Why your ad reports and signed-case reports disagree

The reports may be counting different events.

An agency can accurately report platform conversions while the firm accurately reports a different number of signed cases. The numbers do not necessarily contradict each other. They may describe different steps in the same journey.

A conversion might be a form submission or another configured event. An intake lead might be a person, a matter inquiry, or a record created after a phone call. A signed case requires its own definition. Put those definitions beside the totals before trying to make them match.

Google Ads distinguishes qualified and converted leads and supports using offline outcomes. The practical implication is that a firm can consider deeper measurement events when its records and implementation support them. It is not evidence that every recorded platform conversion is a retained case.

Source: Google Ads: qualified leads and converted leads

Reconcile the population, not only the total.

Choose one acquisition period and trace the underlying records. Check whether repeat calls, duplicate forms, reopened inquiries, spam, and multiple matters from the same person are counted consistently. Preserve the exclusions so lead quality remains visible.

Use a stable identifier wherever the selected systems support it. A matching count is weak reassurance if the two reports contain different people. The reconciliation should explain which records match, which do not, and why.

• Which system owns the unique inquiry record?
• What creates or updates the record?
• How does it connect to the agreement and matter?
• Who investigates unmatched outcomes?

Keep source fields distinct.

Original source, later touchpoints, referral details, and the prospect’s own answer to how they found the firm can all be useful. They answer different questions. Overwriting one field whenever a new interaction occurs can remove context.

Agree on naming rules and identify missing values. Do not move unknown cases into a likely channel just to make the report look complete. Missing information should create a data-quality task, not a confident attribution claim.

For a deeper look at reconciliation, explore law-firm marketing attribution.

Make the reporting clock explicit.

Cases signed this month may have originated in earlier periods. Recent inquiries may still be waiting on contact, qualification, review, or signature. A current-month comparison can mix several different acquisition groups.

Google documents how conversion delay affects recent reporting. For firm decisions, a cohort view can show how inquiries from a defined period develop over time. Compare cohorts at similar maturity and keep unresolved cases visible.

Source: Google Ads: conversion lag reporting

Apply the same population and timing checks to cost per signed case.

Create a reconciliation note for the leadership review.

The note should state the event definitions, date basis, record of truth, matched totals, exclusions, and unresolved differences. Assign an owner and due date to each material gap.

Then decide what the available evidence can support. A report may be reliable enough to investigate intake contact while still too incomplete for a fine-grained channel allocation. Make that distinction explicit rather than delaying every decision or pretending every number is equally trustworthy.

The attribution example in the workbench shows unknown sources alongside the recorded channels. Its totals reconcile to the same strategy and scorecard. Your reporting should have that internal consistency while reflecting your firm’s actual systems and definitions.

Use the reconciled records in a monthly marketing review.