Claimed Google Business Profile Data refreshed Aug 2, 2026

Frank Azar Car & Truck Accident Lawyers - Denver, Colorado Reviews, Ratings & Complaints

1245 E Colfax Ave #302, Denver, CO 80218

4.9 · 2,185 Google reviews

Review evidence score

LAW LEADERBOARD · REVIEW EVIDENCE SCORE · FIXED COHORT · 65.4 / 100
Within-market percentile
15.6th percentile
Evidence depth
Extensive evidence

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

Frank Azar Car & Truck Accident Lawyers - Denver, Colorado is a personal injury attorney in Denver, Colorado with a 4.9-star rating across 2,185 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 1,522 reviews for this profile and analyzed 1,279 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 99% of retrieved reviews, 13% 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 96.

The most common review themes are explicit recommendation (13%), professionalism (12%), and case results (5%). 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

Frank Azar Car & Truck Accident Lawyers - Denver, Colorado 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

Frank Azar Car & Truck Accident Lawyers - Denver, Colorado reviews most often praise explicit recommendation (13%), professionalism (12%), and case results (5%) in the analyzed sample. These percentages describe text labels in the captured sample, not independently verified service claims.

Is Frank Azar Car & Truck Accident Lawyers - Denver, Colorado legitimate?

Frank Azar Car & Truck Accident Lawyers - Denver, Colorado is listed on Google as a public business profile at 1245 E Colfax Ave #302, Denver, CO 80218, with 2,185 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 Frank Azar Car & Truck Accident Lawyers - Denver, Colorado a good law firm?

Frank Azar Car & Truck Accident Lawyers - Denver, Colorado has a 4.9/5 public Google rating across 2,185 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 1,522 reviews and analyzed 1,279 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 99% of retrieved reviews, 13% 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.

What do Frank Azar Car & Truck Accident Lawyers - Denver, Colorado reviews complain about?

Frank Azar Car & Truck Accident Lawyers - Denver, Colorado reviews show no recurring complaint category in the current analyzed sample. That does not prove that no client has complained; review coverage is incomplete and changes over time.

Does Frank Azar Car & Truck Accident Lawyers - Denver, Colorado respond to reviews?

Frank Azar Car & Truck Accident Lawyers - Denver, Colorado has replied to 99% 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.

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 Score65.4/100Extensive evidence; public-review evidence only.
Within-market score percentile15.6th percentileCompared with the fixed Denver, CO cohort.
Tracked Google reviews2,185Public review count currently visible on the profile.
Reviews retrieved1,522Review records stored in the current build.
Text reviews analyzed1,279Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics.
Owner response rate99%Share of retrieved reviews with an owner reply.
Explicit recommendation rate13%Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm.
Communication mentions3%Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication.
Professionalism mentions12%Share of analyzed reviews that mention professionalism.
Case-results mentions5%Share of analyzed reviews that mention case results.
Compassion mentions4%Share of analyzed reviews that mention compassion or care.
Consistency index96Higher scores indicate a more consistently positive rating pattern.
Average owner response time84.5 daysMean delay between a public review and the owner reply.

Identity-linked office intelligence

Where This Office Sits in Denver, CO

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

65.4/100

Score percentile

15.6th percentile

Rating percentile

68.8th percentile

Review-count percentile

100th percentile

Owner-reply percentile

Not scored

Evidence strength and entity relationship

Extensive evidence from 1,279 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-db850b3ef0a52387
Law Leaderboard brand ID
llb-brand-4e4a2b6407e05fda
Brand relationship
Frank Azar Car & Truck Accident Lawyers - Denver, Colorado

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

2.2%

28 matches: 28 positive, 0 negative. Precision in external QA: 96%.

responsiveness delays

0.9%

11 matches: 11 positive, 0 negative. Precision in external QA: 95%.

Outcome language (unverified)

0.5%

7 matches: 6 positive, 0 negative, 1 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

Dec 26, 2023

Latest dated review

Apr 4, 2026

Retrieved coverage

70%

1,522 retrieved of 2,185 tracked

Recent 12-month reviews

802

Average rating: 4.93/5

Year-over-year review change

Average rating

-0.02 stars

4.93/5 in the recent period vs. 4.95/5 in the prior period

Review activity

+100 reviews

802 recent reviews vs. 702 in the prior period

Owner replies by rating group

Replies to 1–3-star reviews

88%

15 replies across 17 retrieved low-star reviews

Replies to 4–5-star reviews

99%

1,490 replies across 1,505 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 injurydog bite

Quick Stats

Reviews/Month
46.4
Avg Review Length
94 chars
Local Guide %
20%

Practice Areas

Employment attorneyLaw firmAttorneyLegal servicesTrial attorney

Source-Backed Website Signals

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.

Intake And Fee Signals

Free consultation stated Contingency fee mentioned No fee unless recovery stated 24/7 availability stated Contact form observed Phone intake observed

Languages And Practice Signals

Languages
Spanish
Practice Areas Mentioned On Site
bicycle accident car accident dog bite motorcycle accident pedestrian accident product liability slip and fall truck accident workers compensation wrongful death

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
2123 (97%)
4 star
39 (1.8%)
3 star
7 (<1%)
2 star
2 (<1%)
1 star
14 (<1%)
99% positive reviews 1% negative reviews Consistency index: 96

What Clients Praise

explicit recommendation 13% of reviews
professionalism 11.9% of reviews
case results 5.2% of reviews
compassion and care 4.4% of reviews
speed 3.7% of reviews

Other Personal Injury in Denver

Provenance

Sources, freshness, and limitations.

Sources

  • • Google Business profile data for the firm, including address, phone, website, business attributes, and aggregate public rating.
  • • 1,522 retrieved reviews and 1,279 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.
  • • 2 captured pages from the firm's website support the displayed self-reported intake signals, languages, and practice-area mentions.
  • • 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 11:59:22.
  • • Review records last collected: 2026-04-06 16:59:27; derived metrics last analyzed: 2026-08-02 20:36:21.
  • • 2,185 total Google reviews tracked; 1,522 reviews retrieved; 1,279 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: 70% 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 Denver personal injury lawyers ranked by public review signals
Explore Colorado personal injury markets → Compare this office in the Car Accident cohort → Compare this office in the Motorcycle Accident cohort → Compare this office in the Truck Accident cohort → Compare this office in the Workers' Compensation cohort → Report an outdated or incorrect detail on this profile →