Claimed Google Business Profile Data refreshed Aug 2, 2026

Edward M. Bernstein & Associates Reviews, Ratings & Complaints

10801 W Charleston Blvd #520, Las Vegas, NV 89135

4.5 · 436 Google reviews

Review evidence score

LAW LEADERBOARD · REVIEW EVIDENCE SCORE · FIXED COHORT · 51.6 / 100
Within-market percentile
2.4th percentile
Evidence depth
Strong evidence

Compares public-review evidence only. Not a measure of legal ability or outcomes.

Edward M. Bernstein & Associates is a personal injury attorney in Las Vegas, Nevada with a 4.5-star rating across 436 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 438 reviews for this profile and analyzed 286 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 50% of retrieved reviews, 34% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 15% of analyzed reviews. Its review pattern is fairly consistent based on a consistency index of 70.6.

The most common review themes are explicit recommendation (34%), case results (22%), and professionalism (20%). Reviews in the sample mention matters involving car accident, motorcycle, medical malpractice, and workplace injury. Use these signals as due-diligence inputs rather than proof of specialty or likely outcome.

Review verdict

Edward M. Bernstein & Associates review summary, answered from data.

These direct answers separate what the public review dataset can confirm from licensing, disciplinary, and case-fit questions that require independent verification.

What clients praise

Edward M. Bernstein & Associates reviews most often praise explicit recommendation (34%), case results (22%), and professionalism (20%) in the analyzed sample. These percentages describe text labels in the captured sample, not independently verified service claims.

Is Edward M. Bernstein & Associates legitimate?

Edward M. Bernstein & Associates is listed on Google as a public business profile at 10801 W Charleston Blvd #520, Las Vegas, NV 89135, with 436 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.

Is Edward M. Bernstein & Associates a good law firm?

Edward M. Bernstein & Associates has a 4.5/5 public Google rating across 436 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 438 reviews and analyzed 286 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 50% of retrieved reviews, 34% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 15% of analyzed reviews. These are public feedback signals, not a legal endorsement or prediction of case results.

What do Edward M. Bernstein & Associates reviews complain about?

Edward M. Bernstein & Associates reviews in the analyzed negative sample carry the recurring concern labels unprofessional (24%), poor communication (5%), and passed around (5%). Percentages describe the relevant review sample and should be read with the rating distribution and coverage notes below.

Does Edward M. Bernstein & Associates respond to reviews?

Edward M. Bernstein & Associates has replied to 50% 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 15% of analyzed review texts.

Firm Snapshot Table

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.

MetricValueWhat it means
Review Evidence Score51.6/100Strong evidence; public-review evidence only.
Within-market score percentile2.4th percentileCompared with the fixed Las Vegas, NV cohort.
Tracked Google reviews436Public review count currently visible on the profile.
Reviews retrieved438Review records stored in the current build.
Text reviews analyzed286Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics.
Owner response rate50%Share of retrieved reviews with an owner reply.
Explicit recommendation rate34%Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm.
Communication mentions15%Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication.
Professionalism mentions20%Share of analyzed reviews that mention professionalism.
Case-results mentions22%Share of analyzed reviews that mention case results.
Compassion mentions3%Share of analyzed reviews that mention compassion or care.
Consistency index70.6Higher scores indicate a more consistently positive rating pattern.
Average owner response time117.8 daysMean delay between a public review and the owner reply.

Identity-linked office intelligence

Where This Office Sits in Las Vegas, NV

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.

Compare offices side by side →

Evidence score

51.6/100

Score percentile

2.4th percentile

Rating percentile

2.4th percentile

Review-count percentile

40.5th percentile

Owner-reply percentile

26.2th percentile

Evidence strength and entity relationship

Strong evidence from 286 analyzed review texts. The identity match uses exact source IDs in the private graph; those provider IDs are not exposed here.

Law Leaderboard office ID
llb-office-4041300951ac53e4
Law Leaderboard brand ID
llb-brand-59b226cc5bb7f651
Brand relationship
Edward M. Bernstein & Associates

QA-published themes for this office

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.

communication

5.2%

15 matches: 12 positive, 3 negative. Precision in external QA: 96%.

Outcome language (unverified)

1.7%

5 matches: 3 positive, 0 negative, 2 neutral. Precision in external QA: 82%.

Release llb-consumer-intelligence-2026-08-12-r4. Trend fields remain withheld until the separate multi-snapshot publication gate is met.

Historical review data

Review Activity and Response Detail

Public-review aggregates captured through Apr 6, 2026. These figures describe the retrieved history, not a live feed.

Method: review-trends-v1.0.0

Retrieved history begins

Jun 5, 2012

Latest dated review

Apr 6, 2026

Retrieved coverage

100%

438 retrieved of 436 tracked

Recent 12-month reviews

166

Average rating: 4.83/5

Year-over-year review change

Average rating

+0.40 stars

4.83/5 in the recent period vs. 4.43/5 in the prior period

Review activity

+152 reviews

166 recent reviews vs. 14 in the prior period

Owner replies by rating group

Replies to 1–3-star reviews

29%

15 replies across 51 retrieved low-star reviews

Replies to 4–5-star reviews

60%

233 replies across 387 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.

Case Types Mentioned in Reviews

car accidentmotorcyclemedical malpracticeworkplace injury

Quick Stats

Reviews/Month
1.7
Avg Review Length
244 chars
Local Guide %
23%

Practice Areas

Civil law attorneyLaw firmAttorneyLegal servicesTrial attorney

What Our Data Shows

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.

Rating Distribution

5 star
361 (83%)
4 star
24 (5.5%)
3 star
5 (1.1%)
2 star
6 (1.4%)
1 star
40 (9.2%)
87% positive reviews 13% negative reviews Consistency index: 70.6

What Clients Praise

explicit recommendation 33.9% of reviews
case results 22% of reviews
professionalism 20.3% of reviews
communication 14.7% of reviews
speed 11.9% of reviews

Common Concerns (from negative reviews)

● unprofessional (24.3%)
● poor communication (5.4%)
● passed around (5.4%)

Other Personal Injury in Las Vegas

Provenance

Sources, freshness, and limitations.

Sources

  • • Google Business profile data for the firm, including address, phone, website, business attributes, and aggregate public rating.
  • • 438 retrieved reviews and 286 text reviews used to calculate praise, complaint, communication, and response metrics for this profile.
  • • Consumer intelligence release llb-consumer-intelligence-2026-08-12-r4, derived from llb-depth50-research-2026-08-11-r1, supplies immutable office and brand IDs, market context, evidence-strength tier, and published practice/city memberships.
  • • Historical review aggregates calculated from the retrieved public-review history captured through Apr 6, 2026.
  • • Aggregate business and review-analysis fields rendered from the same exported firm record used by the city rankings; reviewer identities and review text are not republished.

Freshness

  • • Business profile last collected: 2026-04-02 11:42:38.
  • • Review records last collected: 2026-04-06 17:01:17; derived metrics last analyzed: 2026-08-02 20:36:21.
  • • 436 total Google reviews tracked; 438 reviews retrieved; 286 text reviews analyzed.
  • • Consumer intelligence release published 2026-08-12; that is a derived-release date, not a new profile or review observation.
  • • Review-history snapshot: Apr 6, 2026; retrieved coverage: 100% of the tracked-review total.
  • • Methodology version: 2026.04.07. Build packaging timestamp: 2026-08-03 08:34:48 UTC; this is not a source-refresh date.

Limitations

  • • Public review volume, retrieved review records, and text reviews analyzed are different counts and should not be treated as interchangeable.
  • • Historical comparison tiles appear only when retrieved review history reaches both full twelve-month windows and each window meets the rating-count threshold.
  • • Review-derived case-type and praise signals show what appears in the sample; they do not independently verify board certification or case outcomes.
  • • A within-market percentile is a relative position inside the fixed market cohort. It is not a probability, national rank, or legal-performance grade.
  • • A theme appears only when that office result passes the published minimum sample, confidence, and external precision gates; absence is not proof that the topic never appears.
  • • This page helps you evaluate a firm’s public client-feedback footprint, but hiring decisions still require direct due diligence.
← View all Las Vegas personal injury lawyers ranked by public review signals
Explore Nevada personal injury markets → Report an outdated or incorrect detail on this profile →