The problem
A national personal-injury law firm was investing in paid acquisition that worked, but had under-invested in organic. SEO-driven intake was a fraction of paid intake, and the cost difference was structural rather than promotional.
The constraint
Claimant-side legal search isn't a product query. People type 'I was hit by a truck Sydney' or 'CTP claim how long' and want depth, not a CTA. Most agency-built legal SEO ships thin practice-area pages chasing keyword volume; LPUL plus ACCC fair-trading rule out the outcome-guarantee tropes that pad them. The harder challenge was writing depth that ranked AND held under fair-trading scrutiny.
The approach
A long-form content programme aligned to claimant-side search intent — practice-area explainers, scheme breakdowns, FAQs — every piece reviewed against LPUL before publication. Technical SEO baseline executed at the same time.
The outcome
Qualified intake from organic up 62% over twelve months. The content stack has held position through two Google core updates without rework, owing to topical depth and low-spam structure.