230 W Monroe St #1020, Chicago, IL 60606
Public profile and review data last refreshed Aug 2, 2026.
Costa Ivone Injury Lawyers - Chicago is a personal injury attorney in Chicago, Illinois with a 4.7-star rating across 1,147 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 1,061 reviews for this profile and analyzed 833 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 63% of retrieved reviews, 40% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 14% of analyzed reviews. Its review pattern is fairly consistent based on a consistency index of 81.8.
The most common review themes are explicit recommendation (40%), professionalism (22%), and communication (14%). Reviews in the sample mention matters involving car accident, medical malpractice, 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.
The strongest recurring praise signals in the analyzed review sample are explicit recommendation (40%), professionalism (22%), and communication (14%). These percentages describe text labels in the captured sample, not independently verified service claims.
Law Leaderboard can confirm that this page represents a public Google Business listing for Costa Ivone Injury Lawyers - Chicago at 230 W Monroe St #1020, Chicago, IL 60606. The listing has 1,147 tracked Google reviews and is marked as claimed on Google. This 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.
Costa Ivone Injury Lawyers - Chicago has a 4.7/5 public Google rating across 1,147 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 1,061 reviews and analyzed 833 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 63% of retrieved reviews, 40% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 14% of analyzed reviews. These are public feedback signals, not a legal endorsement or prediction of case results.
The recurring concern labels found in the analyzed negative-review sample are unprofessional (22%), poor communication (8%), and passed around (4%). Percentages describe the relevant review sample and should be read with the rating distribution and coverage notes below.
Public review data shows an owner reply on 63% of the reviews retrieved for Costa Ivone Injury Lawyers - Chicago. This measures responses to public reviews, not communication with clients during a case. Communication appears in 14% of analyzed review texts.
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 | 60.7/100 | Strong evidence; public-review evidence only. |
| Within-market score percentile | 12.8th percentile | Compared with the fixed Chicago, IL cohort. |
| Tracked Google reviews | 1,147 | Public review count currently visible on the profile. |
| Reviews retrieved | 1,061 | Review records stored in the current build. |
| Text reviews analyzed | 833 | Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics. |
| Owner response rate | 63% | Share of retrieved reviews with an owner reply. |
| Explicit recommendation rate | 40% | Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm. |
| Communication mentions | 14% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication. |
| Consistency index | 81.8 | Higher scores indicate a more consistently positive rating pattern. |
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
60.7/100
Score percentile
12.8th percentile
Rating percentile
17.9th percentile
Review-count percentile
92.3th percentile
Owner-reply percentile
Not scored
Strong evidence from 833 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.
4.9%
41 matches: 35 positive, 6 negative. Precision in external QA: 96%.
2.0%
17 matches: 11 positive, 0 negative, 6 neutral. Precision in external QA: 82%.
1.2%
10 matches: 9 positive, 1 negative. Precision in external QA: 95%.
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 6, 2026. These figures describe the retrieved history, not a live feed.
Retrieved history begins
Jan 14, 2017
Latest dated review
Apr 4, 2026
Retrieved coverage
93%
1,061 retrieved of 1,147 tracked
Recent 12-month reviews
364
Average rating: 4.81/5
Average rating
+0.17 stars
4.81/5 in the recent period vs. 4.64/5 in the prior period
Review activity
+121 reviews
364 recent reviews vs. 243 in the prior period
Replies to 1–3-star reviews
21%
18 replies across 86 retrieved low-star reviews
Replies to 4–5-star reviews
70%
678 replies across 975 retrieved high-star reviews
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.
Details are shown only when captured from qualifying pages on the firm’s own website; they are self-reported website statements captured at a point in time and are not independent verification of service quality, attorney licensing, or suitability for a specific case.
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.
Based on analysis of 833 text reviews in the current build.