Co-counsel & referral development
We build you a referral channel with a named target list, a value proposition and a response commitment, and we measure it like paid media. It beats paid media on cost per signed case in most markets we have modelled, and almost nobody builds one on purpose.
The two-sided market, mapped
How to price the relationship
Most referral arrangements are priced by habit rather than by arithmetic, and the number that matters is not the split. It is what the matter is worth to you after the split, after your cost to work it, and after the years it takes, against what you would have spent acquiring it yourself.
A referral that arrives pre-screened, from a lawyer who has already taken the call and looked at the records, has removed the most expensive part of your funnel. That is worth more than a marginally better split on a matter you have to screen from scratch. Firms routinely negotiate hard on the percentage and give away the screening, which is the wrong way round.
The arrangement has to satisfy your state's rules on fee division, which turn on written client consent and, in most states, on either a proportional split of work or joint responsibility for the matter. We am not a lawyer and this is not advice on your rules. What we build is the target list, the approach, the response commitment and the measurement, and every arrangement gets reviewed by your own counsel before it operates.
purpose, with a target list and a measurement system, it is the cheapest signed case in the category.| If you are… | What we build | What it is measured on |
|---|---|---|
| A specialist taking matters in | A named target list of originating firms and adjacent professionals; a genuinely useful education programme aimed at them; a documented intake path for referred matters with a fast, clear answer including "no" | Signed cases by named originating source |
| An originator referring matters out | A short list of specialists evaluated on capability rather than fee split; a screening handoff that protects the client relationship; a fee arrangement reviewed by your own counsel | Net economics per matter, and client outcomes |
| Both, depending on the matter | A disposition rule (retain, co-counsel, or refer) applied consistently rather than case by case on instinct | Portfolio-level economics, modelled before the year starts |
| Failure mode | What it looks like | The fix |
|---|---|---|
| Slow answer | An originating firm waits a week to hear whether you will take the matter | A committed response time for referred matters, published to the referring firms and measured |
| No "no" | Matters that will not be taken are simply not answered | A fast, clear decline with a reason. It is the single strongest reason a firm refers a second time |
| One-directional | Referrals flow in, nothing flows back, and the relationship quietly stops | Track reciprocity explicitly and act on the imbalance before it decays |
| Undocumented fee arrangements | Terms agreed on a call and never written down | A written arrangement reviewed against the applicable rules of professional conduct, by the firms’ own counsel |
Not legal advice. Fee division between lawyers is governed by the rules of professional conduct in each relevant jurisdiction, and those rules impose requirements including, in most states, client consent and a written agreement. We run a marketing agency. Every arrangement described here is reviewed by the participating firms’ own counsel, not by us.
Model retain vs. co-counsel vs. refer out → · The full playbook, free →
What we report
| Metric | Role | Reported as |
|---|---|---|
| Signed cases originated by referral source | Primary | Headline, by named source. |
| Net economics per matter by disposition | Primary | Retain vs. co-counsel vs. refer out, modelled and then measured. |
| Active referring relationships | Diagnostic | A relationship that sent nothing in twelve months is not active. |
| Reciprocity balance | Diagnostic | One-directional referral relationships decay. This is the early warning. |
| Meetings, events attended | Operational | Appendix. Activity is not outcome. |
| Phase | Length | What happens | What you get |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 · Diagnostic | 3 weeks | Market sizing from our data, audit of current spend against cost per signed case, screening-capacity model | A written plan and a decision. Credited in full against the first three months of any retainer. |
| 1 · Instrumentation | Weeks 1–4 | Tracking rebuilt so every inquiry carries its source through to the case management system | A funnel you can audit. Nothing is optimised before it can be measured. |
| 2 · Build | Weeks 3–10 | Channel build, creative, landing pages, intake scripts and screening rubric | Assets you own outright, in your accounts, under your name. |
| 3 · Operate | Ongoing | Weekly optimisation against cost per signed case, monthly against cost per case surviving review | A monthly report that leads with signed cases, not impressions. |
When this is the wrong service for you
If your firm does not intend to take birth injury cases directly, this is not a marketing engagement, it is a business development one, and you may be better served building a referral-out practice and measuring it with the free model rather than paying anyone a retainer. We will say so on the call.
Related
Paid search & Local Services Ads
The most expensive inventory in legal, bought against a signed-case target rather than a click target.
Paid social
Demand creation for a population that does not know a claim may still be live. Handled without exploiting grief.
SEO & AI search
Built to be quoted by answer engines, not only ranked by search engines. Both are measured separately.
What this costs → · Book a call → · Read the free library first →
Authorship & review
- Author
- Birth Injury Marketing. About the company.
- Last reviewed
- Legal review
- Not yet assigned. This page describes marketing practice, not law, and gives no legal advice. Rules cited are linked to the primary source so you can read them directly. See Editorial Standards.
- Corrections
- Found an error? Tell us and it goes in the dated corrections log, whether or not it flatters us.