Nashville Law Firm Local SEO Audit Checklist

This checklist is a self-audit tool for Nashville-area law firms reviewing their own local search visibility. It is built to be used standalone. Run through each section, mark what passes and what fails, and act on the gaps. The audit takes most firms 60 to 90 minutes to complete on a single visit.

This is a diagnostic instrument. It is not strategic guidance, vendor evaluation, or compliance counsel. For market-level context on the patterns this audit measures, the Nashville law firm SEO industry playbook covers the broader analysis. For practices ready to move from audit findings to implementation, our Nashville law firm SEO service page covers the engagement model.

Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 7.1 through 7.5 govern attorney advertising. Run final review through qualified ethics counsel before implementing any changes this audit surfaces.

Section 1: Google Business Profile

Profile completeness

• not doneBusiness name matches the firm’s legal entity exactly
• not donePrimary category is the most specific available (Personal Injury Attorney rather than Lawyer)
• not doneSecondary categories cover all distinct practice areas the firm handles
• not doneBusiness description uses the full character allowance and references practice areas plus service area
• not doneHours are current and include any seasonal or holiday adjustments
• not donePhone number is the firm’s primary intake line, not a forwarding number
• not doneAddress matches the firm’s actual physical office, not a virtual or mail-only address
• not doneWebsite URL points to the firm’s primary domain, not a directory profile

Visual presence

• not doneProfile contains current exterior, interior, and team photos uploaded within the last 90 days
• not donePhotos include the firm’s actual office, not stock images
• not doneAt least one photo shows proximity to a recognizable Nashville landmark (Davidson County Courthouse, Metro Court, etc.)
• not doneNew photos uploaded monthly minimum

Engagement signals

• not doneAt least one Google Post published per week
• not doneQ&A section monitored and questions answered within 48 hours
• not doneAll reviews from the past 90 days have responses
• not doneNegative reviews handled with confidentiality-aware responses (no case detail disclosed)

Spam and duplicates

• not doneNo duplicate profiles for the same physical office
• not doneNo competitor profiles using the firm’s name or near-identical variations
• not doneIf duplicates or impersonation found, redressal request submitted to Google

Section 2: NAP Consistency (Name, Address, Phone)

Primary directories

• not doneGoogle Business Profile
• not doneYelp
• not doneFacebook business page
• not doneApple Business Connect
• not doneBing Places

Legal directories

• not doneAvvo
• not doneFindLaw
• not doneJustia
• not doneMartindale-Hubbell
• not doneSuperLawyers (if listed)
• not doneTennessee Bar Association directory
• not doneNashville Bar Association directory

Format consistency check

• not doneSuite numbers formatted identically across platforms (pick Suite 100, Ste 100, or #100 and use it everywhere)
• not doneStreet vs. St., Boulevard vs. Blvd. consistent everywhere
• not donePhone number format consistent across platforms (pick parentheses, dashes, or periods and use one format everywhere)
• not doneAttorney middle initials consistent across platforms

Action items if NAP fails

• not doneMaster NAP document created with the canonical version
• not doneAll inconsistencies corrected within 30 days
• not doneCitation tracking spreadsheet maintained for ongoing monitoring

Section 3: Mobile Experience

Critical mobile elements

• not donePhone number visible without scrolling on the homepage
• not doneClick-to-call active (tel: protocol implemented correctly)
• not doneContact form requires minimum essential fields (name, phone, brief description)
• not donePage loads under 3 seconds on a 4G connection

Touch and readability

• not doneTap targets meet 44 by 44 pixel minimum
• not doneBody font size 16 pixels or larger
• not doneAdequate spacing between tappable elements
• not doneForms work correctly with mobile keyboards and autofill

Cross-device testing

• not doneTested on actual iOS device (not browser emulator)
• not doneTested on actual Android device
• not doneTested on a device older than 3 years (not just current models)

Section 4: Schema Markup

Required schema types

• not doneLegalService schema on practice area pages with accurate service descriptions
• not doneAttorney schema on each lawyer’s bio page including bar admissions
• not doneLocalBusiness schema with complete NAP and geo-coordinates
• not doneFAQPage schema on pages with question-answer content

Validation

• not doneAll schema passes Google’s Rich Results Test without errors
• not doneSchema reflects current business information (no outdated data)
• not doneSchema reviewed quarterly as part of routine maintenance

Common errors to verify against

• not doneNo required field missing
• not doneNo duplicate schema blocks on the same page
• not doneNo schema for content that does not appear visibly on the page

Section 5: Practice Area Page Audit

Content depth

• not doneEach practice area has a dedicated indexable page
• not donePractice area pages exceed 800 substantive words
• not doneContent references Tennessee statutes (TCA citations) where relevant
• not doneContent references Davidson County or Williamson County procedures where relevant
• not doneSubtopics broken into dedicated pages or sections (custody disputes, DUI defense, etc.)

Structure

• not doneH1 targets a specific intent query (not just a category label)
• not doneH2 and H3 hierarchy organizes content logically
• not doneInternal links connect related practice areas through body content
• not doneAnchor text varies across links to the same destination

Conversion path

• not doneContact CTA visible without scrolling to the bottom
• not donePhone number clickable on mobile
• not doneConsultation expectations stated (response time, free vs. paid, scope)

Section 6: Attorney Bio Pages

Credential signals

• not doneBar number listed and verifiable through Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility
• not doneCourt admissions listed (Davidson County Circuit, Middle District of Tennessee, etc.)
• not doneLaw school and graduation year present
• not donePractice focus described, not just listed

E-E-A-T elements

• not doneAuthor byline appears on attorney-written content
• not doneBio page links to relevant practice area pages
• not doneRepresentative matters described with appropriate confidentiality controls
• not doneLast reviewed or updated date shown

Section 7: Technical Health

Core Web Vitals (Google’s official thresholds)

• not doneLargest Contentful Paint (LCP) under 2.5 seconds
• not doneInteraction to Next Paint (INP) under 200 milliseconds
• not doneCumulative Layout Shift (CLS) under 0.1
• not doneMobile and desktop measured separately

Indexation

• not doneXML sitemap submitted to Google Search Console
• not doneRobots.txt does not block important pages
• not doneNo unintentional noindex tags on production pages
• not doneCritical pages indexed (verified via URL Inspection tool)

Site security

• not doneSSL certificate active and not expired
• not doneNo mixed content warnings
• not doneHTTPS redirects configured for all HTTP requests

Section 8: Review and Reputation Audit

Review velocity

• not doneAt least 3 to 5 new reviews per month over the past quarter
• not doneAverage response time to reviews under 48 hours
• not doneResponse language compliant with RPC 1.6 (no client information disclosed)

Review request process

• not doneDocumented process for requesting reviews after appropriate engagement points
• not doneProcess compliant with RPC 7.3 solicitation rules
• not doneNo review incentives that would violate Tennessee Bar guidance

Off-Google reviews

• not doneAvvo profile reviewed and current
• not doneYelp profile reviewed and current
• not doneFacebook reviews monitored
• not doneIndustry-specific platforms checked

Section 9: RPC Compliance Audit

Advertising language (RPC 7.1, 7.2)

• not doneNo superlatives without certification (“best,” “top,” “expert,” “specialist”)
• not doneNo outcome guarantees or implied predictions
• not doneComparative claims avoided unless factually substantiable
• not doneAll required disclaimers present (past results, attorney advertising notice)

Solicitation (RPC 7.3)

• not doneDirect solicitation practices reviewed for compliance
• not doneLead generation arrangements disclosed where required
• not donePay-per-lead and referral fee structures reviewed against current TN guidance

Confidentiality (RPC 1.6)

• not doneCase studies and testimonials anonymized appropriately
• not doneClient information not disclosed in review responses
• not doneComposite scenarios marked as such where used

Section 10: Measurement and Tracking

Analytics setup

• not doneGoogle Analytics 4 installed and tracking
• not doneGoogle Search Console verified for all property variants (HTTP/HTTPS, www/non-www)
• not doneGoal tracking configured for primary conversions (form submissions, click-to-call)
• not doneCall tracking installed with source segmentation

Reporting cadence

• not doneMonthly performance review documented
• not doneYear-over-year comparison run quarterly
• not doneAlgorithm update timeline annotated in reports

Outcomes tracking

• not doneConsultation requests tracked back to traffic source
• not doneRetainer signings logged against original lead source where possible
• not doneCost per qualified lead calculated for organic versus paid

Scoring the Audit

Count the boxes checked across all 10 sections. The result indicates current state, not strategy.

90 percent or above: The firm’s local SEO foundation is solid. Audit findings should focus on incremental improvements rather than structural overhaul.

70 to 89 percent: Foundation is functional but has meaningful gaps. Prioritize the lowest-scoring sections first; most produce visible improvement within 60 to 90 days when addressed.

50 to 69 percent: Significant gaps exist. The audit results suggest structural rather than tactical changes are needed. Consider whether internal capacity exists to address findings or whether outside support is warranted.

Below 50 percent: The firm’s search visibility is likely well below market potential. Audit findings indicate fundamental issues that compound over time. Outside diagnostic and remediation support typically produces faster recovery than incremental internal fixes.

After the Audit

This checklist surfaces gaps. Closing them is a separate engagement. For market-level context on what each finding means in Nashville’s competitive legal landscape, the industry playbook covers the patterns behind these checks. For implementation support, our service page outlines the engagement model.

Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct apply to every change implemented based on audit findings. Run final review through qualified ethics counsel before publishing client-facing content, modifying advertising language, or implementing review acquisition systems.

This audit checklist is a diagnostic tool. It does not constitute legal, ethical, or compliance advice and should not substitute for guidance from qualified counsel on practice-specific marketing or compliance questions.