What is a mass tort attribution audit?

A reconciliation of four record sets that normally live apart: media invoices, intake records, qualification status in case management, and the fee ledger. It reports cost per qualified claimant by source, sizes the share of claimants whose origin cannot be traced, and separates partner-delivered volume from claimants your own marketing produced.

How do you track mass tort leads that come from co-counsel?

You generally cannot recover their original source, because the first touch happened on a property you do not own. What you can do is flag those records at intake, measure them as a cost per delivered claimant against the contracted price, and keep them out of the denominator when calculating conversion rates for your own channels.

Why is our cost per case so much lower than our cost per settled claim?

Because the first number almost always counts signed retainers and the second counts claimants who survived verification. Records retrieval, proof of exposure, diagnosis criteria and registry acceptance all remove people after signature. Until you divide spend by accepted claimants rather than signatures, the cheaper number is measuring the wrong event.

How long does it take to know whether a mass tort campaign was profitable?

Longer than a marketing reporting cycle. Fee revenue arrives at settlement or verdict, which in a consolidated proceeding is usually years after the advertising ran. Until then, track cohorts by intake quarter and judge them on leading indicators: cost per verified claimant, qualification rate by source, and time from intake to acceptance.

Do AI assistants affect mass tort case acquisition?

They affect the research step that happens before the call. Mass tort prospects ask assistants eligibility questions, and firms named in those answers get contacted without ever registering as a click. That contact lands in your data as direct or branded search, which is one more reason the unattributed bucket has to be reported rather than quietly redistributed across channels.

Does an attribution audit need access to our case management system?

It needs the qualification status field, which is where retainer-to-claimant attrition lives, and the fee ledger with origination share. A read-only export is normally enough. An audit working only from ad platforms and web analytics cannot see past the signature, which is precisely where mass tort attribution goes wrong.

Part of: Marketing attribution

Mass Tort Attribution Audit

By Mohammad Kashif, Chief Technology OfficerLast updated September 21, 2026

A mass tort attribution audit traces spend to qualified claimants, not signed retainers. It reconstructs source data across co-counsel and case-acquisition partners, and holds cost per case open for years, because fee revenue lands long after the media buy.

The whole audit turns on which denominator you use. Cost per signed retainer divides spend by everyone who signed. Cost per qualified claimant divides it by the people who cleared records review and were accepted into the litigation. Same spend, two numbers, and only the second one can be set against an expected fee.

Why does mass tort attribution break the standard model?

Standard law firm attribution assumes three things that mass tort violates. It assumes budget is spread across channels, so a single tracking error averages out. It assumes the signed client is the outcome. And it assumes the outcome arrives inside the reporting period. A mass tort campaign concentrates the budget on one litigation, counts a signature that may never become a compensable claim, and books fee revenue years after the invoice that produced it.

Concentration is the first problem and the least discussed. When one docket absorbs most of the media budget, there is no portfolio to average across, so one mis-attributed source moves the entire number. In a general injury practice a badly tracked channel is diluted by the others. Here it is the report.

Spend concentration: one litigation, sometimes one creative, so channel-level error does not wash out.
Outcome ambiguity: a signed retainer is an entry into a second qualification process, not a case.
Shared origination: co-counsel arrangements and case-acquisition vendors deliver claimants whose first touch happened on somebody else's property.
Time lag: the fee that justifies this quarter's spend may be distributed several years from now.

How do you attribute a claimant who arrived through co-counsel or an acquisition partner?

This is the part most reporting quietly gives up on. A claimant who came through a co-counsel arrangement, or who was bought from a case-acquisition vendor, arrives with no analytics history you own. Their first search, the page they read, the assistant that named a firm: all of it happened elsewhere, and the handoff you receive is a name, a contact record and an intake summary.

Giving up produces a specific distortion rather than a neutral gap. Every claimant whose origin you cannot see falls into an unattributed bucket, and because acquisition partners tend to deliver in volume, that bucket can grow larger than any channel you can actually measure. The measurable channels then look small by comparison, and budget drifts toward whichever one is tracked best rather than whichever one works.

The audit's job is not to invent a source for those claimants. It is to size the bucket honestly, separate it from your owned channels, and measure the two on different terms. Partner-sourced volume is bought at a contracted unit price, so it is measurable as a cost per delivered claimant. Owned channels have to be measured on inbound intake with the partner records excluded from the denominator, not mixed in.

Flag partner-sourced records at intake, before they merge into the same case list as inbound claimants.
Hold a separate cost per delivered claimant for each acquisition source, using the contracted price rather than an estimate.
Keep partner records out of owned-channel conversion rates entirely. Mixing them makes both numbers unreadable.
Record which firm holds origination on co-counsel matters, because your share of the fee, not the gross fee, is what the spend has to be measured against.

Should you count signed retainers or qualified claimants?

A signed retainer in mass tort is closer to a qualified lead than to a case. Between signature and a compensable claim sit records retrieval, proof of product use or exposure, diagnosis confirmation, date-range checks, and acceptance into a census, registry or settlement program. Retainers fail at every one of those steps, and the attrition is not small enough to treat as rounding.

Counting signatures therefore flatters whichever channel produces the largest volume of the least qualified people. Broad-reach advertising tends to win on retainers signed and lose on claimants accepted, and a report that stops at signature will keep recommending more of it, month after month, with the numbers apparently supporting the recommendation.

The honest measure is cost per qualified claimant: campaign spend divided by the claimants who cleared verification and were accepted. It lags, and because the denominator drops every claimant who failed verification, it is arithmetically higher than the cost per retainer you have been reporting. It is also the only one that can be compared against an expected fee without a leap of faith in the middle.

Records retrieval: the medical or purchase records that substantiate the claim actually exist and can be obtained.
Proof of use or exposure: product identification, dates, treating facility.
Diagnosis and date-range criteria set by the litigation, which can tighten after you have already signed people.
Census, registry or settlement-program acceptance, which is the point a claimant becomes compensable.

How long before a mass tort campaign shows its real cost per case?

Longer than any window a marketing dashboard is built for. Advertising runs while the docket is open, retainers sign over months, qualification takes further months, and fee revenue arrives at settlement or verdict, which in a consolidated proceeding commonly lands years after the first ad ran. None of that fits a monthly report, and pretending otherwise is how firms end up confidently wrong.

Two practical consequences follow. First, cost per case is provisional for most of a campaign's life and should be labelled as provisional. A report printing a confident cost per case in month three is printing cost per retainer under a better name. Second, leading indicators have to carry the weight in the meantime: cost per verified claimant, qualification rate by source, and time from intake to acceptance are all available long before any fee is.

The deliverable here is a cohort structure rather than a single figure. Spend and claimants are grouped by the quarter they entered, and each cohort is re-scored as qualification and resolution data lands. A channel is then compared against its own cohort rather than against one that is years further along, which is the comparison that makes new campaigns look like failures.

What does a mass tort attribution audit actually check?

The work is mostly reconciliation, not analytics installation. Four record sets have to be lined up against each other: media invoices, intake records, qualification status in case management, and the fee ledger. Those four sets normally exist inside the firm already and have simply never been joined, and it is the join, not any new tracking, that exposes where the numbers disagree.

Some of it cannot be recovered, and the audit should say so. A claimant who saw a billboard, searched a symptom three weeks later, read an assistant's answer naming several firms, and then called a number from a co-counsel's page has a path no measurement system reconstructs. The value is in shrinking the unattributed share and being explicit about what remains inside it, not in forcing every claimant into a channel so the chart adds to one hundred.

Measurement is also not the expensive part of a mass tort campaign. The media is. LexGrow's published entry plan is $599 a month, paid ads are an add-on with no management fee, and the reporting layer does not scale with the budget it measures. On a concentrated budget, a single misread source is worth more than the entire cost of knowing.

Media spend by litigation and by source, taken from invoices rather than platform-reported numbers, including partner and acquisition fees.
Intake records with a source field that was populated at capture, plus a flag marking partner-delivered records.
Call tracking coverage, because mass tort advertising drives phone calls and an untracked number is an unattributable claimant.
Qualification status per claimant from case management, which is where retainer-to-claimant attrition actually lives.
Fee ledger with origination share recorded, so co-counsel matters are counted at your share rather than the gross.
Analytics configuration solid enough to survive the reconciliation, which in practice means confirming that internal campaign tags on your own links are not overwriting the original referrer.

Where mass tort attribution differs from single-plaintiff injury work

	Single-plaintiff injury	Mass tort
Budget shape	Spread across channels and practice areas	Concentrated on one litigation, often one creative
Event worth counting	Signed case	Claimant accepted after verification
Main attrition point	Inquiry to signed	Signed to qualified
Source ownership	Mostly your own properties	Shared with co-counsel and acquisition vendors
Time to fee revenue	Usually inside a normal reporting horizon	Years, set by the docket rather than your calendar
Correct denominator	Cost per signed case	Cost per qualified claimant, at your origination share
Useful reporting unit	The month	The intake cohort, re-scored as data lands
Biggest reporting risk	Untracked calls	An unattributed bucket larger than any measured channel

Common questions

What is a mass tort attribution audit?: A reconciliation of four record sets that normally live apart: media invoices, intake records, qualification status in case management, and the fee ledger. It reports cost per qualified claimant by source, sizes the share of claimants whose origin cannot be traced, and separates partner-delivered volume from claimants your own marketing produced.
How do you track mass tort leads that come from co-counsel?: You generally cannot recover their original source, because the first touch happened on a property you do not own. What you can do is flag those records at intake, measure them as a cost per delivered claimant against the contracted price, and keep them out of the denominator when calculating conversion rates for your own channels.
Why is our cost per case so much lower than our cost per settled claim?: Because the first number almost always counts signed retainers and the second counts claimants who survived verification. Records retrieval, proof of exposure, diagnosis criteria and registry acceptance all remove people after signature. Until you divide spend by accepted claimants rather than signatures, the cheaper number is measuring the wrong event.
How long does it take to know whether a mass tort campaign was profitable?: Longer than a marketing reporting cycle. Fee revenue arrives at settlement or verdict, which in a consolidated proceeding is usually years after the advertising ran. Until then, track cohorts by intake quarter and judge them on leading indicators: cost per verified claimant, qualification rate by source, and time from intake to acceptance.
Do AI assistants affect mass tort case acquisition?: They affect the research step that happens before the call. Mass tort prospects ask assistants eligibility questions, and firms named in those answers get contacted without ever registering as a click. That contact lands in your data as direct or branded search, which is one more reason the unattributed bucket has to be reported rather than quietly redistributed across channels.
Does an attribution audit need access to our case management system?: It needs the qualification status field, which is where retainer-to-claimant attrition lives, and the fee ledger with origination share. A read-only export is normally enough. An audit working only from ad platforms and web analytics cannot see past the signature, which is precisely where mass tort attribution goes wrong.

Find out what your signed cases actually cost

We trace your last quarter of signed cases back to the channel that produced them, and show you the cost per case next to each one.

Get an attribution audit