A test conducted in late September 2026 explored how various artificial intelligence (AI) tools respond to the question "What is the best family law attorney in Strasbourg?" using Google's AI mode, ChatGPT, and Perplexity. The results showed that each tool provided a list of eleven names, with no overlap between the recommendations. None of the lawyers suggested by ChatGPT appeared in the other tools' responses, and the lawyer ranked highest by Perplexity was fifth on Google's list. This highlights the diversity in how AI tools gather and present information. The differences in results are attributed to the distinct sources each tool uses. Google relies on customer reviews, using vocabulary from these reviews such as responsiveness, listening, kindness, straightforwardness, and empathy. A firm without detailed reviews does not appear on Google's list. ChatGPT draws information from the websites of the firms, citing details such as the year of admission to the bar, specialization certificates, doctoral theses, and specific areas of practice. It also provides direct links to relevant pages. Perplexity uses directories and websites, considering factual criteria such as a practice "exclusively devoted to family law for more than fifteen years," and it classifies lawyers by the type of case they handle, such as financial issues divorce, parental authority, and amicable procedures. The common point among the three tools is that they reward clear and verifiable information. A website that is vague about a firm's specialty or has an incomplete directory entry causes the firm to be excluded from the response. This suggests that the accuracy and clarity of a firm's online presence play a crucial role in how it is perceived by AI tools. The findings suggest that no firm controls what these tools respond with, but each can ensure the accuracy of the sources they provide. Three key strategies are recommended: encouraging satisfied clients to leave detailed reviews on the firm's Google page, clearly stating the firm's specialty, specialization certificates, seniority, and types of cases handled on the website, and maintaining complete and coherent directory entries across all platforms. Discrepancies between sources can weaken the confidence of the tools. The test highlights that clients no longer rely on a single source to find a lawyer, as each tool provides different results. The first step for firms is to test their visibility through these tools for their specialty and city. The results of such a test can provide insight into how future clients find them.