WHAT'S IN THIS CASE STUDY
The Challenge
This Perth law firm was running Google Ads across several practice areas, but the campaigns were structured broadly — one large ad group covering multiple, loosely related legal services, targeted with broad match keywords. Expensive legal keywords were pulling in a mix of genuine case enquiries and unqualified research traffic, and every click landed on the same generic homepage regardless of what the person had actually searched for.
Spend was climbing steadily, but the intake team was fielding more time-wasting enquiries than genuine leads, and no one could say confidently which campaigns were actually generating cases.
The Strategy
We rebuilt the account structure and funnel from the ground up, rather than trying to optimise the existing broad setup.
Practice-Area Ad Groups
Split the single broad campaign into tightly themed ad groups, one per practice area, each with its own keywords and messaging.
High-Intent Keyword Targeting
Shifted from broad match to tightly controlled phrase and exact match keywords focused on genuine case-seeking intent, cutting research-stage traffic.
Practice-Specific Landing Pages
Built dedicated landing pages matching each practice area's ad copy, replacing the single generic homepage every click had been landing on.
Negative Keyword Build-Out
Built an extensive negative keyword list from the search terms report, filtering out research queries, job seekers, and unrelated legal topics.
Timeline: Week by Week
Account Audit
Reviewed search terms, existing ad groups, and landing page performance to identify exactly where spend was being wasted.
Restructure & Rebuild
Rebuilt the account into practice-area ad groups with tightened keyword targeting and new negative keyword lists.
Landing Pages Launch
Practice-specific landing pages went live, matched to each ad group's messaging and intent.
Optimisation
Ongoing bid and keyword refinement as fresh search term data came in from the new, tighter structure.
Results Confirmed
Cost per lead down 51%, qualified leads up 87%, with the intake team confirming a clear jump in genuine case enquiries.
The Results
| Metric | Before | After (8 Weeks) |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Per Lead | Baseline | -51% |
| Qualified Leads | Baseline | +87% |
| Ad Spend ROI | Baseline | 4.2x |
"We were spending more and more each month and getting less out of it. Once the campaigns were rebuilt properly, our intake team could immediately tell the leads were better."
Key Takeaways
Broad targeting is expensive in high-CPC industries.Legal keywords are costly enough that unqualified clicks compound into significant wasted spend fast.
Landing page relevance drives both cost and conversion.Matching each campaign to its own page improved Quality Score and actual sign-up rate together.
Negative keywords are ongoing work, not a one-time task.The tightened list kept improving as fresh search term data came in post-rebuild.
Lead quality is measurable beyond cost per click.The intake team's feedback confirmed the numbers — leads were genuinely more relevant, not just cheaper.
Frequently Asked Questions
How did this law firm cut cost per lead in half?
By narrowing broad match keywords to high-intent search terms, restructuring ad groups around specific practice areas, and rebuilding landing pages to match each campaign's intent.
Why do broad Google Ads campaigns often overspend for law firms?
Legal keywords are often highly competitive and expensive per click. Broad targeting pulls in unqualified searches (research queries, unrelated legal topics) that waste spend without producing genuine case enquiries.
What is ad spend ROI and why did it improve so much?
Ad spend ROI measures the value generated per dollar spent on advertising. It improved because tighter targeting and better-matched landing pages increased both the volume and quality of leads converting into real cases.