Divorce Lawyers AI Visibility Ranking Trends - November 2026

Answer capsule

The November 2026 Divorce Lawyers benchmark compares 10 companies across 231 AI answers that met its inclusion rules. Cordell & Cordell leads with 51 recommendations (22.08% of answers). At least one tracked company was recommended in 96 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 Divorce Lawyers

Industry leaderboard

Questions This Section Answers

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

The leaderboard orders companies by how many recorded answers affirmatively recommended them. That count is not the same as appearing in an answer, and it is not the same as being placed near the top of a list. A company can be mentioned often yet recommended rarely, so the columns answer different questions.

Ties reflect equal recommendation counts, not shared wording or placement. Placement figures sit inside the recommendation totals rather than beside them, so they should be read as subsets. Rates divide by the full answer total, which lets months with different answer counts be compared cautiously.

Key findings

Tracked-company answer coverage

Questions This Section Answers

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

96 distinct answers recommended at least one tracked company. Counting each company recommendation separately gives 116, because an answer can recommend several companies. Answers with no tracked recommendation may still have recommended companies outside this comparison.

Every included answer mentioned at least one tracked company, so mention coverage is complete by construction. Affirmative recommendation is far narrower: fewer than half of the answers recommended any tracked company, and only a small minority recommended more than one.

Because an answer can name several firms, company recommendation counts sum to more than the number of answers carrying a recommendation. The remaining answers may still have named firms outside this comparison. Coverage therefore describes presence in these answers, not overall market share.

Reach and affirmative recommendation

Cordell & Cordell ranks 1 by recommendation count. Mentions: 147 (63.64%); recommendations: 51 (22.08%). Top 3 placements: 49 (21.21%); first-place placements: 47 (20.35%).

Wording about the company: 54 positive, 88 neutral, 5 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 34.7%. The net framing score was 0.33 (defined in Methodology).

96 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 96.08% were Top 3 and 92.16% were first-place.

Mention and recommendation are separate measurements. A mention records that a company appeared in an answer; a recommendation requires an affirmative endorsement. Cordell & Cordell leads on recommendation count, but many of its mentions carried no recorded recommendation, so reach and endorsement diverge.

Placement is a further subset: first-place results are contained within shortlist placements, which are contained within recommendations. They are not additional wins. The recorded answers show ordering, not customer choice or conversion.

Recommendation order and placement

Placement describes where a recommended company sat within an answer's ordering. Top-three and first-place counts are nested inside recommendation totals, so they should not be added to recommendations or read as separate endorsements. A company with no first-place results can still hold shortlist placements.

Recommendation-to-mention ratios describe the recorded answers only. A high ratio on a small mention base is fragile, and a low ratio does not by itself show weaker standing. These are wording patterns, not sales outcomes.

Classified framing in context

Framing classifies the wording surrounding each mention as positive, neutral or negative. It is not customer sentiment, reputation or a quality judgment. Most mentions in these answers were neutral, and negative wording was rare and concentrated in one profile.

Neutral wording can accompany a recommendation, and positive wording does not guarantee one. The net framing score summarizes tone balance across mentions, but it does not explain why a recommendation was or was not recorded.

Company results in detail

Cordell & Cordell

Questions This Section Answers

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

Cordell & Cordell ranks 1 by recommendation count. Mentions: 147 (63.64%); recommendations: 51 (22.08%). Top 3 placements: 49 (21.21%); first-place placements: 47 (20.35%).

Wording about the company: 54 positive, 88 neutral, 5 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 34.7%. The net framing score was 0.33 (defined in Methodology).

96 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 96.08% were Top 3 and 92.16% were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Cordell & Cordell's mention count rose from 126 to 147, while its recommendation count fell from 89 to 51. The recommendation rate was 50.00% and 22.08% respectively.

Cordell & Cordell holds the top recommendation count and the widest mention reach in these answers. Its mentions were mostly neutral, with a substantial positive share and few negative ones. Recommendation followed mention in roughly a third of cases, and nearly all recorded recommendations placed it in the top three, most of them first.

Between the two most recent months, mentions rose while recommendations fell, so the recommendation rate declined. The samples differ, and the recorded comparison does not establish why the counts moved.

Stange Law Firm

Questions This Section Answers

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

Stange Law Firm ranks 2 by recommendation count. Mentions: 52 (22.51%); recommendations: 31 (13.42%). Top 3 placements: 22 (9.52%); first-place placements: 10 (4.33%).

Wording about the company: 31 positive, 21 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 59.6%. The net framing score was 0.60 (defined in Methodology).

21 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 70.97% were Top 3 and 32.26% were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Stange Law Firm's mention count fell from 65 to 52, while its recommendation count fell from 59 to 31. The recommendation rate was 33.15% and 13.42% respectively.

Stange Law Firm ranks second on recommendation count with a moderate mention base. Its wording was predominantly positive with no negative mentions, and a clear majority of its mentions also carried a recommendation. Among its recommendations, most were shortlist placements, with a smaller first-place share.

Both mentions and recommendations were lower than in the prior month, and the recommendation rate also fell. Because the monthly answer samples are separate, the comparison shows what was recorded, not a cause.

McKinley Irvin

Questions This Section Answers

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

McKinley Irvin ranks 3 by recommendation count. Mentions: 23 (9.96%); recommendations: 15 (6.49%). Top 3 placements: 15 (6.49%); first-place placements: 12 (5.19%).

Wording about the company: 15 positive, 8 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 65.2%. The net framing score was 0.65 (defined in Methodology).

8 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 100.00% were Top 3 and 80.00% were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, McKinley Irvin's mention count rose from 14 to 23, while its recommendation count rose from 13 to 15. The recommendation rate was 7.30% and 6.49% respectively.

McKinley Irvin combines a modest mention base with a high recommendation-to-mention ratio and strongly positive framing, with no negative mentions. Every recorded recommendation placed it in the top three, and most of those were first-place. This is a concentrated pattern rather than broad reach.

Mentions and recommendations both rose from the prior month, while the recommendation rate eased slightly against a larger answer total. The comparison is descriptive only.

Goldberg Jones

Questions This Section Answers

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

Goldberg Jones ranks 4 by recommendation count. Mentions: 17 (7.36%); recommendations: 7 (3.03%). Top 3 placements: 5 (2.16%); first-place placements: 0 (0.00%).

Wording about the company: 7 positive, 10 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 41.2%. The net framing score was 0.41 (defined in Methodology).

10 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 71.43% were Top 3 and 0.00% were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Goldberg Jones' mention count rose from 12 to 17, while its recommendation count fell from 12 to 7. The recommendation rate was 6.74% and 3.03% respectively.

Goldberg Jones appears in a small set of answers with mixed positive and neutral wording and no negative mentions. Its recommendation-to-mention ratio is moderate, and its shortlist placements are limited; notably, none of its recorded recommendations placed it first.

Mentions rose while recommendations fell between the two most recent months, lowering the recommendation rate. With such small counts, single answers can shift the pattern, and the change is not evidence of a cause.

Charles R. Ullman & Associates

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about Charles R. Ullman & Associates mentions, recommendations and placement?

Charles R. Ullman & Associates ranks 5 by recommendation count. Mentions: 9 (3.90%); recommendations: 4 (1.73%). Top 3 placements: 4 (1.73%); first-place placements: 2 (0.87%).

Wording about the company: 4 positive, 5 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 44.4%. The net framing score was 0.44 (defined in Methodology).

5 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 100.00% were Top 3 and 50.00% were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Charles R. Ullman & Associates' mention count fell from 11 to 9, while its recommendation count fell from 6 to 4. The recommendation rate was 3.37% and 1.73% respectively.

Charles R. Ullman & Associates has a small mention base with balanced positive and neutral wording and no negative mentions. Its recommendation-to-mention ratio is moderate, and all recorded recommendations were shortlist placements, half of them first-place.

Both mentions and recommendations were lower than in the prior month, and the recommendation rate declined. The counts are small, so the comparison should be read as a recorded snapshot rather than a trend.

Sterling Lawyers

Questions This Section Answers

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

Sterling Lawyers ranks 6 by recommendation count. Mentions: 13 (5.63%); recommendations: 3 (1.30%). Top 3 placements: 2 (0.87%); first-place placements: 1 (0.43%).

Wording about the company: 6 positive, 7 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 23.1%. The net framing score was 0.46 (defined in Methodology).

10 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 66.67% were Top 3 and 33.33% were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Sterling Lawyers' mention count fell from 14 to 13, while its recommendation count fell from 4 to 3. The recommendation rate was 2.25% and 1.30% respectively.

Sterling Lawyers has a modest mention base but a comparatively low recommendation-to-mention ratio, meaning most appearances did not carry an affirmative endorsement. Wording was balanced between positive and neutral, with no negative mentions. Its recorded recommendations were few, split between shortlist and first-place.

Mentions and recommendations both edged lower from the prior month, and the recommendation rate fell. The samples differ, so no cause is implied.

Wilkinson & Finkbeiner

Questions This Section Answers

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

Wilkinson & Finkbeiner ranks 6 by recommendation count. Mentions: 5 (2.16%); recommendations: 3 (1.30%). Top 3 placements: 3 (1.30%); first-place placements: 2 (0.87%).

Wording about the company: 3 positive, 2 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 60.0%. The net framing score was 0.60 (defined in Methodology).

2 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 100.00% were Top 3 and 66.67% were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Wilkinson & Finkbeiner's mention count rose from 3 to 5, while its recommendation count stayed at 3. The recommendation rate was 1.69% and 1.30% respectively. The count was unchanged: the rate difference comes from dividing it by 178 answers in October 2026 and 231 in November.

Wilkinson & Finkbeiner has a small mention base with a high recommendation-to-mention ratio and positive-leaning wording, with no negative mentions. All recorded recommendations were shortlist placements, and most were first-place. The counts are sparse, so the strong ratio should be read with that qualification.

Mentions rose while the recommendation count stayed the same, so the rate eased against a larger answer total. The unchanged count and the changed rate are separate observations.

Berenji & Associates

Questions This Section Answers

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

Berenji & Associates ranks 8 by recommendation count. Mentions: 1 (0.43%); recommendations: 1 (0.43%). Top 3 placements: 1 (0.43%); first-place placements: 1 (0.43%).

Wording about the company: 1 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 100.0%. The net framing score was 1.00 (defined in Methodology).

0 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 100.00% were Top 3 and 100.00% were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Berenji & Associates' mention count stayed at 1, while its recommendation count stayed at 1. The recommendation rate was 0.56% and 0.43% respectively. The count was unchanged: the rate difference comes from dividing it by 178 answers in October 2026 and 231 in November.

Berenji & Associates appears in a single recorded answer, which both mentioned and recommended it, placing it first. Its framing was positive, and its recommendation-to-mention ratio is complete on that one observation. Such a sparse base cannot support broader inference about typical treatment.

Mentions and recommendations were unchanged from the prior month, while the rate eased because the answer total grew. The rate difference reflects the denominator, not a change in the count.

Brian D. Perskin & Associates

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about Brian D. Perskin & Associates mentions, recommendations and placement?

Brian D. Perskin & Associates ranks 8 by recommendation count. Mentions: 1 (0.43%); recommendations: 1 (0.43%). Top 3 placements: 1 (0.43%); first-place placements: 0 (0.00%).

Wording about the company: 1 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 100.0%. The net framing score was 1.00 (defined in Methodology).

0 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 100.00% were Top 3 and 0.00% were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Brian D. Perskin & Associates' mention count rose from 0 to 1, while its recommendation count rose from 0 to 1. The recommendation rate was 0.00% and 0.43% respectively.

Brian D. Perskin & Associates appears in a single recorded answer, which mentioned and recommended it as a shortlist placement without a first-place position. Its framing was positive. With one observation, the complete recommendation-to-mention ratio is a description of that answer, not a stable pattern.

Both mentions and recommendations rose from zero in the prior month. A single appearance is a recorded result, not evidence of a trend or of first-ever standing.

Boyd Law

Questions This Section Answers

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

Boyd Law ranks 10 by recommendation count. Mentions: 19 (8.23%); 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, Boyd Law's mention count rose from 6 to 19, while its recommendation count fell from 4 to 0. The recommendation rate was 2.25% and 0.00% respectively.

Boyd Law is mentioned in a notable share of answers but received no recorded recommendations, so its recommendation-to-mention ratio is zero. All of its mentions were neutral, with no positive or negative wording. Its placement counts are correspondingly zero, which is a measured result rather than a missing observation.

Mentions rose while recommendations fell to zero from the prior month. The samples differ, and the recorded comparison does not explain the change.

Earlier ranking snapshot context

Questions This Section Answers

• How do the available Divorce 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.

The monthly snapshots come from separate answer samples with differing totals and service coverage, so counts and rates are not directly interchangeable across months. A rank can hold while the underlying counts move, and a rate can shift because the denominator changed even when a count did not.

These comparisons show how recorded results differed month to month. They do not establish rank stability, equivalent sampling or reasons for any movement.

What the November Rankings Show

The November results answer several distinct questions. Reach asks whether a company appeared at all; recommendation asks whether an answer affirmatively endorsed it; placement asks where it sat within that endorsement; framing asks how the surrounding wording read. A firm can be strong on one and weak on another, which is why the leaderboard alone is incomplete.

Cordell & Cordell leads on reach and recommendation count, while several smaller firms show higher recommendation-to-mention ratios on sparse bases. Boyd Law illustrates the gap between frequent mention and absent endorsement. These are patterns in the recorded answers, not evidence about customers, sales or company quality.

Methodology

Questions This Section Answers

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

This benchmark has partial coverage: 1 of 3 planned question categories contributed usable observations; 2 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.

These findings cover a partial set of planned question categories and the answers available for the reporting period; the exact collection dates are unverified. Each company counts at most once per answer, and recommendation requires both affirmative endorsement and positive wording. Placement results are contained within recommendations.

Rates divide by the full answer total, and the recommendation-to-mention ratio describes answer wording, not conversion. Net framing measures tone balance, not satisfaction. Monthly samples differ, so comparisons show recorded change without establishing its cause.