Law firm marketing
Employment law leads, filtered before your intake team picks up.
By Ivan Janku, Founder of Digital Rocket. We manage over $1.5M per month in ad spend across immigration, franchise and vocational accounts.
Employment law enquiries arrive emotional and mostly unqualified. Plenty of people feel wronged at work without having a claim that survives the statute or the evidence test. The system qualifies on the form, so your intake team spends its hours on the matters that can actually be run.
$1.5M+
Monthly ad spend managed
3 yrs
Continuous engagement
Green / Amber / Red
Every lead graded
Why do employment law firms get so many unqualified enquiries?
Because the emotional trigger is far more common than the legal claim. People contact a firm when they feel wronged, not when they have documentation, an in-window claim and a qualifying employer. Without form level filtering, intake absorbs all of it.
What should an employment law intake form ask?
Termination or incident date, whether anything is documented in writing, whether an internal complaint was made, employer size and jurisdiction. Those five answers separate a runnable matter from a venting session before anyone picks up the phone.
From our accounts
Employment is the clearest example of why intake burns out. Someone who was treated badly at work and someone with a documented wrongful termination inside the limitation period write the same first sentence on a contact form. Only one has a case. Ask about the termination date, whether anything is in writing, whether a complaint was filed internally, and employer size, and the two separate before a lawyer spends an hour on the phone.
What should an employment firm measure?
Cost per signed matter, not cost per lead. In an immigration practice we run, shifting the target from lead to signed case took acquisition cost down 55%, per the client data, with consult quality up 55%.
Lead volume in employment law is easy to buy and mostly worthless. Signed matters are the only number that reflects the practice.
Is this bought leads or our own system?
Your own system. Accounts, tracking, audiences and creative stay yours. Shared vendor leads in employment law are especially poor value because the unqualified share is so high and you pay for it regardless.
Which employment practices is this for?
Firms with their own intake team, two or more people on enquiries daily, and meaningful monthly ad spend. Below that, a lead vendor is cheaper and we will tell you so rather than sell you infrastructure.
Do you have an employment law case study?
No. Our deep legal proof is immigration: a 6.39x return across a three-year engagement, per the client data. We will not manufacture one. The mechanics transfer because the constraint in both is qualification before intake.
Proof, sourced. From the account records of an immigration firm we run, across a three-year engagement: Cost per signed case moved down 55%. Blended 6.39x, peak period 8.6x, consult quality up 55% per the client data. Digital Rocket manages over $1.5M per month in ad spend and holds 4.9 across 9 verified client reviews on Clutch.
If you only change one thing
Move the qualifying questions onto the form. Not the call. It costs nothing, it takes an afternoon, and it changes what your intake team does all day. Everything else on this page is downstream of that single sequencing decision.
Not sure where your ad spend leaks?
Get the Brutal Truth Audit. We find the leaks or you do not pay.