This Nakul Chhibbar case study covers 29 October 2025 to 15 August 2026 on a GTA litigation practice: 100 reels and 4.2 million organic views on Instagram. It is published with the distribution shown rather than hidden. The mean reel did 41,548 and the median did 9,229, 10 reels passed a hundred thousand, and ten of the hundred account for 65% of every view. Nothing here was boosted.
A litigation lawyer in the Greater Toronto Area, practising employment, family, civil, wills and estates and real estate law. When he came to us he was employed elsewhere and setting up his own firm, Naksar Law. The Instagram account started from zero followers, so everything on this page was built from nothing rather than added to something.
He is the second firm on our legal roster, and the useful thing about that is how little he overlaps with the first: the other account is almost entirely immigration, so anything true on both is a format rule rather than one practice's quirk.
Publishing started on 29 October 2025. There is one stray image from March 2025 and nothing either side of it, so there is no before period to compare against and this page does not invent a lift.
The figures, from a full scrape of the profile on 17 August 2026: 100 reels, 4,154,846 plays, 87,510 likes and comments, 13,027 followers. The mean reel did 41,548 and the median did 9,229. That is a gap of more than four to one, and it is the honest headline: ten reels carry 65% of the views, so this account has produced hits without yet producing a floor.
The five reels that passed 200,000 views, out of 100. Between them they are 50% of everything the account has done. Tap any tile to open it on Instagram.
Brand awareness, and nothing more complicated than that. He was starting a firm from scratch, so the job was to make a name exist where there had not been one, across the areas he practises: family law, employment, civil litigation, business disputes, real estate closings, and wills and estates.
A litigation practice covering six areas has a harder content problem than a single-specialism firm. The person with an employment problem and the person contesting a will are not the same audience, and a feed that serves both can end up serving neither. So the plan was breadth first, then narrow to whatever the numbers rewarded.
Family law is what carried it. 43 of the 100 reels deal with divorce, custody, separation or the matrimonial home, and they are 52% of every view the account has had. That is not one lucky reel either: the breakouts are spread across the bucket rather than concentrated in its top two.
The area he most wanted to be known for behaves differently. Wills and estates is 11 reels with a median of 11,101, the highest median of any area here, above family law's 10,152. It reaches its audience more reliably than anything else on the account and it has never once broken out. For estate planning that is arguably the better outcome, because the person who needs a will is not looking for entertainment, but it does mean the reach number and the relevance number point in opposite directions.
And the median has come down. Across the first fifty reels the median was 11,037 and 8 reels passed 100,000. Across the last fifty it is 7,786 and 2 did. Some of that is what follows a run of breakouts: a reel about one marriage brings in people who came for that story, not for legal content, and the next explainer has to travel through them. It is still a decline and it is still the thing we would fix next.
Two reels, one of each format, because the contrast is the finding. Five reels on this account passed 200,000 views and between them they are 50% of everything it has done, which is the other half of the story.
An injury reported after long shifts, a return to a quietly reduced roster, and the employment question underneath it. 558,031 views, the biggest reel on the account.
Narratives win here on both measures: 46 story reels average 54,010 with a median of 11,061, against 54 explainers at 30,932 and 8,341. That is the same split we found on a different firm with different practice areas, which is why we treat it as a format rule rather than one account's taste.
No client, no story, no jeopardy. A straight statement of what an employer cannot change without consent. 312,646 views, the third biggest on the account.
Which is the useful qualifier on the format rule. Explainers lose on the average and they are not incapable of reach: this one beat 97 of the 100 reels. The five reels over 200,000 are half of everything the account has done, and the median reel is still 9,229, so the job here is raising the floor rather than picking a format and stopping.
It depends entirely on which number you look at, which is why both are on this page. The mean reel did 41,548 and the median did 9,229. Ten reels out of a hundred carry 64% of the views. So the account has produced real hits and has not yet produced a reliable floor, and anybody quoting you the 4.2 million without the median is telling you half of it.
In followers yes, from zero to 13,027. In reach per reel no, and we would rather say so. First fifty reels against the last fifty, the median went from 11,037 to 7,786 and the reels passing 100,000 went from 8 to 2. Part of that is the cost of a good run: the spring breakouts brought in people who came for one story rather than for legal content, and the next explainer has to travel through them. Reach per reel is the open question on this account.
Narrative, on both measures. The 46 reels that open on somebody's situation average 54,010 with a median of 11,061; the 54 that open on the rule average 30,932 with a median of 8,341. The same split showed up on our other legal account, which practises almost entirely different law, and that is what makes it a format rule rather than one lawyer's style.
Family law carries it by volume: 43 of the 100 reels and 52% of all views, spread across the bucket rather than resting on its top two. On the median it is a different answer. Wills and estates is highest at 11,101 on 11 reels, above family law at 10,152, employment at 7,425 and real estate at 8,113. Ignore the averages here: employment's mean is 86% two reels and civil's is 86% two reels, so both describe a lucky fortnight rather than a practice area.
Publish more estate content. It is 11 reels with the highest median on the account at 11,101, and it is the area he most wanted to be known for, so the thing that reaches most reliably is also the thing being published least. Real estate is the one we would cut: 8 reels at a median of 8,113, the lowest here, and closings are a referral business rather than a discovery one.
No, and his own captions say so. Each one carries a general-information disclaimer and states that the identities of the characters have been changed. A lawyer owes confidentiality to the people who hire him, and that does not bend for content.
No. Every figure on this page is organic, with no boosting behind it. We do sell Meta and Google campaigns as a separate service and we report the two apart, so an organic number stays an organic number.
No. Instagram only, from a full scrape of the profile on 17 August 2026.
100 reels on a GTA litigation practice produced 4.2 million organic views, and ten of them produced 65% of that. The finding worth carrying forward is the format one, because it replicates: narrative beats explanation on both the mean and the median here, exactly as it did on a firm practising almost entirely different law, which is written up in the Kapil Rathod case study. What this account has not done yet is build a floor, and that is the honest state of it after ten months. The method behind both is on our legal page.
Book a free 30-minute call. We will look at your profile, tell you what is holding back your growth, and show you what 90 days could look like. We will also tell you if your area is already taken.
