The Coming Split: Google Search vs. AI Search

The Coming Split: Google Search vs. AI Search

By Dave Taillefer, Business Director / ICONA

The search landscape is no longer a single ecosystem. For the first time in two decades, the path to information isn’t converging on Google—it’s splitting. Canadians are dividing into two discovery groups: those who still type conventional queries into Google, and those who rely on AI engines such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, or AI-powered features from Google to deliver direct answers. This emerging divide isn’t theoretical. It’s visible in usage data and shifting consumer behaviour, and it’s changing how people find legal information and which firms get found.

We have already explored how search behaviour is shifting from “keywords” to “questions” in Search Is Becoming a Conversation, and how more queries are resolved without a click in The Zero-Click Reality. This article takes the next step: what happens when those trends harden into two distinct modes of discovery—traditional Google search and AI-first search.

Recent analyses suggest that AI-powered summaries on Google now appear in nearly half of all searches, marking a dramatic shift in how information is surfaced online. Websites that once relied on high Google rankings for visibility may see substantial declines in click-through rates when AI summaries appear—some reports estimate drops of 25–35% for certain informational queries.

At the same time, firms that treat their website as the final destination for clients may be overlooking a rising reality: many potential clients will get answers from AI first — and never click. Discovery is happening upstream from the homepage. For law firms, this is a tectonic shift in visibility strategy.

Two Search Worlds Are Emerging — and They Don’t Behave the Same

The traditional searcher still types focused queries, scans results, compares a few firms, maybe checks reviews, then lands on a website and evaluates whether that firm fits their needs. For those behaviour patterns, standard SEO best practices remain important: site speed, mobile optimization, clear navigation, schema markup, on-page depth, topical authority.

But AI-first searchers operate differently. They ask (or speak) their question conversationally, get a synthesized answer drawn from multiple sources, and often don’t click beyond the results page. They don’t scroll results, open multiple tabs, or visit several firm websites to compare. For them, the delivered answer is the final destination. That behaviour reduces the value of click-through traffic and increases the value of content that can be retrieved and summarized by AI systems.

In other words, the fold between “search results → site visit → conversion” is thinning. Instead, discovery may happen entirely within AI: “search → answer → decision.”

In Answer Engine Optimization (AEO), we argued that firms need to plan for this answer-first reality; the coming split between Google search and AI search is where that theory becomes day-to-day operating environment.

Why the Split Matters for Law Firms

Legal services rest on trust and credibility. Potential clients often start with high-level questions: “What is a wrongful dismissal?” “When can I break a lease?” “Do I need a Will in Alberta?” For decades, Google owned that top-of-the-funnel awareness. Now, AI engines are capturing more and more of that early-stage research — often without generating a click.

This shift carries several implications.

First, AI engines don’t navigate the web the way Google’s crawler does. They rely on semantic retrieval, not backlink graphs or link-following behaviour. Content must be structured, clear, and contextually complete to be consistently retrieved. In Generative Engine Optimization (GEO), we described this as writing for “retrieval first, layout second.” That mindset becomes critical as AI systems mediate more of the research phase.

Second, AI summaries change what visibility means. Instead of “rank → click,” visibility becomes “retrieval → inclusion in the answer.” Many users will remember the answer they saw, not the specific firm that published the source content. That means your work is judged more on clarity and substance than on headline or design.

Third, competition widens. AI systems compare law firm pages not only against other law firms but also against government resources, nonprofits, media outlets, and academic sources. If those are clearer or more structured, they are more likely to surface. This is the same dynamic we outlined in Law Firm Marketing in the Age of AI Search: your content now competes with the entire internet, not just the firms down the street.

The Strategic Implication: Firms Need Parallel Content Strategies

Given this divergence, law firms should adopt dual content strategies: one for Google searchers, and one for AI-driven retrieval systems.

For Google: Maintain technical SEO fundamentals, clear internal linking, structured data, topical depth, and strong mobile performance. The playbook in The Fundamentals of Marketing Law Firms still applies — solid infrastructure, clear positioning, and consistent visibility work.

For AI engines: Write for clarity and retrieval. Use question-based structures, crisp definitions, segmented explanations, and neutral tone. Each section should be usable independently inside an AI summary. The most effective pages read less like brochures and more like well-edited reference entries.

This dual approach reflects a lasting shift: your site must now satisfy both human visitors and machine readers. The firms that align their content with both audiences will be the ones that show up in tomorrow’s discovery pathways.

Why You Should Act Now

Since the rollout of AI Overviews, analysts estimate nearly half of U.S. queries surface an AI-generated summary. Studies also report drops of more than 30% in click-through rates when summaries appear. For law firms that depend on organic search for intake, this creates immediate pressure to adapt, especially in highly competitive practice areas.

Early adopters will benefit by producing reference-style content that both Google and AI engines can parse and trust. That means revisiting older articles, restructuring content around clear questions, updating definitions, and aligning topical clusters so that AI systems can recognize depth, not just surface coverage. For many firms, this will look less like a redesign project and more like the kind of staged content overhaul we discuss in Is It Time for a Website Redesign?.

The Split Isn’t a Threat — It’s a New Visibility Layer

The separation between traditional search and AI-assisted search doesn’t eliminate the need for SEO. It adds a new layer. Firms that adapt early won’t simply chase rankings — they’ll build content that is repeatedly surfaced by AI systems, reaching potential clients long before a website visit.

The future of legal discovery belongs to firms that understand a simple truth: content must now serve two audiences — humans and machines. Both shape how clients find you.

References

Note: Statistics and estimates from third-party sources may change over time as Google, AI platforms, and user behaviour evolve.