6,327 records, with a defined scope
This snapshot was collected at . It covers the public name inventory used by Find Law Firms: a record’s URL identifier, published business name, suburb and state. It includes 1,347 distinct named locality-and-state combinations after trimming spaces and ignoring letter case.
A record is not necessarily a unique legal business. A practice can have multiple offices, names can vary and records can need correction. Nor does a locality label prove service coverage across a suburb or region. These are measurements of this directory’s data at one time.
Directory records by state and territory
| State or territory | Records | Share of records | Named localities | Without locality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New South Wales | 2,416 | 38.2% | 475 | 150 |
| Victoria | 1,428 | 22.6% | 304 | 0 |
| Queensland | 1,251 | 19.8% | 262 | 0 |
| Western Australia | 533 | 8.4% | 114 | 0 |
| South Australia | 381 | 6.0% | 118 | 0 |
| Tasmania | 122 | 1.9% | 22 | 0 |
| Australian Capital Territory | 117 | 1.8% | 28 | 0 |
| Northern Territory | 79 | 1.2% | 24 | 0 |
Percentages are rounded independently and describe this snapshot only. A larger record count is not a quality score or a measure of legal-service demand.
New: what the directory actually publishes about meetings, consultations and contact details →
How to use this evidence when searching
The snapshot exposes a specific gap: 150 NSW records have no published locality. A suburb search may therefore miss records that appear in a broader NSW search. We have not assigned guessed suburbs to fill the gap; office evidence is needed before those records can be corrected.
The uneven state totals describe where the directory has collected records. They do not establish that one jurisdiction has better legal access or more suitable lawyers for your matter. A small result set may reflect directory coverage, search wording or how services were recorded.
If a search returns little, try the published suburb and state separately, review a nearby locality or consider remote appointments where appropriate. Check the relevant professional register and legal assistance resources linked in each state guide. An empty directory result is not evidence that no suitable practitioner exists.
Likewise, a long list is only a starting pool. Narrow it by the work required, the responsible practitioner and the proposed engagement. The directory does not collect comparable case outcomes, verified client satisfaction or standardised prices, so the count cannot support a “best firm” ranking.
Choosing between a local and remote lawyer →Counting method and reproducibility
- Read the complete public provider-name inventory after a successful directory response. The observed input contained 6,327 rows with distinct URL identifiers.
- Group records by the published state code. Do not infer a location from the business name or website.
- Count non-empty locality labels within each state after trimming outer whitespace and comparing without letter case. Do not merge neighbouring suburbs or infer metropolitan boundaries.
- Divide each state’s row count by the total to calculate its share. Record missing localities separately.
- Keep the observation timestamp and input fingerprint with the aggregate. A future snapshot should receive a new observation date, not silently replace the meaning of this one.
The input is identified by a SHA-256 fingerprint in the downloadable aggregate. This lets someone with the same public inventory confirm which input was counted; the fingerprint does not certify that the underlying provider facts are correct.
What still needs verification
- Provider identity: names and office records need reconciliation against current firm information. Similar names are not proof that records describe the same entity.
- Professional status: a directory entry is not proof of a current practising certificate or specialist accreditation. Verify the responsible practitioner through the appropriate register.
- Service and availability: the four input fields do not establish fees, languages, accessibility, appointments or accepted matters.
- Editorial depth: a published profile and a researched profile are different. A source-backed overview carries its own source and check date.
- Search-engine eligibility: these totals include the public name inventory. They are not a count of indexed Google pages. Duplicate URL aliases can be excluded in favour of their canonical profile. Sitemap inclusion does not prove that Google has indexed a page.
This snapshot does not refresh live. Record corrections or additions after the observation time are not represented. Read a provider’s current profile and confirm important details before making contact.
How we separate directory facts from editorial guidance →