AI Doesn't Know You Exist -
We Have the Research to Prove It
The Women's AI Visibility Institute Conducts the Nation's Most Rigorous State-by-State Research on AI Bias in the Legal Profession and the Solutions to Close the Gap.
2 States | 545 Women Attorneys | 3 AI Platforms
The Nation's Most Comprehensive Research on AI Visibility Bias in Law
When a Potential Client Asks AI Who to Hire - Will your Name Come Up?
Your potential clients are already using ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity to find attorneys. They're not Googling. They're asking AI. And AI is answering, just not with your name.
​
Our research across 545 women attorneys in Colorado and Texas reveals a systematic, measurable pattern: women attorneys are being left out of AI recommendations at alarming rates. Not because they lack credentials. Not because they lack experience. Because AI systems were trained on a digital record that underrepresents women, and most attorneys don't yet know how to fix it. This is the Double Bias Problem. And it's solvable.
The Texas Results are In
336 Women Attorneys. Three AI Platforms. One Undeniable Pattern.
Our 2026 Texas Women Attorneys AI Visibility Report, the most comprehensive study of its kind, reveals what's really happening when potential client search for legal help.
51.8% of Texas women attorneys score below the AI visibility threshold, effectively invisible when clients ask AI whom to hire.
​
28% of attorneys with schema markup have the right kind, while 72% have a false signal that appears correct but tells AI the wrong thing about who they are.
​
​
​
Texas Key Findings
The Visibility Gap
51.8% of Texas women attorneys score below the visibility threshold, scoring under 40 out of 100.
When a client asks AI for an attorney recommendation, more than half of these highly qualified women are simply not in the conversation.
​
The False Presence Problem
84% of Texas women attorney websites have schema markup.
But only 28% use the correct LegalService designation. The rest have code that looks right, but signals the wrong thing. A false presence that may actually mislead AI systems. ​
​​
​
The Citation Divide
Attorneys who appear in AI citations average 71.8/100.
Those who don't: average 41.0/100. A 30-point gap separates the visible from the invisible, and it's entirely addressable with the right technical strategy.
​​
​​
​
Would AI Recommend You to Your Next Client?
Most Attorneys assume they're visible.
Our research says otherwise.
Colorado Key Findings
Widespread Invisibility on ChatGPT
69.4% of Colorado women attorneys scored below 60 points on ChatGPT, below the visibility threshold. Only 30.6% achieved meaningful AI visibility on the platform most clients use first.
​
The Platform Gap
Gemini averaged 64.1/95 points. ChatGPT averaged 51.8/95. A 12.3-point gap between platforms proving that platform-specific optimization is not optional. It's essential.
The Schema Markup Crisis
94% of Colorado women attorneys lack proper schema markup. 14.2% have schema that AI crawlers can't even access, a wasted investment. Only 17.7% have both accessible and properly tagged schema.
​​
​
AI recommends People not Firms
Inaugural Colorado Report
WAV's proprietary framework evaluates 209 women attorneys across 19 comprehensive criteria, across both ChatGPT and Gemini platforms.
Phase 2, is our dual-analysis methodology examines:
1. Schema Quality Assessment - what schema markup exists and how well it's implemented, using Google Rich Results Test to evaluate quality and completeness.
2. Technical Accessibility Audit - whether AI crawlers can actually access that schema, using specialized crawler simulation to test server permissions and blocking rules.
Why both matter: You can have perfect schema markup that AI never sees due to server blocking, or you can have accessible servers with no schema to read. Both paths must be clear for AI visibility.
Where AI Actually Looks for You
That's the Million Dollar Question
When ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity recommend an attorney, they're not just reading your firm website. They're pulling from the places prospective clients already trust, LinkedIn profiles and legal directories like AVVO, Super Lawyers, Martindale-Hubbell, and Google Business Profile. Our Perplexity citation analysis across 545+ women attorneys found that nearly 1 in 5 AI citations come from LinkedIn and directory listings. Yet most attorneys have never optimized these profiles for AI discoverability. A complete LinkedIn profile isn't the same as an AI-readable one. A claimed directory listing isn't the same as an optimized one. We audit both on the same rigorous framework we use for our state reports.
How We Help
Research Reports
State-level AI visibility studies that document the gap with real data. Attorneys, bar associations, and legal organizations use our reports to understand the scope of the problem.
Individual Audits
Your personalized AI visibility score measured across ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity using our 20-point framework. Know exactly where you stand and what to fix.
LinkedIn Audit
Your LinkedIn profile is scored across ChaGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity using WAVI's 20-point framework, which evaluates profile structure, expertise signals, activity, and cross-platform recognition. You receive a composite score, a criterion-by-criterion breakdown.
Legal Directory Audit
A comprehensive review of your presence across the four directories that most influence AI platform citations and client referrals: Google Business Profile, AVVO, Super Lawyers, and Martindale-Hubbell. Each directory is scored on our 12-point framework, and you receive a remediation plan.
Florida Report coming Soon
Our third state report and the most comprehensive AI visibility study we've ever conducted. This edition introduces full platform citation source analysis across all three AI platforms, and a deeper look at the "Double Bias Problem, the compounding effect of historical training data and underrepresentation, and live web bias.
The Bottom Line
Traditional marketing success doesn't guarantee AI visibility. Attorneys with strong traditional SEO, active social media, and professional accolades were still largely invisible to AI recommendation systems. Our dual-analysis approach, testing both schema quality AND crawler accessibility, revealed that 98% of Colorado law firms have problems with one or both.