The whole second JSON-LD block was copy-pasted from /legal-case-management-software and never localised. Two consequences, both bad: (1) Google’s structured-data guidelines require FAQ markup to match visible page content — mismatched markup is a rich-result disqualifier and, repeated across a site, a manual-action risk; (2) the strongest semantic signal on a page targeting calendaring is currently six paragraphs about case management, diluting the exact relevance the title and H1 establish. This is a one-file fix and it should be the first thing shipped.

Page-level position (35.57) is worse than keyword-level position (32) — and that is the expected relationship. The keyword card measures one phrase; this card averages all 57 phrases the URL surfaces for, including page-5 stragglers like “scheduling software for law firms” (pos 63.35) and the Dutch “juridische agenda software” (pos 62.95) that drag the mean down.

Anonymisation is mild here, unlike on /e-signature. The 57 named queries account for 1,830 of the 2,059 impressions (88.9%); only ~229 impressions sit in GSC’s anonymised long tail. The picture on this page is therefore trustworthy — we can see almost all of the demand, and all of it converts at 0%.

🔴 0-CLICK QUERIES — top 20 of all 57 queries this page surfaces for

Every one of the 57 queries on this page has zero clicks, so “zero-click” is not a filter here — it is the whole dataset. Only 3 queries clear 100 impressions, so the table below is ranked by impressions across the full set rather than cut at the usual 100 threshold; cutting at 100 would hide 17 of the 20 rows that actually explain the problem. Positions cluster in the 27–49 band: pages 3–5, consistently.

Query	Clicks	Impressions	CTR	Position	Opportunity
legal calendaring software	0	363	0%	32	🔴 The exact target keyword. 363 impressions, zero clicks, position 32 — the bottom of page 3. Title and H1 already match this phrase verbatim, so this is not a targeting failure: it is a depth and authority failure. 333 words of body copy against MyCase’s 1,225.
legal calendar software	0	167	0%	30.92	🔴 Near-identical head term, 167 impressions. “Calendar” (not “calendaring”) appears in neither the title nor the H1. A single H2 — “Your Legal Calendar in One Place” — is the only reason this ranks at all.
law firm calendaring software	0	100	0%	36.44	🟠 The firm-level buyer phrase — exactly 100 impressions. MyCase aims an entire H2 at it (“Get Started With Calendaring Software for Law Firms Today!”). No Maatdesk heading contains “law firm”.
legal calendaring and docketing software	0	98	0%	48.24	🟠 The single biggest content gap. Position 48.24 — page 5. The word docketing does not appear anywhere on the Maatdesk page, while both LawToolBox and MyCase build whole H2s around rules-based docketing.
calendaring software for law firms	0	95	0%	35.93	🟠 Word-order variant of “law firm calendaring software”. One H2 naming law firms fixes both at once.
attorney calendaring software	0	94	0%	32.45	🟠 94 impressions at position 32.45. The meta description already says “for attorneys” — but no heading on the page does.
calendaring software for lawyers	0	88	0%	36.66	🟠 “Lawyers” appears in no title, H1 or H2 on the page. The persona vocabulary is missing entirely from the heading structure.
law firm calendar software	0	82	0%	38.93	🟠 Combines the two gaps above — “calendar” + “law firm”. Position 38.93.
calendaring software for attorneys	0	81	0%	34.17	🟠 Preposition variant of “attorney calendaring software”; same single fix serves both.
legal office calendaring software	0	78	0%	36.22	🟡 “Legal office” long-tail. Low effort — a natural-language mention in body copy covers it.
juridische agenda software	0	61	0%	62.95	⚪ Dutch, position 62.95. International noise rather than a target — worth knowing it is inflating impressions, not worth chasing.
best legal calendaring software	0	59	0%	27.64	🟢 Best average position in the entire set (27.64) and pure comparison intent. The page has no comparison, alternatives or “best of” content of any kind. Highest-leverage single addition on this list.
calendaring law management software	0	57	0%	29.82	🟡 Garbled phrasing but a notably strong position (29.82) — Google is already associating the page with practice-management + calendaring.
attorney calendar software	0	31	0%	31	🟡 Short-form attorney + calendar variant, position 31.
calendaring system for law firms	0	31	0%	52.52	🟡 “System” framing rather than “software”. Position 52.52 — barely visible.
legal calendaring & docketing software	0	22	0%	46.95	🟠 Ampersand variant of the docketing gap. Same fix.
legal calendaring programs	0	21	0%	33.1	🟡 “Programs” variant, position 33.1.
legal scheduling software	0	21	0%	34.29	🟡 The page’s own FAQ copy says calendaring goes “beyond scheduling dates” — yet “scheduling” never appears in a heading.
docketing and calendaring software	0	19	0%	44.84	🟠 Third docketing variant in this top-20. Three separate docketing phrases totalling 139 impressions all point at one missing section.
litigation calendaring software	0	17	0%	33.18	🟡 Litigation-specific framing — the deadline-risk angle LawToolBox leads with.

Showing top 20 of 57 zero-click queries — only 3 of the 57 reach 100+ impressions (“legal calendaring software” 363, “legal calendar software” 167, “law firm calendaring software” 100). The 20 rows shown carry 1,585 of the page’s 2,059 impressions (77%).

• 1,225 words vs 333. MyCase answers the question completely; Maatdesk asserts a feature list. At position 32 the deficit is depth, not targeting — the title and H1 are already exact-match.
• Every H2 does work. Four topical H2s, all keyword-bearing, one of them explicitly “…for Law Firms”. Maatdesk spends half its H2 budget on “FAQs” and “Have Questions?”.
• It owns “rules-based docketing”. Two of four H2s name it. The word docketing appears nowhere on the Maatdesk page — yet three docketing queries send it 139 impressions at positions 45–48.
• A named attorney author with Person schema. Nicole Black is a machine-readable expertise signal; Maatdesk publishes anonymously.
• The snippet sells. “Tired of manually tracking court deadlines? … so you don’t receive penalties or sanctions” names the fear. Maatdesk’s meta description is generic and ungrammatical.

• 1. Fix the FAQ schema first — it is a live defect, not an optimisation. Replace the copy-pasted case-management FAQPage block (and the VideoObject pointing at /legal-case-management-software#video) with the six calendaring questions already visible on the page. One file, immediate effect, removes a rich-result disqualifier.
• 2. Add a rules-based docketing section. An H2 “What Is Rules-Based Legal Docketing?” plus 200–300 words on court-rule calculation. Targets 139 impressions currently stranded at position 45–48, and closes the one capability gap both LawToolBox and MyCase lead with.
• 3. Put the persona words in headings. “Law firm”, “attorney” and “lawyer” appear in no H1 or H2, yet drive 540 impressions across six queries. Rewriting two H2s covers all six.
• 4. Render the price you already publish. $39/user/mo, $29 annual and “6 months free” sit in Offer schema while every competitor hides pricing behind sales. Showing it on-page is an instant differentiator and feeds the “legal calendar software pricing” / “free legal calendaring software” queries already in the export.
• 5. Add any trust signal at all, then triple the body copy. Firm count, a testimonial, a security badge — the page currently offers a buyer zero evidence. Getting to ~1,000 words with real proof is what moves position 32 onto page 1.