engagement value over the resolution timeline: $280,000.
Cycle Two
Non-responders refreshed. Fourteen companies replaced based on better match criteria identified from the first round's conversations: the disputes that produced the best meetings shared a profile the original list had only partially captured. The letter was revised: the opening scenario updated, the question at the end sharpened based on what had worked in the conversations.
310 letters. 12 responses. 6 conversations. Two additional engagements signed by month eleven.
2×
Three engagements introduced through the program. Combined first-year fees from those engagements: slightly more than the firm's full annual fee base before the program started.
The referral base was still producing throughout. The program ran alongside it, not instead of it.
The firm has continued the program. We do not publish current results.
Case 2. Visibility Program. Paid search. Latin America contract resolution.
A different engagement. A different model. Not the firm in Case 1.
This was paid search, billed as a Visibility Program. It was not a correspondence program. We did not build a mail list, we did not send letters, and we did not work the phone against a file.
$84,000 retainer secured from $184 in targeted, hyper-specific ad spend, in 10 days, for a Latin America contract resolution client.
“Retainer” in that sentence is the client’s engagement fee, the amount the contract-resolution client secured. It is not an ROI Wire outbound retainer and it is not a claim that we only work on retainer.
Same founder-era business (2019–2024) as the direct-mail case. Two different engagements.
We are not publishing the keywords, the query list, or the landing page. The client has not given permission to describe the matter. The number, the spend, the time, and the region are what we can say.
Talk to us about your practice
Two cases we are permitted to describe: one outbound, one Visibility Program. Others exist in healthcare recovery, expense audit, and tax credit capture. If you want to speak with a client in your practice area before making a decision, ask us.