Most firms select a web developer on the strength of a portfolio, which is the least predictive part of the decision. Every serious vendor in this field can produce an attractive design. What separates them is what happens underneath: whether you own what is built, whether the site loads quickly on a phone, whether intake actually works, whether accessibility was designed in or ignored, and whether another vendor could take the site over without a rebuild. This page sets out the questions that expose those differences before a contract is signed, rather than in month fourteen when you want to leave.
Ownership and platform lock-in
The most consequential question is the least discussed: what do you own at the end. Some developers in the legal market build on proprietary systems they license to you, which means the design, the content structure and sometimes the content itself cannot leave. Others build on common platforms that any competent firm can maintain. Ask four things directly. Who holds the domain registration, and is it in the firm's name? Who owns the hosting account? Can the entire site, including the content, be exported to another host in a usable form? Is the codebase or theme yours, or licensed for the term of the agreement? A vendor whose commercial model depends on you being unable to leave will still build a decent site, but the price of every future change is set by that dependency, and firms discover it at exactly the wrong moment.
Speed, structure and the things Google actually documents
A law firm site is read mostly on phones, frequently by someone in a stressful situation, and speed is a conversion issue before it is a ranking issue. Google publishes guidance on page experience and on the Core Web Vitals metrics that measure loading, interactivity and visual stability, and a developer who cannot discuss them is not building for the medium. Structure matters as much: a clear practice area hierarchy, descriptive URLs, one canonical version of every page, correct internal linking, and structured data where it genuinely applies. Ask to be given the addresses of three sites the vendor built and test them yourself on a phone on mobile data rather than office wifi. That five minute test is more informative than the portfolio page, and it is the same test a prospective client performs without knowing it.
Intake is the part that pays for the site
A law firm website has one commercial job: turn a visitor into a contacted prospective client. Ask each developer how their build handles it. Is the phone number tappable and visible without scrolling on a phone? Do forms work, and where do submissions actually go, given that a form quietly failing to deliver is one of the most common and least detected faults in this category? Is there a tested notification path so nobody waits until Monday? If chat or an answering service is used, who integrates it and who pays for it? And is conversion tracking configured before launch so the firm can distinguish calls, forms and chat from day one? A developer who treats intake as the client's problem is building a brochure and calling it a marketing asset.
Accessibility and conduct rules belong in the scope
Two requirements should be written into the contract rather than assumed. The Department of Justice publishes guidance on web accessibility and the ADA, and a law firm's public site is squarely the kind of asset it discusses. Contrast ratios, keyboard navigation, labelled form fields, alternative text and captions cost little at design time and a great deal to retrofit, so name a standard in the scope and require a test before launch. Separately, attorney advertising rules in each state govern communications about a lawyer's services, including testimonials, statements about results and required disclaimers. The developer is not the authority on those rules and should not be treated as one: assign a lawyer at the firm to review every page before it goes live, because responsibility for the advertising stays with the firm no matter who typed it. When the copy itself is the deliverable, price it as its own line rather than as filler inside the build.
Questions people ask about law firm website developers
What should a law firm website cost?
The spread is wide because the word covers everything from a template with your logo to a bespoke build with written practice area content. Compare on scope: design, build, content, migration, intake and measurement. Two quotes that differ by triple usually differ in which of those six are included.
Is a proprietary platform ever acceptable?
It can be, if the pricing is good and you accept that leaving means rebuilding. Make the decision knowingly. Ask for a written export policy before signing, and price a future migration into your comparison rather than discovering it later.
Who writes the practice area content?
Ask explicitly, because it is the difference between a site that ranks and a template that does not. Substantive writing informed by the firm's actual practice is a separate skill from development and should appear as its own line in the quote.
How do we avoid losing rankings when the new site launches?
Inventory every existing URL, map each one to its new equivalent, implement permanent redirects and preserve the substance of pages that already perform. Google's documentation on site moves with URL changes describes the process; require the vendor to follow it.