Data Coverage

Attorney-market coverage tied to method, freshness, and review.

SterlingIndex earns trust through coverage scope, source transparency, update cadence, and correction workflows buyers can inspect during evaluation.

Request a DemoSee the Platform
Coverage at a glance

Use the coverage surface to understand scale, history, and refresh cadence before rollout expands.

This page serves as the canonical methodology anchor linked from product, pricing, solutions, and compare surfaces.

Coverage scale

500K+ verified profiles

Coverage designed to support attorney search, market monitoring, and panel-evaluation workflows.

Firm context

15K+ tracked firms

Firm-level context helps teams connect attorney movement to the broader market around a decision.

Historical context

10+ years of history

Career and market history help teams evaluate trajectories instead of single snapshots.

Update cadence

Twice-weekly refreshes

Update rhythms, timestamps, and confidence cues keep proof close to the record.
How records are built

Coverage should be explained in process language buyers can inspect.

Methodology credibility comes from showing where records come from, how they are reconciled, and how reviews fit into the system.

Multi-source aggregation

Records are built from authoritative categories such as bar associations, firm websites, public records, court filings, and related market sources.

Entity matching and normalization

Attorney and firm data are reconciled into working records that preserve history and make search, monitoring, and exports usable.

Review-backed exception handling

Flagged or ambiguous changes move through review workflows instead of being treated as unquestioned truth.
How trust stays close to the record

The goal is not abstract quality language - it is clearer signals about when to trust a record.

Buyers should connect methodology and freshness directly to how records appear inside the platform.

Timestamps and confidence cues

Freshness indicators and record-level timing help teams judge when a profile is current enough to use in a live workflow.

Correction workflows

User-reported issues and internal review loops create a visible path for improving records that matter to active decisions.

Historical context, not just current-state fields

History makes the data more useful because teams can understand movement, tenure, and trajectory rather than a single present-tense snapshot.
What buyers should validate in evaluation

Security, access, and rollout questions should stay grounded in what can be shown or reviewed.

This page reduces trust anxiety without introducing unsupported compliance or certification claims.

Role-aware access and workflow controls

Use evaluation conversations to review how access, team workflows, and exports fit your rollout requirements.
See pricing paths

Guided security and governance review

High-intent buyers can use the demo and evaluation process to review governance questions alongside the product workflow they care about.
Request a guided review

Product evidence alongside methodology

The strongest trust pattern combines this methodology surface with screenshots, records, and workflow examples inside the platform.
See the platform
Questions about coverage?

Review the methodology with your own workflow in mind.

Use a guided walkthrough to inspect coverage, freshness, and rollout questions alongside the recruiting, law-firm, or legal-ops workflow you are evaluating.

Request a DemoReview Pricing Paths