👋 Good morning. Chris Dreyer here. Personal injury has mastered everything you can see: the billboard, the TV spot, the logo. What almost no firm has claimed is a sound. This week I make the case for sonic branding—the short, ownable audio cue that makes a brand impossible to forget, and why it may be the most underused asset in PI marketing.
Then a question every owner faces and few people discuss out loud: How big do you actually want to get? Austin's Adam Loewy turns away most of his cases on purpose and runs a more profitable firm for it. He's not the first owner to choose great over big.
Also in the mix: Google Ads CPC jumped 15% across legal this year, Uber’s ballot measure to cap PI fees is dead, and on the Pod, Will Hammill and Jack Derrickson show how they rebuilt a legacy TV brand to keep winning the case long after the phone rings. Let’s go.
📆 [SAVE THE DATE: Oct. 4-6]
PIMCON, the Personal Injury Mastermind Conference, is where personal injury attorneys master marketing, intake, and explosive firm growth. It's built for decision-makers who want sharper strategy, better execution, and real-world results long after the sessions end.
October 4–6 • Scottsdale, AZ
Fewer than 10 Tier 2 tickets remain at $1,650. After that, the price jumps to $1,999. You get three days with the operators behind the country's fastest-growing PI firms, and the playbooks that got them there. Lock in your spot now.
💡ONE BIG IDEA
Is Your Brand Being Heard?
I'm not talking about your jingle. I'm talking about a distinctive sound people immediately identify with your brand.
Like the "Tu-dum" you hear the instant Netflix loads. The NBC chimes in between shows. Or the MGM lion's roar—remember that one?—that says the movie is about to start. You'd probably struggle to picture MGM's logo right this minute without looking it up. But you'd recognize that roar anywhere.
That distinctive sound, friends, is sonic branding, or a sonic logo.
Steve Keller, who runs sonic strategy for SiriusXM Media, defines a sonic logo as "a distinctive sonic asset that does for your ear what a visual logo does for your eye."
That's the whole idea. Not a jingle, which is one execution, but a short ownable sound that carries consistently across everything the brand touches.
Apple is the master of it. The startup chord when you turn on your Mac, the camera shutter sound your iPhone makes when you take a screenshot, all of it is branding, all of it helps to drive brand recall—and personal injury has barely touched it.
Here's the case for it in personal injury marketing:
Sound is the fastest way into memory. That's not me talking. That's science. Sound lands in the limbic system, the part of the brain that handles emotion and recall, and registers about 30 to 40 milliseconds faster than anything we see. A brand is the promise of your benefits, what a person feels about you before they ever call. Build that promise into a sound, repeat it, and you buy space in memory. Marketers call that mental availability, being the name that surfaces first when the need arrives. Byron Sharp and Jenni Romaniuk from the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science have shown that brands grow by owning distinctive assets, the colors, logos, and sounds people recognize at the moment of choice. Personal injury does a sweet job with visual assets. Sonic is the next frontier. The ear is deeper than the eye.
Sonic branding measurably lifts response. People correctly attribute only 16 percent of ads to the brand that paid for them. Sound changes that. Oxford Road, an audio advertising agency, found sonic cues deliver seven to eight times the branded attention of ads without them, and a sonic identity lifts response 13 percent, climbing to 30 percent for brands that commit rather than dabble. The payoff goes to the firm that owns one sound, not the one that grabs a new track every campaign. And almost no one is doing it. An Ipsos study of more than 2,000 ads found audio brand assets in fewer than 10 percent, even though the ads that used sound outperformed those that didn't.
Audio is everywhere now. Podcasts exploded. Streaming replaced the radio dial. Smart speakers and voice assistants put audio in the kitchen and the car, and earbuds keep it in people's ears all day. Every one of those is a surface a sonic identity can live on: the pre-roll before a podcast, the hold music, the voice that answers a smart speaker. And audio reaches people when screens cannot. We can close our eyes, but we cannot close our ears. A billboard cannot follow someone into their AirPods. A sound can.
Insurance already proved it pays. The companies you fight every week built the best sonic branding in America selling something as intangible as a legal service. "Nationwide is on your side." "Like a good neighbor." The Aflac duck. One strategist on the Ad Infinitum podcast calls this auditory ROI, returns the brand banks quietly in the back of the consumer's mind for decades, and a Fortune 100 company on that show called sonic branding "the most leveraged item on its balance sheet." Sound sells the intangible, and we sell the most intangible thing there is, which is trust, before anyone needs it.
More than anything, this is about being remembered. Every distinctive brand asset (the colors, the logos, the sounds) exists to do one thing: surface the brand in memory at the moment of choice. Nowhere does that matter more than in personal injury. The moment a case begins arrives in a panic. Someone gets hurt and reaches for a phone, not comparing firms, but grabbing the name already in their head. A sound you repeated for years surfaces. That is the prize: When an injured person needs a lawyer, yours is the firm they already hear. No one in our industry has claimed it.
This is not about trading the billboard for a sound. The research clearly shows that sight and sound work best together. Pair them, and each triggers the other, so a memory holds far better than either could alone.
Personal injury already owns the eye. The only question is whether your brand is being heard.
♟️STEAL THIS PLAYBOOK
Choose to Be Great Instead of Big
You can build a great personal injury firm without building a big one.
Adam Loewy does exactly that. He runs the Loewy Law Firm in Austin, generates about 600 cases a year, and keeps 100. The rest he refers to lawyers he trusts, for a fee.
He laid out the model on LinkedIn. No massive payroll. No army of associates. A caseload he picked, not one he is stuck feeding.
He tried the bigger version first. More employees, more overhead, more stress, and by his own account, the work got worse. So he stopped.
Growth is the default a lot of attorneys root for. A bigger firm, more offices, more attorneys, more market share, and no shortage of advice on how to get there.
Adam went a different way. He isn't telling anyone to drop their ambition. He's saying the thing the industry rarely says out loud: How big you get is a decision, and you're the one who makes it. "There are many other ways to build a successful law firm," he wrote.
Plenty of owners have had that thought and never found the words for it.
Adam isn't the first to land here. Twenty years ago, the writer Bo Burlingham went looking for companies that turned down growth on purpose. He found enough to fill a book and called them small giants. The subtitle is the whole argument: companies that choose to be great instead of big.
Almost nobody tells you the choice exists. The bankers, the lenders, the advisers around you all assume bigger is the goal.
Sooner or later, that choice comes for every owner.
Every successful firm reaches the same fork. Grow as big and as fast as you can, or stop at a size you love and get great instead. Most owners never even notice the fork is there.
The stories in the book stuck with me. Fritz Maytag had Anchor Brewing lined up for a public offering in the early 1990s, the money ready for a big expansion. He thought about what new investors would want, decided he liked the company the size it was, and walked away.
Gary Erickson did something harder. In 2000 he had the papers drawn up to sell Clif Bar for about $120 million, his cut near $60 million, and backed out at the table. I'm not sure I'd have had the nerve.
Both men kept their companies private, so nobody on the outside could set the growth rate for them. That's the part Burlingham keeps circling back to, and the part that matters most for a law firm.
"Great instead of big" can sound soft, like an excuse to coast. It isn't. It doesn't mean settling for less money. Burlingham spends a whole chapter on the financial discipline these companies need to survive, and the owners he wrote about built real wealth.
Adam's referral model isn't a sacrifice. It's a profit engine. The 500 cases he sends out still pay him.
Your version of the choice may never look like Maytag's IPO or Erickson's buyout. It shows up in the small calls that add up to a size. Whether to open the third office. Whether to take every case your ad spend drags in, or only the ones you're built to win. Whether the number that matters this year is more signed cases or more profit per case.
That's where you choose, whether you notice it or not.
Here's where I land with the owners I talk to:
Pick one thing to be great at. Burlingham's companies earned a name as the best in one narrow lane, not for doing everything. For a personal injury firm that's the gap between a practice known cold for one type of case and a general shop grinding it out on volume.
Protect the firm's mojo. Burlingham borrowed the word from Clif Bar's Gary Erickson for the quality these companies had and couldn't quite name: the feel, the reputation, the way of doing business that made people pick them. Erickson had his own team study how companies lose it. Almost always, they grow too big too fast and let the creativity, the client relationships, and the culture slip. Mojo sounds soft until you remember it's the reason a client trusts your firm and sends you the next one.
Stay private if you want control. The owners in the book held their own stock so outside money couldn't dictate how fast they grew. Take on a private-equity partner or a lender with expansion targets and you trade some of that control for the capital. Both are real choices. They're just not the same choice.
Make referrals the model, not the scraps. Adam's 600 cases feed his firm whether he works them or sends them out. His income runs on which cases he keeps and what the referrals are worth, not on headcount.
Now don't get me wrong. None of this makes going big a bad decision. We covered Morgan & Morgan weighing an IPO a couple weeks ago, and a firm built to operate at national scale is doing exactly what it should.
Read down to the section about this week's Pod and you'll meet Will Hammill and Jack Derrickson scaling Kenneth Nugent hard and doing it beautifully. That's not a contradiction. Like any business, a firm gets to pick its game, and this playbook speaks to the owners who want a different one than the scale game everyone assumes.
My point, and Burlingham's, and Adam's, is simpler than that. Growing as large as you can is one good way to build a firm. Being intentional about how and when you scale, if you scale at all, is also a good way to build a firm. The owners in that book made the call on purpose, instead of letting a banker, a lender, or the market make it for them.
The only outcome worth fearing is regret: building a firm you never really wanted because everyone told you to.
If any of this is rattling around in your head, read Small Giants. It's the best version of the argument I've seen, and I recommend it to any owner sitting with this decision.
📰 TOP OF THE NEWS
Uber's California Fee Cap Is Dead
👏 The ballot measure Uber built to cap California PI fees is dead. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 623 on June 25, a deal between the Consumer Attorneys of California and Uber, and both sides withdrew their competing November initiatives, the Los Angeles Times reported.
For months, Uber bankrolled an initiative to cap what plaintiffs' lawyers could earn on auto cases across the state. The trial bar negotiated that measure off the ballot as part of the deal.
The trade was a set of targeted rules in ride-share cases. Here is what changed.
Investors can't mark up the liens they buy. When a provider sells or transfers a medical lien, the recovery cannot exceed what the buyer paid for it, and the sale agreement becomes discoverable. The provision goes after the private-equity and hedge-fund firms that buy liens at a discount and collect the full amount, money the Consumer Attorneys of California argued belongs to injured clients, not Wall Street.
The law limits what you can recover for lien-based care. In a claim against a ride-share company or its driver, recoverable damages for care from a lien-based provider cannot exceed the 70th percentile of FAIR Health billed charges, a national medical-cost database, for that service in that area. That number is the ceiling to plan around for lien treatment in these cases.
Attorneys can't profit from the care they refer clients to. A contingency-fee attorney cannot refer a client to a provider the attorney or a family member owns, fee-split in connection with lien treatment, or pay for referrals to lien-based providers.
For now, this is ride-share only. It covers claims against ride-share companies and their drivers, for accidents on or after Jan. 1, 2027. The lien-recovery cap is the piece that could spread, since another state could write the same rule for any defendant.
For PI firms, the deal does two things at once. It takes Uber's statewide fee-cap initiative off the ballot, and it writes new lien rules into ride-share cases. The rules around medical liens and referrals just tightened in California, and the same approach could surface in other states.
Google Ads CPC Jumps 15% Across Legal
Legal's average Google Ads cost per click rose about 15% in 2026. It reached $9.87, up from $8.58, while legal's cost per lead held flat at $131.63, per WordStream's 2026 benchmarks.
Legal is the most expensive industry to advertise in. At $9.87 a click and $131.63 a lead, legal carries the highest cost per click and the highest cost per lead in the report.
Within legal, personal injury runs higher. The $131.63 averages every legal practice area together. Personal injury sits at the expensive end. PIM has put a PI lead as high as $200 to $300.
The increase reversed last year's trend. Legal's cost per click fell about 4% in 2025, then rose about 15% in 2026.
The lead cost held at $131.63. Legal's conversion rate climbed from 5.09% to 5.55%, holding the cost per lead flat even as the click got pricier.
For PI firms, these are this year's benchmark numbers to measure a Google Ads account against: $9.87 a click, a 5.55% conversion rate, and $131.63 a lead. Keep in mind they blend every legal practice area together. Personal injury costs more than the rest, so if your clicks and leads run higher than these, that's normal. It doesn't mean your account is broken.
🚀 QUICK HITS
Supreme Court Throws Out a Roundup Cancer Verdict, Threatening Thousands of Claims: The Supreme Court sided with Bayer in a 7-2 decision that overturned a $1.25 million award to a Missouri man who blamed the weedkiller Roundup for his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, The New York Times reported. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that federal pesticide law preempts state failure-to-warn claims, because a cancer warning would conflict with the EPA-approved label. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The ruling could jeopardize thousands of pending Roundup suits against Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018.
New York's 'Billboard Lawyers' Defend Their Subway Ads as the MTA Pushes Tort Reform: New York's "billboard lawyers" defended their subway ads as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's chief backs Gov. Kathy Hochul's auto-insurance reform push, citing the personal injury suits that name the MTA as a "deep pocket," The City Reporter reported. The MTA paid $561 million in claims in 2025, up from $454 million a year earlier. Firms including Morgan & Morgan, Michael Lamonsoff's practice, and Harris Keenan & Goldfarb cover subway cars and stations with ads they buy through Outfront Media, and an American Tort Reform Association report found Morgan & Morgan spent more than $218 million on advertising in 2024.
Rhode Island Joins States Issuing AI Rules for Lawyers: Rhode Island's highest court amended its conduct rules and issued generative-AI guidance, joining a growing list of states setting guardrails for lawyers who use AI, Reuters reported. The guidance requires lawyers to verify AI-generated work, which can fabricate citations, and bars them from billing clients for time AI saves, treating routine AI costs as overhead. It also tells judges that AI must not replace their independent decision-making. The move follows a Florida Supreme Court rule adopted in May and a New York rule effective June 1, both barring fictitious case citations.
Legal-AI Startup Eve Hit With Patent Infringement Lawsuit: Legal-AI company AI.Law sued competitor Eve in California federal court, alleging Eve's technology infringes on its patent for drafting legal documents with AI, Reuters reported. The case ranks among the first patent disputes between rivals in the fast-growing legal-AI sector. San Francisco-based Eve builds tools for plaintiffs' firms, including case evaluation, document drafting, medical chronologies, and discovery, and reached a $1 billion valuation last year on funding from Spark Capital and Andreessen Horowitz. Ohio-based AI.Law, whose platform lists more than 30 AI tools, seeks unspecified monetary damages.
U.K. AI Law Firm Wins Its First Contested Court Trial: Garfield AI, the world's first AI law firm authorized by the U.K.'s Solicitors Regulation Authority, won its first contested case, recovering £7,000 in unpaid fees for a freelancer at Wandsworth County Court in May, City A.M. reported. The SRA licensed Garfield as a law firm rather than a software vendor, and its AI handled the pre-trial work while a junior barrister argued the hearing. The firm has handled more than 600 claims and recovered over £500,000 in just over a year.
California Jury Adds $21 Million in Punitive Damages Over Crosswalk Deaths of Two Brothers: A Los Angeles jury ordered Rebecca Grossman to pay $21 million in punitive damages to the family of two young brothers she struck and killed in a Westlake Village crosswalk, the New York Post reported. The punitive award follows a $176 million compensatory verdict and brings the family's total recovery to roughly $198 million. Jurors found Grossman and co-defendant Scott Erickson, a former Major League pitcher, acted with malice, and ordered Erickson to pay an additional $1.17 million. Grossman, convicted in 2024 of second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter, and hit-and-run, is serving 15 years to life.
💯 NUMBER TO NOTE
Waymo recalled its fleet of nearly 4,000 robotaxis after they drove into closed highway construction zones.
The company restricted the cars from highways and filed a voluntary software recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration after at least 13 robotaxis drove past ramp-closure signs into freeway sections shut for construction, six in Phoenix in April and seven in the San Francisco Bay Area in May, TechCrunch reported.
It is Waymo's sixth recall. Earlier ones addressed robotaxis driving into flooded roads in May and illegal behavior around school buses in December, along with low-speed collisions with gates, chains, and telephone poles.
Federal regulators are already investigating. NHTSA and the NTSB are examining Waymo's driving software after one of its robotaxis struck a child near a school in January.
Waymo is expanding fast. The company has driven more than 170 million autonomous miles and says it causes serious injuries far less often than human drivers. It began highway rides in November and plans to launch in more than 20 cities this year, including London and Tokyo.
For personal injury firms, a driverless fleet failing in documented ways points to a new kind of case, one with a corporate defendant and a public federal record instead of a driver to blame.
🔗 TechCrunch →
🎙️ FROM THE POD
Will Hammill and Jack Derrickson on Building Excellence Into Every Stage of the Pipeline
A strong brand gets the phone to ring. It does not sign the case. Will Hammill and Jack Derrickson run marketing and operations at Kenneth Nugent, a firm that has recovered more than $5 billion for over 300,000 clients and ranks among the most-searched law firms in the country.
Ken Nugent built that brand as an early television adopter, and the name still pulls. But a search surfaces other firms right below it, so Will and Jack stopped treating the brand as the finish line and rebuilt everything behind it.
On PIM Episode 448, we covered how they spread the media mix beyond TV, turned social media into entertainment, rebuilt intake around relentless follow-up, moved cases faster, and made the client experience the thing that brings the next case in. The result: 100 more signed cases a month than a year ago.
They spread the bet beyond TV. Will and Jack moved spend into radio, digital, and social to reach the under-40 audience their TV buy no longer reached. They added reach without cutting the TV buy. With big players and private equity pushing ad costs up every month, the math only holds if each case is worth more, so raising average fees now sits next to signups as the goal.
They treat social media as entertainment, not explainers. Working with Ray Lakhani of Raw Law Media, they dropped the "here's what to do after a crash" format for content people share, with Ken game to be the butt of the joke. One clip of him throwing a coffee cup at a car pulled roughly 800,000 views.
They win on the chase, not the click. A strong brand makes the phone ring, but as Jack puts it, "there's four other names sitting right below our name" in the results. New intake leadership and a relentless follow-up routine across texts, calls, and emails reversed a decline in signups.
They cut time on desk to protect the brand. Will's team centralized case-management functions to move cases faster, get records and liens done sooner, and push more files into suit, where an offer of settlement brings insurers to the table. Speed is the client's top concern, and a slow case turns a happy client unhappy.
They make client experience the referral engine. Every team member has a direct line, every phase change triggers a one-question net-promoter survey, and the firm holds thousands of organic reviews it never paid for. Referrals and returning clients already make up 35 to 40% of monthly business.
Treat every client the same, because a $2,000 settlement could mean well more than a $50,000 settlement to somebody else.
The takeaway for PI firms: The brand gets the call. The pipeline wins the case. Pull your own numbers from the first click to the signed case to the review, and find the stage that leaks. A strong name only buys attention. If intake is slow or the experience is thin, that name sends the client to the firms listed right below you.
Will and Jack go deeper on their omni-channel playbook at PIMCON 2026, October 4-6 in Scottsdale. Get tickets.
Here's our full conversation:
🤖 AI SEARCH TIP OF THE WEEK
Ranking your own firm number one on a "best [city] lawyer" page can now hand the AI recommendation to your competitors. Across 100 "best [category]" queries in Google's AI Overviews, SEO researcher Lily Ray found that Google's AI cited a brand's self-ranking listicle but left it out of the recommendation 69% of the time, often naming the rivals listed in the article instead. Google appears to have split what it cites from who it recommends, and the recommendation goes to the firms the rest of the web talks about.
The action this week: Search your top "best [city] [practice] lawyer" queries in AI Overviews and AI Mode. If Google cites a self-ranking page of yours while your firm sits out of the recommendation, it is feeding an answer that names someone else. Rework it to earn mentions elsewhere, and keep self-"best" claims off the page, where Rule 7.1 wants them anyway.
🛠️ TOOL OF THE WEEK
Attorney Share Routes the Cases You Decline to Co-Counsel and Matches You With New Ones
Every PI firm turns away cases it can't work, and most of that value walks out the door. Attorney Share is a platform built to keep it.
You set your practice areas and jurisdictions once, route the cases you decline out to co-counsel, and take in matched cases other firms send. The platform tracks every file through resolution.
The company says more than 5,000 firms use the platform and post over 3,000 new cases a month.
Attorney Share is referral plumbing, not a lead vendor. It moves cases between firms you choose and stays out of the representation once you connect.
It never touches your co-counsel fee. Joining and browsing are free, and the receiving firm pays only on cases it signs. Attorney Share lists that match fee at $49 to $299 per signed case, with a $999-a-month premium tier that drops it to zero. The platform takes no percentage of the fee split itself.
AI scores every case before it reaches you. Each one comes graded Excellent, Strong, Fair, or Limited, so you work the strongest first, and auto-proposals can fire on cases that fit your filters. Those grades are the platform's own read, so treat them as a first pass, not a verdict.
It rides on the CMS you already use. Attorney Share connects to Clio, MyCase, Salesforce/Litify, and Lead Docket, pulls the case details in, and syncs status both ways so neither side chases updates. One Texas PI firm describes hitting "refer" in Lead Docket and letting the tool carry the file over.
You deal attorney-to-attorney. Once a case matches, you connect directly with the other firm and Attorney Share steps out of the transaction. The platform routes and tracks the case. It does not sit between you and your client.
Attorney Share earns a look at high-volume PI and mass-tort firms with a steady flow of cases to refer out or take in. Its receiving attorneys point to the out-of-jurisdiction and disaster work, like Eaton Fire claims sent to firms that handle them.
The 5,000-firm and 3,000-case figures come from the company. Judge it on the case quality and the match fees you see, not the homepage stats.
One thing to settle before you switch it on. Attorney Share calls itself a technology platform, not an attorney referral service, and puts compliance on you.
Every referral still needs the client's informed consent and disclosure, and the fee division has to satisfy your jurisdiction's rules under ABA Model Rule 1.5(e) and its state versions. Run it past your ethics counsel first.
🔗 Attorney Share →
Disclaimer: Personal Injury Mastermind takes all reasonable steps to ensure accuracy in the materials we share, including articles, newsletters, and reports. These materials are intended for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. They may not reflect the most current laws or regulations. Always consult a qualified attorney for advice on a specific legal matter.
Thanks for reading. Quick ask…if you know someone who’d benefit from this content, please forward this to them. I’ll be back next week. - Chris
Received this newsletter from someone else? Subscribe below. Questions or want to sponsor this newsletter? Contact us at [email protected].