Service
A HARO link building service built only for law firms
If you searched for this, you already know the model: journalists post requests for expert sources, experts answer, and the coverage carries an earned link. Two things are worth knowing before you buy it anywhere. The brand you searched for is not really the product anymore, and a generalist service pitching your attorneys loses to a specialist one more often than either will admit.
The brand aged; the model did not
HARO, Help a Reporter Out, made journalist source requests famous, then spent years being bought, renamed and reshuffled. The name still gets searched hundreds of times a month, which is probably how you arrived here. What matters underneath the brand history is unchanged: reporters at real publications still post daily requests for qualified sources, across several platforms that inherited the audience, including Qwoted and Featured.com.
So when anyone sells you HARO link building in 2026, the honest description is journalist-request sourcing: watching those platforms daily, answering the right requests fast, and earning the citation when a reporter uses the commentary. That is exactly what our packages do, with one difference from the services that rank alongside this page: we only do it for law firms.
Why the specialist beats the generalist here
Journalist requests close in hours, and a reporter covering a legal question can tell within one sentence whether the source understands the law. Both facts favor a service that does nothing else.
| Decision point | Generalist service | Built for law firms |
|---|---|---|
| Which requests get answered | Whatever mentions any client's industry | Requests matched to your practice areas and admission states, watched daily |
| Who the pitch says you are | A businessperson with an opinion | A licensed attorney with matter experience on the exact question asked |
| How the commentary reads | One template across dentists, SaaS and lawyers | Drafted in legal register, in the attorney's voice, from their real positions |
| What never gets pitched | Whatever the writer did not know to avoid | Your off-limits topics and state bar constraints, enforced as standing instructions |
| What the reporter receives | A quote to trim | A quotable source they can come back to on the next legal story |
The specialization is the whole pitch, and it is priced the same flat way as everything here.
See the three packagesWhat the subscription does, week by week
Your practice areas become a watchlist
From a 20 minute onboarding: who can be quoted, on what, never on what, with which credentials attached. The daily request feeds get filtered against it.
Commentary goes out while requests are open
Speed decides a large share of wins. Drafts go from request to submission inside the window, in your attorney's voice, without waiting on their calendar.
Wins land as coverage with links
The published piece typically names the attorney, names the firm, and links back. Some requests convert in days, some never do; nobody honest promises which.
The monthly report closes the loop
Every URL, every publication, the DR 50+ subset flagged. If a link is not in the report, it did not happen.
Could you just do this yourself?
Yes, and some attorneys should. Here is the honest arithmetic of doing it in-house before you decide.
| The task | What it takes weekly |
|---|---|
| Monitoring the platforms | Daily scanning across several feeds, because requests expire in hours |
| Filtering for fit | Reading dozens of requests to find the 2 or 3 worth an answer |
| Drafting quotable answers | 30 to 60 minutes each, fast, in a register a reporter can lift verbatim |
| Following through | Tracking what published, chasing nothing, logging URLs |
A partner who genuinely does this every week will earn excellent links and needs nothing from us. The subscription exists because that partner has billable work, and the discipline collapses in week three. If the hours exist in-house, spend them; if they do not, $699 a month buys the consistency.
Either way, the model rewards whoever actually shows up daily.
Read the full processThe questions this page gets asked
Is HARO dead?
The original brand has been through shutdowns and relaunches, and trading on its name says little about a service either way. The model is healthy: journalists still post source requests daily across the platforms that inherited the audience, and the requests are what you are actually buying access to.
What success rate should I expect?
Distrust anyone who quotes one. Wins depend on your practice areas, your market, and how quotable your attorneys' positions are. What we publish instead are package averages: 3 to 4, 7 to 10, or 15 to 20 earned links a month by tier, stated as averages with the variance explained on the packages page.
Are these links Google-safe?
This is the safest category of link building that exists, because it is not link buying. Nobody pays a publisher; a journalist chooses to cite a source. Google's own guidance points at exactly this: earn links by being worth citing.
What publications do the links come from?
Whichever publications' journalists pick up the commentary, which nobody controls in advance. The report shows what landed, including which links came from DR 50+ sites, and that record beats any promise a sales page could make.
Do my attorneys get interviewed?
Usually not. Most journalist requests want written commentary, which we draft from the onboarding intake in the attorney's voice. When a reporter does want a call, that is the attorney's 15 minutes to accept or decline, and it usually produces the best coverage of the month.
If the model is what you came looking for, the law-firm version of it starts at $699 a month.
Pick a package