Bankruptcy Lawyers AI Visibility Ranking Trends - November 2026

Answer capsule

The November 2026 Bankruptcy Lawyers benchmark compares 10 companies across 122 AI answers that met its inclusion rules. Upsolve leads with 19 recommendations (15.57% of answers). At least one tracked company was recommended in 24 answers; some answers recommended several companies.

The rankings distinguish being mentioned from receiving an affirmative recommendation, then examine placement and the wording used about each company. Earlier monthly results show how counts and rates changed, with each month using its own answer total. These results describe the answers reviewed, not product quality or customer satisfaction. Differences between monthly samples limit comparisons and do not establish why a result changed.

For the strategic interpretation of this benchmark, read CiteWorks Studio's analysis of How AI Search Is Recommending Bankruptcy Lawyers

Industry leaderboard

Questions This Section Answers

• How do Bankruptcy Lawyers rank by recorded AI recommendations in November 2026?

The leaderboard orders companies by recommendation count, meaning the number of reviewed AI answers that affirmatively endorsed each firm. This is a narrower measure than mention, which only requires the company to appear. A high mention count with few recommendations signals presence without endorsement.

Ties occur when companies share the same recommendation count, so equal ranks do not imply equal visibility or framing. Placement figures are nested within recommendations rather than separate wins, and framing describes wording rather than company quality.

Key findings

Tracked-company answer coverage

Questions This Section Answers

• How often did the November 2026 Bankruptcy Lawyers answer sample recommend any tracked company?

24 distinct answers recommended at least one tracked company. Counting each company recommendation separately gives 24, because an answer can recommend several companies. Answers with no tracked recommendation may still have recommended companies outside this comparison.

Every qualified answer mentioned at least one tracked company, yet only a minority recommended one. That gap separates appearance from endorsement: a firm can be named in an answer without being put forward as a choice.

No answer recommended more than one tracked company, so recommendation counts here do not overlap across firms. Answers without a tracked recommendation may still have named companies outside this comparison, so coverage describes this tracked set rather than the whole market.

Reach and affirmative recommendation

Upsolve ranks 1 by recommendation count. Mentions: 77 (63.11%); recommendations: 19 (15.57%). Top 3 placements: 9 (7.38%); first-place placements: 9 (7.38%).

Wording about the company: 23 positive, 52 neutral, 2 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 24.7%. The net framing score was 0.27 (defined in Methodology).

58 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 47.37% were Top 3 and 47.37% were first-place.

Upsolve illustrates why reach and endorsement diverge. It appeared in most answers but was recommended in a much smaller share, and most of its mentions carried no recommendation. Its placements were a subset of those recommendations, not additional wins.

DebtStoppers shows the opposite pattern at a smaller scale: fewer appearances, but a larger share of them paired with endorsement. Neither pattern establishes why answers endorsed or withheld support.

Recommendation order and placement

Placement describes where a recommended company sat in an answer's ordering. Top-three and first-place counts are nested inside recommendations, so they should not be added to recommendation totals or read as separate victories.

Upsolve and DebtStoppers recorded placements; the remaining companies recorded none. Recommendation-to-mention ratios describe the recorded answers only. Where a company had no mentions, the ratio is undefined rather than zero, and sparse bases make strong ratios fragile.

Classified framing in context

Framing classifies the wording surrounding each mention as positive, neutral or negative. It is not customer sentiment, reputation or a judgment of company quality, and neutral wording does not explain why an endorsement was or was not recorded.

Most mentions across companies were neutral. Upsolve and DebtStoppers carried some positive wording, while The Semrad Law Firm recorded a negative mention. These classifications describe the selected answers, not the firms themselves.

Company results in detail

Upsolve

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about Upsolve mentions, recommendations and placement?

Upsolve ranks 1 by recommendation count. Mentions: 77 (63.11%); recommendations: 19 (15.57%). Top 3 placements: 9 (7.38%); first-place placements: 9 (7.38%).

Wording about the company: 23 positive, 52 neutral, 2 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 24.7%. The net framing score was 0.27 (defined in Methodology).

58 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 47.37% were Top 3 and 47.37% were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Upsolve's mention count fell from 95 to 77, while its recommendation count fell from 26 to 19. The recommendation rate was 22.81% and 15.57% respectively.

Upsolve led on recommendation count and appeared in most answers, but only a minority of its mentions also carried an endorsement. Most of its wording was neutral, with a smaller positive share and few negative mentions.

Its placements were entirely within its recommendations. The prior month recorded higher mention and recommendation counts; the samples differ, so the comparison shows change without explaining it.

DebtStoppers

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about DebtStoppers mentions, recommendations and placement?

DebtStoppers ranks 2 by recommendation count. Mentions: 11 (9.02%); recommendations: 5 (4.10%). Top 3 placements: 3 (2.46%); first-place placements: 3 (2.46%).

Wording about the company: 5 positive, 6 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 45.5%. The net framing score was 0.45 (defined in Methodology).

6 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 60.00% were Top 3 and 60.00% were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, DebtStoppers' mention count rose from 5 to 11, while its recommendation count rose from 0 to 5. The recommendation rate was 0.00% and 4.10% respectively.

DebtStoppers ranked second on recommendations despite far fewer mentions than the leader. Nearly half its appearances paired with an endorsement, a high ratio on a small base, and all its placements fell within those recommendations.

Its wording was mostly positive or neutral with no negative mentions. The prior month recorded no recommendations; the comparison is between separate samples and does not establish why the change occurred.

Allmand Law

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about Allmand Law mentions, recommendations and placement?

Allmand Law ranks 3 by recommendation count. Mentions: 6 (4.92%); recommendations: 0 (0.00%). Top 3 placements: 0 (0.00%); first-place placements: 0 (0.00%).

Wording about the company: 3 positive, 3 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 0.0%. The net framing score was 0.50 (defined in Methodology).

6 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, Unavailable were Top 3 and Unavailable were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Allmand Law's mention count rose from 4 to 6, while its recommendation count fell from 4 to 0. The recommendation rate was 3.51% and 0.00% respectively.

Allmand Law appeared in a handful of answers, with wording split between positive and neutral, yet recorded no recommendations or placements. Its mentions therefore represent presence without affirmative endorsement.

The prior month recorded recommendations that are absent this month. Because the monthly samples differ, the comparison documents the change without identifying its cause.

Cibik Law

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about Cibik Law mentions, recommendations and placement?

Cibik Law ranks 3 by recommendation count. Mentions: 0 (0.00%); recommendations: 0 (0.00%). Top 3 placements: 0 (0.00%); first-place placements: 0 (0.00%).

Wording about the company: 0 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was Unavailable. The net framing score was Unavailable (defined in Methodology).

0 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, Unavailable were Top 3 and Unavailable were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Cibik Law's mention count fell from 3 to 0, while its recommendation count fell from 3 to 0. The recommendation rate was 2.63% and 0.00% respectively.

Cibik Law recorded no mentions, recommendations or placements this month, so its framing score and recommendation-to-mention ratio are undefined rather than zero. These are measured results, not missing observations.

The prior month recorded a small number of mentions and recommendations. The comparison spans separate samples and does not establish why the counts changed.

Fears Nachawati

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about Fears Nachawati mentions, recommendations and placement?

Fears Nachawati ranks 3 by recommendation count. Mentions: 0 (0.00%); recommendations: 0 (0.00%). Top 3 placements: 0 (0.00%); first-place placements: 0 (0.00%).

Wording about the company: 0 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was Unavailable. The net framing score was Unavailable (defined in Methodology).

0 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, Unavailable were Top 3 and Unavailable were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Fears Nachawati's mention count stayed at 0, while its recommendation count stayed at 0. The recommendation rate was 0.00% and 0.00% respectively.

Fears Nachawati recorded no mentions, recommendations or placements this month, leaving its framing score and recommendation-to-mention ratio undefined. A zero count is a measured outcome, not an absent record.

The prior month also recorded no mentions or recommendations, so the recorded position is consistent across the two samples without implying anything about future results.

Heupel Law

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about Heupel Law mentions, recommendations and placement?

Heupel Law ranks 3 by recommendation count. Mentions: 0 (0.00%); recommendations: 0 (0.00%). Top 3 placements: 0 (0.00%); first-place placements: 0 (0.00%).

Wording about the company: 0 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was Unavailable. The net framing score was Unavailable (defined in Methodology).

0 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, Unavailable were Top 3 and Unavailable were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Heupel Law's mention count stayed at 0, while its recommendation count stayed at 0. The recommendation rate was 0.00% and 0.00% respectively.

Heupel Law recorded no mentions, recommendations or placements this month, so ratios requiring a nonzero base are undefined. The zero counts are measured results rather than gaps in the record.

The prior month likewise recorded no mentions or recommendations. This continuity describes the two selected samples only and does not establish why the firm was absent from the answers.

John T. Orcutt

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about John T. Orcutt mentions, recommendations and placement?

John T. Orcutt ranks 3 by recommendation count. Mentions: 8 (6.56%); recommendations: 0 (0.00%). Top 3 placements: 0 (0.00%); first-place placements: 0 (0.00%).

Wording about the company: 0 positive, 8 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 0.0%. The net framing score was 0.00 (defined in Methodology).

8 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, Unavailable were Top 3 and Unavailable were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, John T. Orcutt's mention count stayed at 8, while its recommendation count fell from 7 to 0. The recommendation rate was 6.14% and 0.00% respectively.

John T. Orcutt appeared in several answers, all with neutral wording, but received no recommendations or placements. Its mentions therefore reflect presence without endorsement, and its recommendation-to-mention ratio is zero.

Its mention count matched the prior month, while recommendations fell from a positive figure to zero. The samples differ, so the comparison records the change without explaining it.

Sasser Law Firm

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about Sasser Law Firm mentions, recommendations and placement?

Sasser Law Firm ranks 3 by recommendation count. Mentions: 4 (3.28%); recommendations: 0 (0.00%). Top 3 placements: 0 (0.00%); first-place placements: 0 (0.00%).

Wording about the company: 0 positive, 4 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 0.0%. The net framing score was 0.00 (defined in Methodology).

4 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, Unavailable were Top 3 and Unavailable were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Sasser Law Firm's mention count fell from 8 to 4, while its recommendation count fell from 8 to 0. The recommendation rate was 7.02% and 0.00% respectively.

Sasser Law Firm appeared in a few answers, all neutrally worded, with no recommendations or placements recorded. Its mentions show presence without endorsement, and its recommendation-to-mention ratio is zero.

Both its mention and recommendation counts were lower than in the prior month. Because the monthly samples differ, the comparison documents the change without attributing it to any cause.

The Semrad Law Firm

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about The Semrad Law Firm mentions, recommendations and placement?

The Semrad Law Firm ranks 3 by recommendation count. Mentions: 6 (4.92%); recommendations: 0 (0.00%). Top 3 placements: 0 (0.00%); first-place placements: 0 (0.00%).

Wording about the company: 0 positive, 5 neutral, 1 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 0.0%. The net framing score was -0.17 (defined in Methodology).

6 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, Unavailable were Top 3 and Unavailable were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, The Semrad Law Firm's mention count rose from 0 to 6, while its recommendation count stayed at 0. The recommendation rate was 0.00% and 0.00% respectively.

The Semrad Law Firm appeared in several answers with no recommendations or placements. Its wording was mostly neutral, with one negative mention, giving it a slightly negative framing score.

Its mentions rose from none in the prior month while recommendations stayed at zero. The comparison spans separate samples and does not establish why the firm appeared without endorsement.

Tully Rinckey

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about Tully Rinckey mentions, recommendations and placement?

Tully Rinckey ranks 3 by recommendation count. Mentions: 19 (15.57%); recommendations: 0 (0.00%). Top 3 placements: 0 (0.00%); first-place placements: 0 (0.00%).

Wording about the company: 0 positive, 19 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 0.0%. The net framing score was 0.00 (defined in Methodology).

19 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, Unavailable were Top 3 and Unavailable were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Tully Rinckey's mention count rose from 0 to 19, while its recommendation count stayed at 0. The recommendation rate was 0.00% and 0.00% respectively.

Tully Rinckey appeared in a substantial number of answers, all neutrally worded, yet recorded no recommendations or placements. Its reach was therefore broader than several peers despite no affirmative endorsement.

Its mentions rose from none in the prior month while recommendations stayed at zero. The samples differ, so the comparison shows the change without explaining it.

Earlier ranking snapshot context

Questions This Section Answers

• How do the available Bankruptcy Lawyers snapshots from July 2026 to November 2026 differ in recommendation coverage and measurement scope?

Only months with verified results are shown. Monthly sample coverage is listed in Methodology.

Earlier months are separate selected samples with differing answer totals, so counts and rates should be read together rather than compared as equivalent measurements. A lower count can accompany a higher rate, and vice versa.

Rank positions across months describe those samples, not stability or movement in a fixed population. The comparisons show how recorded results changed; they do not establish why.

What the November Rankings Show

These measures answer different questions. Mention asks whether a company appeared; recommendation asks whether an answer affirmatively endorsed it; placement asks where an endorsed company sat; framing asks how the wording read. A firm can be visible without being recommended, and recommended without leading an answer.

Upsolve combined broad reach with a modest endorsement share, while DebtStoppers paired fewer appearances with a higher endorsement ratio on a small base. Several firms appeared without any recommendation, and some recorded no presence at all. These are descriptions of the reviewed answers, not evidence about the companies or their customers.

Methodology

Questions This Section Answers

• How were the November 2026 Bankruptcy Lawyers AI visibility measures counted, and what do they not establish?

This benchmark has partial coverage: 2 of 3 planned question categories contributed usable observations; 1 contributed none. This describes question-category coverage, not demonstrated platform outages. Findings apply to the available answer set.

The month in the title is the reporting period. The exact dates when the original AI answers were collected have not been verified.

Each company is counted at most once in each answer that meets the benchmark rules. A recommendation requires both an affirmative endorsement and positive wording. Mention, recommendation, Top 3 and first-place rates use the full benchmark answer total. Top 3 and first-place results are included within recommendations, not added to them.

The recommendation-to-mention ratio divides recommendations by mentions. It describes AI answer wording, not customer conversion. Net framing is positive minus negative mentions, divided by all mentions, on a scale from -1 to +1. It does not measure customer satisfaction or company quality.

Market: US; 10 tracked companies. AI services represented: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Google AI Mode, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity.

Research screening totals (answer observations can include repeated questions):

The source does not provide a reader-facing definition of “reserved”; that screening label is reported without inferring a reason for exclusion. Only the included benchmark answers form the rate denominator.

One answer can mention or recommend several companies. Adding company totals would therefore count some answers more than once. The results describe the AI answers reviewed, not independently verified facts about the companies or their products.

Monthly sample coverage:

The answer samples differ between months. These comparisons show how the recorded results changed; they do not establish why they changed.

Coverage is partial: only some planned question categories contributed usable answers, and findings apply to that available set. The reporting month labels the period, though exact collection dates were not verified. Each company counts at most once per qualifying answer, and placement results sit inside recommendations rather than alongside them.

Rates use the full benchmark answer total, and the recommendation-to-mention ratio describes answer wording, not conversion. Net framing is a wording score, not customer satisfaction. Monthly samples differ, so comparisons show recorded change without establishing cause.