“Lawmatics already reports on our sources.”
On leads and stages, which it sees. It has no view of the fee, because the money is billed in another system.
For Lawmatics
Export your leads from Lawmatics, match them against collected fees, and rank intake sources on what they actually produced.
No API key Nothing to install in LawmaticsNothing to install No card requiredNo card
Lawmatics sits on the lead side in CloseRev, and it is one of the strongest lead files in this catalogue: it holds the enquiry, the source, the campaign and every stage the intake team moved it through. What it cannot see is the fee, because the money is billed somewhere else. Matching its leads against collected fees from the practice management system completes the picture. Fees with no traceable lead are reported as Direct / Unknown.
Last checked against Lawmatics's own documentation on September 24, 2026.
The gap
Consultations booked is the number everyone watches, and it is two steps away from anything the firm banks.
What was sold, to whom, and for how much.
The click, the keyword, the call, and what each one cost.
The file
Three things carry the match: who, how much, and when. Anything else is optional and only changes how the report can be sliced.
Captured at enquiry. Intake software keeps this cleaner than almost any other system a firm runs.
Where the enquiry came from, as recorded at capture rather than reconstructed later.
When it arrived and how far it got. The stage it stopped at is the diagnostic half of this report.
Which area the enquiry was for. Fee economics differ enough that a blended ranking is rarely usable.
Step by step
Written for somebody with Lawmatics open in the next tab. Report names vary by edition, so each step says what to look for.
One row per lead with a contact detail, the source, the date and the furthest stage reached.
From the practice management or billing system: client contact detail, amount, date.
They are most of the file and all of the cost. A report on signed clients alone cannot rank a source.
Longer where the practice areas are slow. The window should fit the fee, not the funnel.
The join runs on the phone and the email, normalised, with the stage reached carried through.
What comes back
Revenue by channel, the count of sales behind each figure, and an honest bucket for the ones nobody could trace. Sample figures, from the worked example on the Law Firms page — not from a Lawmatics account.
| Channel | Share | Sales | Revenue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Google Ads | 18 | $312,000 | |
| Meta Ads | 6 | $54,000 | |
| Email marketing | 3 | $30,000 | |
| Direct / Unknown | 14 | $204,000 |
Unmatched sales stay in Direct / Unknown. They are never spread across the paid channels to make the total look better.
The argument
Most of this catalogue describes systems holding the money, and the persistent problem is that the lead side does not exist in any usable form.
A firm running intake properly already has it: every enquiry, its source, its campaign and its progress, recorded at the moment it arrived rather than remembered afterwards.
That makes the match unusually clean, and it means the work is mostly on the other side — getting collected fees out of the billing system in the same shape.
It also means the resulting report can be trusted at a finer grain than usual, down to campaign rather than merely channel.
Firms in this position are the ones for whom honest attribution is cheapest, and they are frequently the ones not doing it.
An enquiry that never got a call back, one that booked a consultation and did not attend, and one that attended and did not sign are three different failures.
They have three different fixes — staffing, confirmation process, the consultation itself — and only one of them is a reason to change the marketing.
Because the stage history is in the file, the report can show where each source's leads stop, not merely how many produced fees.
The most common finding is that a source blamed for poor quality was producing leads nobody reached within a day.
Cutting that source would have removed the symptom and kept the cause, which is the outcome this report exists to prevent.
It is the metric intake teams are measured on because it is available immediately, and it is only loosely connected to fee revenue.
Sources that produce willing consultation-takers and few signed clients score well on it indefinitely, and nothing inside the funnel contradicts that.
Fees collected per lead, measured over a year, reorders the list and usually vindicates one source that the booking metric had buried.
Neither number is wrong; they measure different things, and only one of them is what the firm banks.
The report shows both side by side so the gap is visible rather than argued about.
A firm handling several areas has different fee sizes, cycle lengths and conversion patterns in each, and a blended cost per client describes none of them.
A source producing mostly one area will be judged as though it produced the mix, which is how a good specialist channel gets cut.
Where the export carries the practice area, the report splits on it and each area gets its own ranking and its own window.
That is usually the difference between a report that confirms what everyone assumed and one that changes where the budget goes.
Fair questions
On leads and stages, which it sees. It has no view of the fee, because the money is billed in another system.
Which is available the same day and only loosely connected to what the firm banks. The report shows both.
They do, and they are the cost of the source. Excluding them makes the noisiest channel look efficient.
No. It reads an exported file, so your intake records, forms and automations stay where they are.
The lead side, and an unusually good one. Collected fees from the billing system are the other half.
Leads with a contact detail, the source, the date and the stage reached, plus collected fees with amounts and dates.
Because where a lead stopped tells you whether you have a marketing problem or an operations one.
Yes. They are most of the file and all of the cost.
A year at minimum, longer for slow practice areas. The window should fit the fee, not the funnel.
Yes, where the export carries it, and it usually turns the report into a set of decisions.
As fine as capture recorded — often to campaign, which is finer than most lead files allow.
Reported separately. That is a staffing finding, and cutting the source would remove the symptom and keep the cause.
Any fee with no traceable lead. Its size is stated rather than distributed.
A contact detail, a source and a date on one side; a contact detail, an amount and a date on the other. No case facts, no documents, no message content. Encrypted in transit and at rest and deleted with the import.
Collected fees per source and campaign, beside consultations booked, with the stopping stage shown and everything unmatched kept visible.
By trade
What the report looks like once the export is in, written for each one.
Other systems
Running more than one system, or comparing? The method is the same and the columns are not.
Lawmatics and the other product names and logos on this page belong to their owners and are shown to identify the software a file comes from. CloseRev is not affiliated with or endorsed by them, and connects to none of them: it reads a file you export.
Start today
Nothing to install in Lawmatics, no API key, and no need to have been tracking anything until now. Last year works as well as this month.