Skip to main content

estateattorneyseo.com

Menu
Request a Free Review
Home › Sample Audit
SAMPLE AUDIT · FICTIONAL DEMONSTRATION AND REAL WORK

See How a Local SEO Audit Finding Is Written

A useful audit connects an observation to a decision. The examples below show the evidence to collect, how to choose a proportionate fix, and what can be checked afterward.

Request a Free Profile Review
See the Full Audit Scope
Website audit · Varela Law, HoustonReal audit excerpt
Metadata
Headings
Images
Indexing
Schema

Findings summary

Issues found8
Already working4
Images without alt text42
Meta description over 700 charactersFix
6 H1 tags on the homepageFix
42 images without alt textFix
No canonical tag on the homepageFix
Mobile friendly, HTTPS, healthy linksOK
Metadata
Meta description over 700 charactersFix
No Open Graph tagsFix

Why it matters: search results display only part of a long description, and Google may rewrite it, so the key message can be cut off. Fix: rewrite it as a concise summary that names the practice area, the city, and who the firm helps.

Headings
6 H1 tags on the homepageFix

Why it matters: a single main heading is the clearer convention, and six can make the page’s main topic less clear. Fix: keep one clear H1 and turn the rest into H2 or H3 subheadings.

Images
42 images without alt textFix

Why it matters: alt text gives search engines and screen readers a text description of an image, and without it they have less to go on. Fix: add a short, plain description to each meaningful image.

Indexing
No canonical tag on the homepageFix
www and non-www not unifiedFix
No XML sitemap or update signalsFix
HTTPS and a healthy link structureOK

Fix: add a canonical tag, redirect every version of the address to one, and submit an XML sitemap with last-modified dates.

Schema
No LegalService or LocalBusiness schemaFix

Why it matters: without structured data, the site misses details such as practice areas and location in search. Fix: add LegalService and LocalBusiness schema in JSON-LD.

How a Finding Is Written: A Fictional Demonstration

A useful finding records what was observed, the evidence, why it matters, a proportionate fix, who approves it, and how to retest. The demonstration below uses a fictional estate planning firm to teach that method. It contains no real client data and does not measure any inquiry or ranking outcome.

Fictional demonstration — not a real client

FieldDemonstration
ObservationThe fictional firm’s homepage mentions trust planning but gives no clear link to the relevant service or inquiry route.
EvidenceThe page, observation date, mobile view, and route followed were recorded.
Why it mattersA visitor who wants trust planning may not be able to confirm that the firm handles it or find the next step.
Recommended fixLink the service description to the relevant existing page and its approved inquiry route.
PriorityAddress the route first, because a missing path to the inquiry form is more important than a cosmetic inconsistency.
ApprovalThe attorney confirms the service wording and destination before publication.
Retest planFollow the revised route on a phone and run a controlled inquiry test when authorized.
Evidence limitThis demonstration identifies navigation friction. It does not measure lost or recovered inquiries.

Relevant Work and Its Limits

My previous work includes website SEO work for Varela Law, an immigration law firm in Houston, Texas, and Local SEO work for 3:23 Special Protection, a private security business in Fort Worth, Texas. These examples show relevant methods from those settings. My current service focus is U.S. estate planning firms.

These are excerpts from two real engagements: a website audit for Varela Law in Houston and a Month 1 report for 3:23 Special Protection in Fort Worth. Client contact details are not shown. They show how I find, explain, and prioritize problems. They are not a promise of results.

Neither engagement was an estate planning firm, and I have not yet published an estate planning case study. I would rather show real work from other settings than invent an estate planning example.

EXCERPT 1 · WEBSITE AUDIT

Eight issues found, four things already working

A website audit I wrote for Varela Law, an immigration law firm in Houston, found eight issues and four things already working in a short project of about 7 to 10 days in February 2025. The site was secure, mobile friendly, and fast; the problems were in how it described itself to search engines.

The audit covers metadata, headings, images, indexing, and schema.

Needed attention

  • Meta description far too long
  • Six H1 headings on the homepage
  • Missing alt text on 42 images
  • No canonical tag
  • www and non-www not unified
  • No Open Graph tags
  • No LegalService or LocalBusiness schema
  • No XML sitemap or update signals

Already working well

  • Mobile responsive and loads quickly
  • Secure (HTTPS) and clean code
  • Healthy internal and external links
  • Solid keyword use in titles and descriptions
EXCERPT 1 · THE FINDINGS

For each finding: what, why, and the fix

This is how a finding is written. Each one says what was found, why it matters, and the smallest change that fixes it. The table below shows real findings from the Varela Law website audit, a Houston immigration law firm, with the reason each one matters and the recommended fix.

Real client work
FindingWhat the audit foundWhy it mattersRecommended fix
Meta description is too longOver 700 characters on the homepage. Search results usually show only part of a long description.The key message may be cut off or replaced in search results.Rewrite it as a concise summary naming the practice area, the city, and who the firm helps.
Six H1 headings on one pageThe homepage had six H1 tags. A single main heading is the clearer convention.It can make the page’s main topic less clear to visitors and to tools that read headings.Keep one clear H1 and turn the rest into H2 or H3 subheadings.
Images without alt text42 images had no alt text.Without alt text, search engines and screen readers have no text description of what the images show.Add a short, plain description to each meaningful image.
No canonical tagThe homepage did not declare its preferred version.It makes it less clear which version of the page the site prefers.Add a canonical tag to the homepage.
www and non-www not unifiedBoth versions of the address loaded separately.Search engines may treat them as separate versions of the site.Redirect every version to one primary address.
No Open Graph tagsShared links on LinkedIn or Facebook showed no proper preview.A missing preview can make shared links less informative.Add Open Graph tags.
No LegalService or LocalBusiness schemaNo structured data described the site as a law firm.Search engines had less explicit information about practice areas and location.Add LegalService and LocalBusiness schema in JSON-LD.
No XML sitemap or update signalsThe site had no XML sitemap listing its pages and last-modified dates.A sitemap helps search engines discover pages. It does not guarantee crawling or indexing.Create and submit an XML sitemap with last-modified dates.

In the work that followed, I worked with the firm’s team on metadata, headings, image alt text, canonical tags, redirect consistency, and LegalService schema. I am not claiming a ranking result for this firm. The firm’s own recommendation is on my LinkedIn profile.

EXCERPT 2 · MONTH 1 REPORT

What a baseline and a first change look like

This real Month 1 report is for 3:23 Special Protection, a private security company in Fort Worth, Texas, and not a law firm. Before changing anything, I recorded the Search Console baseline, then made one small change. The excerpt keeps the baseline and the first change separate from any outcome.

Real client work
MeasureBaselineWhat I read from it
Clicks, 3-month view62Real but modest, so the site was not starting from zero.
Impressions1,490Google already showed the site in search.
Average click-through rate4.2%A baseline to compare after the snippet changes.
Average position15.7Average position is a blended figure across queries and pages, so it does not show where one page ranked.
Priority page, 3 months283 impressions, 0 clicksGoogle showed the page, but nobody clicked. The title and description were the first thing to test, though position and search intent can also affect clicks.
Mobile PageSpeed score59 (desktop 86, SEO 92)Speed work was queued for Month 2, with design preserved.
XML sitemapSuccess, 10 pages discoveredSearch Console successfully read the sitemap and discovered 10 pages. Page-level indexing needed a separate check.

What changed in Month 1

I rewrote the title and meta description of the priority page and submitted the XML sitemap. I confirmed access to the website, Business Profile, Search Console, and Analytics. I left the Business Profile category unchanged on purpose, to avoid a re-verification risk.

An early signal, not a result

After the update, one manual search for the target query showed the page near the bottom of page one. The map results still showed competitors. That is one manual check. It is not a guaranteed ranking, and I did not report it as a win.

How I Set the Priority

I look first for access and indexing barriers, then check whether the page matches the firm’s services and gives visitors a clear next step. A cosmetic inconsistency receives a different priority from a wrong phone number or a form that fails.

What a Report Can Establish

A report can document what was checked and what changed. Search visibility, relevant inquiries, and consultations each need their own evidence and date range. A sitemap submission or a single manual search does not establish a ranking improvement, so I keep completed work separate from measured outcomes.

Use the Findings With Your Team

You can use a completed audit with your own team or developer. If you want help implementing selected findings, we can discuss a Fix Sprint with a written scope. The audit itself is a standalone deliverable, and any further work is discussed separately with its own scope, approvals, and fee.

See the Full Audit ScopeExplore the Fix SprintRead a Local SEO Report

Choose the Support Your Firm Needs

Request Your Free One-Page Profile Review

Share your firm’s website and the office or market you want reviewed. I’ll use publicly available Google Business Profile information to prepare the one-page review and identify what I would check next. No account access is needed, and you can decide afterward whether to discuss a separate paid engagement.

Request a Free Profile Review

No account access required. No obligation.