They didn't need another writing team. They needed a search strategy for the one they already had.

Hamilton Janke's in-house writing team was producing accurate, well-researched legal content. But the wider search programme was working against them.

Keyword targeting was diffuse. The practice-area architecture did not support clear content clusters. Internal pathways were weak, basic on-page optimisation was inconsistent, and previous audit recommendations had not translated into implementation.

The brief was not to replace the writers. It was to make the work they were already capable of producing easier to discover, more strategically targeted and more commercially useful.

Good content was being published into a search structure that could not make enough use of it.

• Diffuse keyword targeting, mismatched to search intent
• Architecture that did not support clear content clusters
• Weak internal pathways and inconsistent on-page optimisation
• Audit recommendations that had never been implemented

Keep the expertise in-house. Build the search system around it.

1. Build the structure first.We rebuilt the information architecture around the firm's specialist practice areas, with clearer pillar pages, supporting content and internal linking. Everything produced afterwards had somewhere intentional to land.
2. Give every piece a clear job.Instead of handing over topics and hoping they performed, we provided detailed briefs built around target queries, search intent, semantic coverage and page structure. Hamilton Janke's writers kept writing; we made sure each piece was solving a defined search problem.
3. Let the expertise compound.New and existing content was organised into connected clusters rather than isolated pages. Performance was reviewed over time, strong pages were expanded and the cluster plan adjusted as the search footprint developed.

Search architecture. Rebuilt the site around clearer clusters of intent, with stronger pillar pages, supporting articles, internal linking and a cleaner URL hierarchy. Relevant LegalService, Person and FAQPage structured data was also implemented.

Editorial direction. Created briefs containing target queries, intent, semantic variations and structural guidance, so Hamilton Janke's internal writers could produce content against a clear search opportunity. Existing pages were improved where a full rewrite was unnecessary.

Cluster development. Built depth around three major areas: criminal charges, court process and procedure, and location and service intent. New content reinforced those areas rather than creating disconnected pockets of information.

Performance feedback. Reviewed what gained traction, identified pages worth expanding and adjusted the programme as the clusters developed. The strategy evolved from observed performance rather than treating the original keyword map as permanent.

Hamilton Janke did not need us to create more expertise. It needed that expertise organised around how clients search.

The internal team kept doing what it already did well. We gave the work clearer targets, stronger architecture and a system in which each useful piece could reinforce what surrounded it.

Organic leads increased 50%. That is the result to read first. The growth in traffic and top-3 rankings explains how a larger search footprint was built around it.