13915 N Mopac Expy Suite 315, Austin, TX 78728
Review evidence score
Compares public-review evidence only. Not a measure of legal ability or outcomes.
Amaro Law Firm is a personal injury attorney in Austin, Texas with a 4.9-star rating across 142 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 142 reviews for this profile and analyzed 81 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 96% of retrieved reviews, 46% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 3% of analyzed reviews. Its review pattern is highly consistent based on a consistency index of 92.6.
The most common review themes are explicit recommendation (46%), professionalism (28%), and case results (6%). Reviews in the sample mention matters involving car accident, truck accident, and workplace injury. Use these signals as due-diligence inputs rather than proof of specialty or likely outcome.
Review verdict
These direct answers separate what the public review dataset can confirm from licensing, disciplinary, and case-fit questions that require independent verification.
Amaro Law Firm reviews most often praise explicit recommendation (46%), professionalism (28%), and case results (6%) in the analyzed sample. These percentages describe text labels in the captured sample, not independently verified service claims.
Amaro Law Firm is listed on Google as a public business profile at 13915 N Mopac Expy Suite 315, Austin, TX 78728, with 142 tracked Google reviews, and the listing is marked as claimed on Google. A public listing does not independently verify attorney licensing, disciplinary history, insurance, or eligibility to handle a specific matter; check the relevant state bar and speak with the firm before hiring.
Amaro Law Firm has a 4.9/5 public Google rating across 142 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 142 reviews and analyzed 81 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 96% of retrieved reviews, 46% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 3% of analyzed reviews. These are public feedback signals, not a legal endorsement or prediction of case results.
Amaro Law Firm reviews in the analyzed negative sample carry the recurring concern labels poor communication (33%) and unprofessional (33%). Percentages describe the relevant review sample and should be read with the rating distribution and coverage notes below.
Amaro Law Firm has replied to 96% of the reviews retrieved for this profile, according to public review data. This measures responses to public reviews, not communication with clients during a case. Communication appears in 3% of analyzed review texts.
Yes. This evidence covers the Austin, Texas office. Compare all tracked Amaro Law Firm offices before generalizing this location's rating, praise, or concern signals to the wider brand.
Use this table to see the difference between the firm's public review footprint, the reviews retrieved into the current build, and the text reviews that feed the NLP metrics on this page.
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Review Evidence Score | 68.1/100 | Minimum evidence; public-review evidence only. |
| Within-market score percentile | 17.5th percentile | Compared with the fixed Austin, TX cohort. |
| Tracked Google reviews | 142 | Public review count currently visible on the profile. |
| Reviews retrieved | 142 | Review records stored in the current build. |
| Text reviews analyzed | 81 | Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics. |
| Owner response rate | 96% | Share of retrieved reviews with an owner reply. |
| Explicit recommendation rate | 46% | Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm. |
| Communication mentions | 3% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication. |
| Professionalism mentions | 28% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention professionalism. |
| Case-results mentions | 6% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention case results. |
| Compassion mentions | 1% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention compassion or care. |
| Consistency index | 92.6 | Higher scores indicate a more consistently positive rating pattern. |
| Average owner response time | 287 days | Mean delay between a public review and the owner reply. |
Identity-linked office intelligence
An office’s within-market percentile shows how its Review Evidence Score compares with the other profiles in that market. It is a relative position, not a probability, quality rating, or prediction. The score and percentile reflect public-review evidence only—not legal skill, licensing, case outcomes, misconduct, or suitability.
Evidence score
68.1/100
Score percentile
17.5th percentile
Rating percentile
38.1th percentile
Review-count percentile
40.5th percentile
Owner-reply percentile
59.5th percentile
Minimum evidence from 81 analyzed review texts. The identity match uses exact source IDs in the private graph; those provider IDs are not exposed here.
The nearest scored offices in the same fixed market by Review Evidence Score. Proximity is descriptive, not a recommendation.
The published themes are communication, responsiveness or delays, and outcome language. Theme prevalence is calculated only for offices whose theme result passed minimum sample, confidence, and external precision gates. Outcome language reflects an unverified claim in a review; it is not independent confirmation of what happened.
No office-level theme result passed every current publication gate. This is not evidence that reviewers never mentioned these topics.
Release llb-consumer-intelligence-2026-08-12-r4. Trend fields remain withheld until the separate multi-snapshot publication gate is met.
Historical review data
Public-review aggregates captured through Apr 2, 2026. These figures describe the retrieved history, not a live feed.
Retrieved history begins
Jun 7, 2021
Latest dated review
Aug 10, 2024
Retrieved coverage
100%
142 retrieved of 142 tracked
Recent 12-month reviews
0
Average rating: Not available
The retrieved history does not yet meet the full-window coverage and rating-count gate for a fair twelve-month comparison.
Comparison gates prevent thin or incomplete review history from being presented as a trend. Review text and reviewer identities are not published in these aggregates.
The sections below break this firm into measurable signals: responsiveness, communication mentions, review consistency, praised attributes, complaint themes, historical activity, and source-freshness notes. Read them together, not as isolated stats.
Provenance