Google and AI Source Overlap Across 8 Legal Niches
A descriptive US benchmark of explicit ChatGPT and Gemini citations against paired Google organic Top 20 results across 8 legal niches.
By Evgeniy Yudin, Founder and Strategy Lead· Methodology reviewed by Boris Teplyakov, SEO Lead· Published · Version 1.0· US English
Boris Teplyakov reviewed the research methodology as SEO Lead. This was not a medical or legal subject-matter review of the questions, answers or cited sources.
Do ChatGPT and Gemini cite the same legal sources as Google?
Across the same 248 eligible tasks, exact URL overlap was 10.7% for ChatGPT and 50.9% for Gemini. At domain level, overlap was 36.3% and 66.0% across the same 248 eligible tasks. In this like-for-like comparison, Gemini overlap was +40.2 percentage points higher at exact-URL level and +29.7 percentage points higher at registrable-domain level. This is a descriptive source-overlap benchmark; it does not measure accuracy, source quality, rankings, traffic, leads or legal matters.
Short answers for law-firm marketers; the full evidence and limitations remain below.
Do ChatGPT and Gemini cite the same legal sources as Google?
Across the same 248 eligible tasks, exact URL overlap was 10.7% for ChatGPT and 50.9% for Gemini. Domain overlap was 36.3% and 66.0% across 248 same-task observations. In this like-for-like comparison, Gemini overlap was +40.2 percentage points higher at exact-URL level and +29.7 percentage points higher at registrable-domain level. This is a descriptive source-overlap benchmark; it does not measure accuracy, source quality, rankings, traffic, leads or legal matters.
What is the difference between URL and domain overlap?
Exact URL overlap requires the same normalized page to appear in both source sets. Domain overlap is broader: two different pages can count as a match when they belong to the same registrable domain.
Does this study measure accuracy or rankings?
No. It measures overlap among explicitly exposed sources. It does not establish answer accuracy, source quality, rankings, traffic, leads or legal matters.
Can the published data be downloaded?
Yes. The download section provides XLSX, CSV, JSON, BibTeX, CFF, SVG files with their labels and study context, without an email gate.
Browse the evidence
Findings by practice area
Each result below is a static, deep-linkable summary of the same frozen study. Cross-practice area differences are descriptive and should not be treated as rankings.
Immigration
How much did ChatGPT and Gemini sources overlap with Google's Top 20 for Immigration questions?
Across 36 US-English Immigration questions, the primary eligible sets contained 24 ChatGPT task cells and 24 Gemini task cells. Exact-URL overlap was 16.2% and 53.6%, respectively; registrable-domain overlap was 30.9% and 73.1%. Mean ChatGPT–Gemini citation-domain Jaccard was 7.8% across 33 eligible tasks. These August 7, 2026 observations describe source coincidence, not accuracy, source quality, rankings, traffic, leads or legal matters.
ChatGPT
16.2% URL
30.9% domain · n=24
Gemini
53.6% URL
73.1% domain · n=24
AI-domain similarity
7.8%
Mean Jaccard · n=33
Personal Injury
How much did ChatGPT and Gemini sources overlap with Google's Top 20 for Personal Injury questions?
Across 36 US-English Personal Injury questions, the primary eligible sets contained 26 ChatGPT task cells and 23 Gemini task cells. Exact-URL overlap was 4.1% and 56.9%, respectively; registrable-domain overlap was 18.5% and 68.8%. Mean ChatGPT–Gemini citation-domain Jaccard was 2.9% across 32 eligible tasks. These August 7, 2026 observations describe source coincidence, not accuracy, source quality, rankings, traffic, leads or legal matters.
ChatGPT
4.1% URL
18.5% domain · n=26
Gemini
56.9% URL
68.8% domain · n=23
AI-domain similarity
2.9%
Mean Jaccard · n=32
Family Law
How much did ChatGPT and Gemini sources overlap with Google's Top 20 for Family Law questions?
Across 36 US-English Family Law questions, the primary eligible sets contained 36 ChatGPT task cells and 34 Gemini task cells. Exact-URL overlap was 11.6% and 48.8%, respectively; registrable-domain overlap was 41.4% and 66.9%. Mean ChatGPT–Gemini citation-domain Jaccard was 8.9% across 34 eligible tasks. These August 7, 2026 observations describe source coincidence, not accuracy, source quality, rankings, traffic, leads or legal matters.
ChatGPT
11.6% URL
41.4% domain · n=36
Gemini
48.8% URL
66.9% domain · n=34
AI-domain similarity
8.9%
Mean Jaccard · n=34
Employment Law
How much did ChatGPT and Gemini sources overlap with Google's Top 20 for Employment Law questions?
Across 36 US-English Employment Law questions, the primary eligible sets contained 36 ChatGPT task cells and 34 Gemini task cells. Exact-URL overlap was 9.3% and 52.4%, respectively; registrable-domain overlap was 38.6% and 70.0%. Mean ChatGPT–Gemini citation-domain Jaccard was 6.2% across 34 eligible tasks. These August 7, 2026 observations describe source coincidence, not accuracy, source quality, rankings, traffic, leads or legal matters.
ChatGPT
9.3% URL
38.6% domain · n=36
Gemini
52.4% URL
70.0% domain · n=34
AI-domain similarity
6.2%
Mean Jaccard · n=34
Estate Planning & Probate
How much did ChatGPT and Gemini sources overlap with Google's Top 20 for Estate Planning & Probate questions?
Across 36 US-English Estate Planning & Probate questions, the primary eligible sets contained 36 ChatGPT task cells and 35 Gemini task cells. Exact-URL overlap was 10.2% and 57.6%, respectively; registrable-domain overlap was 36.8% and 68.1%. Mean ChatGPT–Gemini citation-domain Jaccard was 5.7% across 35 eligible tasks. These August 7, 2026 observations describe source coincidence, not accuracy, source quality, rankings, traffic, leads or legal matters.
ChatGPT
10.2% URL
36.8% domain · n=36
Gemini
57.6% URL
68.1% domain · n=35
AI-domain similarity
5.7%
Mean Jaccard · n=35
Criminal Defense
How much did ChatGPT and Gemini sources overlap with Google's Top 20 for Criminal Defense questions?
Across 36 US-English Criminal Defense questions, the primary eligible sets contained 36 ChatGPT task cells and 33 Gemini task cells. Exact-URL overlap was 14.0% and 48.4%, respectively; registrable-domain overlap was 39.1% and 57.9%. Mean ChatGPT–Gemini citation-domain Jaccard was 3.5% across 33 eligible tasks. These August 7, 2026 observations describe source coincidence, not accuracy, source quality, rankings, traffic, leads or legal matters.
ChatGPT
14.0% URL
39.1% domain · n=36
Gemini
48.4% URL
57.9% domain · n=33
AI-domain similarity
3.5%
Mean Jaccard · n=33
Tax Law
How much did ChatGPT and Gemini sources overlap with Google's Top 20 for Tax Law questions?
Across 36 US-English Tax Law questions, the primary eligible sets contained 36 ChatGPT task cells and 35 Gemini task cells. Exact-URL overlap was 14.1% and 47.1%, respectively; registrable-domain overlap was 48.6% and 71.2%. Mean ChatGPT–Gemini citation-domain Jaccard was 18.7% across 35 eligible tasks. These August 7, 2026 observations describe source coincidence, not accuracy, source quality, rankings, traffic, leads or legal matters.
ChatGPT
14.1% URL
48.6% domain · n=36
Gemini
47.1% URL
71.2% domain · n=35
AI-domain similarity
18.7%
Mean Jaccard · n=35
Business Law for Individuals & SMBs
How much did ChatGPT and Gemini sources overlap with Google's Top 20 for Business Law for Individuals & SMBs questions?
Across 36 US-English Business Law for Individuals & SMBs questions, the primary eligible sets contained 36 ChatGPT task cells and 31 Gemini task cells. Exact-URL overlap was 5.6% and 45.0%, respectively; registrable-domain overlap was 32.9% and 53.0%. Mean ChatGPT–Gemini citation-domain Jaccard was 6.5% across 31 eligible tasks. These August 7, 2026 observations describe source coincidence, not accuracy, source quality, rankings, traffic, leads or legal matters.
ChatGPT
5.6% URL
32.9% domain · n=36
Gemini
45.0% URL
53.0% domain · n=31
AI-domain similarity
6.5%
Mean Jaccard · n=31
How to read this study
A source-overlap benchmark, not a performance claim
Exact overlap only
This study measures exact URL and registrable-domain overlap. It does not measure Google AI Overviews or establish answer accuracy, source authority, rankings, traffic, leads, matters or patient outcomes.
Descriptive niche comparisons
The original four niches and 16-niche extension were collected in different windows and through live versus Standard queue endpoints. Cross-niche differences are descriptive.
DataForSEO surfaces
Google, ChatGPT and Gemini observations came from DataForSEO surfaces, not repeated logged-in consumer interface sessions.
Executive Summary
Exact URL coverage. Across 8 included niches, vertical-level ChatGPT estimates ranged from 4.1% to 16.2% and Gemini estimates ranged from 45.0% to 57.6%. Exact estimates, 95% intervals, and denominators are in the chart and evidence table. These are primary task-macro estimates conditional on an eligible citation-bearing AI cell and a complete paired Google Top 20. Primary estimates include only eligible paired Google Top 20 captures; exact eligible denominators are shown for every estimate.
Registrable-domain coverage. Across the same niches, ChatGPT registrable-domain estimates ranged from 18.5% to 48.6% and Gemini estimates ranged from 53.0% to 73.1%. Domain matching uses the analyzer's registrable-domain key rather than a simple host comparison. The two surfaces have different eligible task sets, so side-by-side values are not a paired-platform effect estimate. On common support across the included verticals, URL coverage was ChatGPT 10.7% versus Gemini 50.9% (Gemini minus ChatGPT +40.2 pp; n=248 tasks), and domain coverage was 36.3% versus 66.0% (difference +29.7 pp; n=248). These common-support differences are descriptive.
ChatGPT–Gemini citation-domain similarity. Across the included niches, mean task-level domain Jaccard ranged from 2.9% to 18.7%; exact niche denominators are shown with the chart.
Prior work and this study's scope
An Ahrefs study published August 11, 2025 examined 15,000 long-tail prompts and reported that, on average, 12% of links cited by ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot appeared in Google's Top 10 for the same prompt. This report is an independent niche-specific derivative using US-English questions, Google organic Top 20, explicit ChatGPT and Gemini citations, and the vertical scope named above. The study populations, surfaces, rank cutoffs, and aggregation rules differ, so the percentages are not directly comparable.
Exact URL coverage
The chart places the two primary conditional task-macro estimates on a shared scale, but each surface uses its own eligible task-cell set. The bars must not be subtracted as a paired-platform effect. It does not treat missing cells as zero. Primary estimates include only eligible paired Google Top 20 captures; exact eligible denominators are shown for every estimate. Exact 95% task-clustered intervals, pooled secondary estimates, and the available-pool sensitivity appear in the evidence table.
Exact URL coverage by vertical and AI surface
Surface-specific eligible sets; 95% task-clustered intervals and denominators are in the evidence table.
Immigration
ChatGPT16.2%
Gemini53.6%
Personal Injury
ChatGPT4.1%
Gemini56.9%
Family Law
ChatGPT11.6%
Gemini48.8%
Employment Law
ChatGPT9.3%
Gemini52.4%
Estate Planning & Probate
ChatGPT10.2%
Gemini57.6%
Criminal Defense
ChatGPT14.0%
Gemini48.4%
Tax Law
ChatGPT14.1%
Gemini47.1%
Business Law for Individuals & SMBs
ChatGPT5.6%
Gemini45.0%
Verified Rotgar Research artifact · DataForSEO surfaces ·
Registrable-domain coverage
This view repeats the surface-specific display after URLs are collapsed to registrable domains. Eligible support can differ between ChatGPT and Gemini, so the side-by-side bars are not a paired-platform contrast. It describes source-domain coincidence only; it is not a source-authority or quality score.
Registrable-domain coverage by vertical and AI surface
Surface-specific eligible sets; 95% task-clustered intervals and denominators are in the evidence table.
Immigration
ChatGPT30.9%
Gemini73.1%
Personal Injury
ChatGPT18.5%
Gemini68.8%
Family Law
ChatGPT41.4%
Gemini66.9%
Employment Law
ChatGPT38.6%
Gemini70.0%
Estate Planning & Probate
ChatGPT36.8%
Gemini68.1%
Criminal Defense
ChatGPT39.1%
Gemini57.9%
Tax Law
ChatGPT48.6%
Gemini71.2%
Business Law for Individuals & SMBs
ChatGPT32.9%
Gemini53.0%
Verified Rotgar Research artifact · DataForSEO surfaces ·
Citation-set similarity across AI surfaces
The mean task-level registrable-domain Jaccard was Immigration 7.8% (33/36 eligible tasks); Personal Injury 2.9% (32/36 eligible tasks); Family Law 8.9% (34/36 eligible tasks); Employment Law 6.2% (34/36 eligible tasks); Estate Planning & Probate 5.7% (35/36 eligible tasks); Criminal Defense 3.5% (33/36 eligible tasks); Tax Law 18.7% (35/36 eligible tasks); Business Law for Individuals & SMBs 6.5% (31/36 eligible tasks). The denominator is each task's union of ChatGPT and Gemini citation domains; tasks without an eligible pair are NA.
ChatGPT–Gemini citation-domain Jaccard by vertical
Mean task-level intersection divided by union among eligible paired AI citation sets.
Immigration7.8%
33 of 36 tasks eligible
Personal Injury2.9%
32 of 36 tasks eligible
Family Law8.9%
34 of 36 tasks eligible
Employment Law6.2%
34 of 36 tasks eligible
Estate Planning & Probate5.7%
35 of 36 tasks eligible
Criminal Defense3.5%
33 of 36 tasks eligible
Tax Law18.7%
35 of 36 tasks eligible
Business Law for Individuals & SMBs6.5%
31 of 36 tasks eligible
Verified Rotgar Research artifact · DataForSEO surfaces ·
Common-support platform comparison
A direct descriptive surface comparison must use the same eligible tasks. Across the included verticals, the common-support set contains 248 tasks for URL coverage and 248 tasks for domain coverage. The table shows each surface's macro mean and Gemini minus ChatGPT in percentage points; no causal or paired-bootstrap claim is attached to this derived display.
Common-support ChatGPT and Gemini comparison
Both surfaces are averaged over the same eligible tasks; differences are descriptive point estimates.
Verified Rotgar Research artifact · DataForSEO surfaces ·
Scope
URL common n
ChatGPT URL
Gemini URL
Gemini − ChatGPT URL
Domain common n
ChatGPT domain
Gemini domain
Gemini − ChatGPT domain
Immigration
23
16.9%
53.3%
+36.4 pp
23
32.3%
73.7%
+41.4 pp
Personal Injury
23
4.6%
56.9%
+52.3 pp
23
18.8%
68.8%
+50.0 pp
Family Law
34
11.0%
48.8%
+37.8 pp
34
39.4%
66.9%
+27.5 pp
Employment Law
34
9.8%
52.4%
+42.5 pp
34
40.1%
70.0%
+29.9 pp
Estate Planning & Probate
35
10.1%
57.6%
+47.5 pp
35
35.0%
68.1%
+33.1 pp
Criminal Defense
33
13.4%
48.4%
+35.0 pp
33
37.0%
57.9%
+20.9 pp
Tax Law
35
13.9%
47.1%
+33.3 pp
35
48.1%
71.2%
+23.1 pp
Business Law for Individuals & SMBs
31
5.6%
45.0%
+39.4 pp
31
31.9%
53.0%
+21.1 pp
Legal report scope
248
10.7%
50.9%
+40.2 pp
248
36.3%
66.0%
+29.7 pp
Evidence table
Primary macro estimates give each eligible task cell equal weight. Pooled estimates instead weight cells by cited-source count and are secondary. Available-pool sensitivity uses fewer than 20 Google URLs where necessary and must not be read as the strict primary estimate. Primary estimates include only eligible paired Google Top 20 captures; exact eligible denominators are shown for every estimate.
Coverage estimates and denominators
Primary task-macro, secondary pooled, and available-pool sensitivity estimates are shown separately. Primary estimates include only eligible paired Google Top 20 captures; exact eligible denominators are shown for every estimate.
Verified Rotgar Research artifact · DataForSEO surfaces ·
Vertical
AI surface
URL macro [95% CI]
URL pooled (secondary)
URL available-pool sensitivity
Domain macro [95% CI]
Domain pooled (secondary)
Domain available-pool sensitivity
Primary eligible cells
Available-pool eligible cells
Immigration
ChatGPT
16.2% [10.3%, 22.3%]
17.6%
13.4%
30.9% [21.1%, 41.0%]
27.9%
28.6%
24
29
Immigration
Gemini
53.6% [41.9%, 65.4%]
52.2%
53.9%
73.1% [62.2%, 83.8%]
68.7%
70.9%
24
29
Personal Injury
ChatGPT
4.1% [0.9%, 8.0%]
6.1%
4.1%
18.5% [8.6%, 30.4%]
16.9%
19.0%
26
32
Personal Injury
Gemini
56.9% [46.7%, 67.4%]
55.0%
50.8%
68.8% [59.3%, 78.2%]
66.0%
62.2%
23
30
Family Law
ChatGPT
11.6% [6.6%, 17.2%]
11.4%
11.6%
41.4% [30.3%, 52.9%]
29.9%
41.4%
36
36
Family Law
Gemini
48.8% [38.8%, 59.1%]
51.5%
48.8%
66.9% [56.5%, 76.8%]
63.4%
66.9%
34
34
Employment Law
ChatGPT
9.3% [5.2%, 13.8%]
9.7%
9.3%
38.6% [29.0%, 48.8%]
33.1%
38.6%
36
36
Employment Law
Gemini
52.4% [42.5%, 62.4%]
50.4%
52.4%
70.0% [60.6%, 79.0%]
69.1%
70.0%
34
34
Estate Planning & Probate
ChatGPT
10.2% [5.4%, 16.2%]
9.5%
10.2%
36.8% [27.2%, 47.4%]
32.3%
36.8%
36
36
Estate Planning & Probate
Gemini
57.6% [49.5%, 65.6%]
58.9%
57.6%
68.1% [59.9%, 75.8%]
68.6%
68.1%
35
35
Criminal Defense
ChatGPT
14.0% [9.1%, 19.2%]
15.1%
14.0%
39.1% [28.3%, 50.4%]
32.7%
39.1%
36
36
Criminal Defense
Gemini
48.4% [38.4%, 58.4%]
52.4%
48.4%
57.9% [46.6%, 68.5%]
62.4%
57.9%
33
33
Tax Law
ChatGPT
14.1% [9.4%, 19.2%]
12.9%
14.1%
48.6% [37.3%, 60.2%]
36.0%
48.6%
36
36
Tax Law
Gemini
47.1% [36.3%, 57.9%]
48.4%
47.1%
71.2% [60.2%, 81.8%]
69.3%
71.2%
35
35
Business Law for Individuals & SMBs
ChatGPT
5.6% [3.0%, 8.5%]
5.5%
5.6%
32.9% [23.1%, 43.4%]
25.4%
32.9%
36
36
Business Law for Individuals & SMBs
Gemini
45.0% [35.4%, 54.5%]
46.4%
45.0%
53.0% [44.0%, 62.0%]
53.2%
53.0%
31
31
Frequently observed citation domains
The following audited tables rank registrable domains only by observed frequency in this report's task set. Counts and distinct-task support are descriptive; they are not authority, quality, trust, or optimization scores. Example source URLs are retained in the tables for auditability and are not used to make narrative claims.
Most frequently observed AI-cited registrable domains
Top 10 per AI surface by distinct task count; frequency is not authority or quality.
Verified Rotgar Research artifact · DataForSEO surfaces ·
20-niche exploratory source-overlap panel uses a frozen 720-question manifest; this report contains 288 questions across 8 named niches, with 36 questions per niche. Each question pairs Google, ChatGPT, and Gemini captures. Google eligibility uses organic results sorted by group rank, normalized-URL deduplication, and the first 20 unique eligible URLs. AI inputs are explicitly cited sources only.
Primary estimates include only eligible paired Google Top 20 captures; exact eligible denominators are shown for every estimate.
The primary URL and domain metrics divide the within-task matched AI source count by that AI cell's unique cited-source count, then take an unweighted macro mean across eligible cells. A citation-bearing eligible cell with no match is zero. A no-citation cell is NA and is counted separately. Registrable domains use the analyzer's pinned Public Suffix List logic. The pooled estimate is secondary; the available-pool estimate is a labeled sensitivity for present Google pools below the strict Top 20. ChatGPT–Gemini domain Jaccard is computed within task before the vertical macro mean. No source-class taxonomy is inferred. Primary coverage intervals use 10,000 percentile bootstrap replicates with seed 20260807, resampling tasks within vertical and retaining each sampled task's available surface cells.
All 720 manifest rows retain reviewer_status=unreviewed. No licensed medical or legal domain reviewer evaluated the question set or answers. Therefore this study supports source-overlap findings only, not clinical/legal accuracy, safety, or completeness.
The dataset was collected through DataForSEO mixed live and Standard queue endpoints, not through repeated logged-in consumer UI sessions. Endpoint observations were chatgpt: /v3/ai_optimization/chat_gpt/llm_scraper/live/advanced, /v3/ai_optimization/chat_gpt/llm_scraper/task_get/advanced; gemini: /v3/ai_optimization/gemini/llm_scraper/live/advanced, /v3/ai_optimization/gemini/llm_scraper/task_get/advanced; google: /v3/serp/google/organic/live/advanced, /v3/serp/google/organic/task_get/advanced. Returned collection-time model labels were chatgpt: gpt-5-5, gpt-5-6; gemini: 3.5 Flash-Lite; google: not_exposed. In this report, ChatGPT and Gemini mean those mediated surfaces and returned labels; endpoint behavior may differ from consumer UI.
The 16 added niches were selected after aggregate results for four original niches had been inspected. Original and extension observations were collected in different windows and through live versus Standard queue endpoints; vertical is therefore confounded with timing and retrieval mode. Cross-niche results are descriptive.
Scope and reproducibility
Immigration: topic anchors — employment-based immigration, family-based green cards, and naturalization; intent families — Authoritative-source seeking, Comparison/choice, Eligibility/requirements, Local cost, Local provider discovery, and Process/timeline
Personal Injury: topic anchors — car-accident claims, slip-and-fall claims, and wrongful-death claims; intent families — Authoritative-source seeking, Comparison/choice, Eligibility/requirements, Local cost, Local provider discovery, and Process/timeline
Family Law: topic anchors — adoption, child custody, and divorce; intent families — Authoritative-source seeking, Comparison/choice, Eligibility/requirements, Local cost, Local provider discovery, and Process/timeline
Employment Law: topic anchors — wage-and-hour claims, workplace discrimination claims, and wrongful termination claims; intent families — Authoritative-source seeking, Comparison/choice, Eligibility/requirements, Local cost, Local provider discovery, and Process/timeline
Estate Planning & Probate: topic anchors — probate administration, will contests, and wills and trusts; intent families — Authoritative-source seeking, Comparison/choice, Eligibility/requirements, Local cost, Local provider discovery, and Process/timeline
Criminal Defense: topic anchors — DUI charges, felony charges, and misdemeanor charges; intent families — Authoritative-source seeking, Comparison/choice, Eligibility/requirements, Local cost, Local provider discovery, and Process/timeline
Tax Law: topic anchors — IRS audits, criminal tax investigations, and federal tax debt and collection; intent families — Authoritative-source seeking, Comparison/choice, Eligibility/requirements, Local cost, Local provider discovery, and Process/timeline
Business Law for Individuals & SMBs: topic anchors — business formation, buying or selling a small business, and commercial contract disputes; intent families — Authoritative-source seeking, Comparison/choice, Eligibility/requirements, Local cost, Local provider discovery, and Process/timeline
The full exact wording, geography, topic anchor, and intent family for all 720 questions remain in FULL-QUERY-MANIFEST.csv. The frozen estimands and normalization rules are in PROTOCOL-EXTENSION.md; collection and analysis departures are recorded in DEVIATIONS.csv. The artifact source metadata includes the exact file identities and SHA-256 hashes used for this build.
What this means for law firms
Law firms can use this benchmark to see how source overlap varies across sampled client questions and legal niches. It can guide separate measurement of Google visibility and AI citation visibility, but it does not predict rankings, citations, matters, legal accuracy, or service quality.
Further questions
Which page and domain overlaps recur in a later frozen observation window?
Do observed patterns remain after stratifying by intent family and geography without creating underpowered slices?
Which cited pages warrant a separate reviewed qualitative taxonomy, and what annotation protocol would make that classification reproducible?
How stable are the observed overlaps after later platform and model changes?
Limitations
All 720 manifest rows retain reviewer_status=unreviewed. No licensed medical or legal domain reviewer evaluated the question set or answers. Therefore this study supports source-overlap findings only, not clinical/legal accuracy, safety, or completeness.
The dataset was collected through DataForSEO mixed live and Standard queue endpoints, not through repeated logged-in consumer UI sessions. Endpoint observations were chatgpt: /v3/ai_optimization/chat_gpt/llm_scraper/live/advanced, /v3/ai_optimization/chat_gpt/llm_scraper/task_get/advanced; gemini: /v3/ai_optimization/gemini/llm_scraper/live/advanced, /v3/ai_optimization/gemini/llm_scraper/task_get/advanced; google: /v3/serp/google/organic/live/advanced, /v3/serp/google/organic/task_get/advanced. Returned collection-time model labels were chatgpt: gpt-5-5, gpt-5-6; gemini: 3.5 Flash-Lite; google: not_exposed. In this report, ChatGPT and Gemini mean those mediated surfaces and returned labels; endpoint behavior may differ from consumer UI.
This is a 20-niche exploratory source-overlap panel snapshot, not a causal study or a performance forecast. Primary estimates include only eligible paired Google Top 20 captures; exact eligible denominators are shown for every estimate. Available-pool sensitivity is reported separately from the strict primary estimates. No-citation AI cells remain NA rather than zero.
The study observes explicitly exposed citations, not every source used internally by a model. URL or domain coincidence does not establish answer accuracy, source quality, endorsement, user attention, rankings, traffic, leads, matters, or patient outcomes. ChatGPT and Gemini surface-specific estimates can use different eligible tasks; their raw difference is not presented as a paired effect. The 95% task-clustered percentile intervals describe sampling variability under the stated bootstrap, not causal uncertainty. Platform models and returned sources can change after capture. Rank-position distributions and source-class claims are outside this report.
The 16 added niches were selected after aggregate results for four original niches had been inspected. Original and extension observations were collected in different windows and through live versus Standard queue endpoints; vertical is therefore confounded with timing and retrieval mode. Cross-niche results are descriptive.
Download and cite
Use the published evidence without losing its context
The public files preserve labels, denominators and scope notes from this version of the study. Downloads are available without an email gate.
Yudin, E. (2026). Google and AI Source Overlap Across 8 Legal Niches (Version 1.0) [Data set]. Rotgar Research. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21850803
Artifact provenance
Verified inputs remain traceable
The published page is generated from the verified report artifact. The build stops if its receipt, SHA-256, niche set or denominators no longer match the approved evidence package.
Start with a free law-firm Google + AI visibility audit
The simplest free audit starts with one law firm or selected office, one priority market and one prospective-client language.
Best fitLaw firms and multi-office legal practices in:
Personal injury
Family law
Criminal defense
Immigration
Employment law
Business + corporate
Litigation + dispute resolution
Real estate + property
Estate planning + probate
Tax law
Your firm’s current visibility and named competitors
The sources AI answers rely on
A prioritized list of improvements to implement
Several firms, offices, countries, markets or prospective-client languages can be included without a call. Prefer to discuss the scope? Book a 30-minute call → We’ll tailor the audit at no cost.
