Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf Reviews, Ratings & Complaints

80 Pine St 34th floor, New York, NY 10005

Public profile and review data last refreshed Aug 12, 2026.

4.6
109 Google reviews
Claimed Google Business Profile

Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf is a personal injury attorney in New York, New York with a 4.6-star rating across 109 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 109 reviews for this profile and analyzed 104 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 87% of retrieved reviews, 79% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 20% of analyzed reviews. Its review pattern is fairly consistent based on a consistency index of 79.8.

The most common review themes are explicit recommendation (79%), professionalism (64%), and compassion and care (50%). Reviews in the sample mention matters involving car accident, truck accident, motorcycle, and medical malpractice. Use these signals as due-diligence inputs rather than proof of specialty or likely outcome.

Review verdict

Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf Review Summary and Due-Diligence Questions

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

The strongest recurring praise signals in the analyzed review sample are explicit recommendation (79%), professionalism (64%), and compassion and care (50%). These percentages describe text labels in the captured sample, not independently verified service claims.

Is Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf legitimate?

Law Leaderboard can confirm that this page represents a public Google Business listing for Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf at 80 Pine St 34th floor, New York, NY 10005. The listing has 109 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.

Is Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf a good law firm?

Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf has a 4.6/5 public Google rating across 109 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 109 reviews and analyzed 104 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 87% of retrieved reviews, 79% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 20% of analyzed reviews. These are public feedback signals, not a legal endorsement or prediction of case results.

What do Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf reviews complain about?

The recurring concern labels found in the analyzed negative-review sample are unprofessional (55%). Percentages describe the relevant review sample and should be read with the rating distribution and coverage notes below.

Does Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf respond to reviews?

Public review data shows an owner reply on 87% of the reviews retrieved for Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf. This measures responses to public reviews, not communication with clients during a case. Communication appears in 20% 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 Score67.7/100Moderate evidence; public-review evidence only.
Within-market score percentile36.4th percentileCompared with the fixed New York, NY cohort.
Tracked Google reviews109Public review count currently visible on the profile.
Reviews retrieved109Review records stored in the current build.
Text reviews analyzed104Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics.
Owner response rate87%Share of retrieved reviews with an owner reply.
Explicit recommendation rate79%Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm.
Communication mentions20%Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication.
Consistency index79.8Higher scores indicate a more consistently positive rating pattern.

Identity-linked office intelligence

Where This Office Sits in New York, NY

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

67.7/100

Score percentile

36.4th percentile

Rating percentile

15.2th percentile

Review-count percentile

39.4th percentile

Owner-reply percentile

Not scored

Evidence strength and entity relationship

Moderate evidence from 104 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-f2e43e33298d74cb
Law Leaderboard brand ID
llb-brand-bf2d1016e808af34
Brand relationship
Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf

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.

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.

Case Types Mentioned in Reviews

car accidenttruck accidentmotorcyclemedical malpracticeworkplace injurywrongful death

Quick Stats

Reviews/Month
0.6
Avg Review Length
714 chars
Local Guide %
23%

Practice Areas

Law firmAttorneyLegal servicesMedical lawyerTrial attorney

About

Are you looking for a top-rated personal injury lawyer in New York? Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf, a time-honored law firm established in 1919, stands tall on...

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.

Performance Metrics

Based on analysis of 104 text reviews in the current build.

Owner Response Rate
87%
replies to reviews
Explicit Recommendation Rate
79%
of analyzed reviewers
Communication Mentions
20%
of analyzed reviews
Professionalism Mentions
64%
of analyzed reviews
Results Mentions
39%
of analyzed reviews
Compassion Mentions
50%
of analyzed reviews
Average response time: 149.2 days

Rating Distribution

5 star
97 (89%)
4 star
1 (<1%)
3 star
1 (<1%)
2 star
1 (<1%)
1 star
9 (8.3%)
89% positive reviews 10% negative reviews Consistency index: 79.8

What Clients Praise

explicit recommendation 78.8% of reviews
professionalism 63.5% of reviews
compassion and care 50% of reviews
case results 38.5% of reviews
expertise 31.7% of reviews

Common Concerns (from negative reviews)

unprofessional (54.5%)

Other Personal Injury in New York

Sources, Freshness & Limitations

Sources

  • Google Business profile data for the firm, including address, phone, website, business attributes, and aggregate public rating.
  • 109 retrieved reviews and 104 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.
  • 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: 2026-08-09 23:45:47Z.
  • Review records last collected: 2026-08-11 20:30:17Z; derived metrics last analyzed: 2026-08-12 08:09:57.
  • 109 total Google reviews tracked; 109 reviews retrieved; 104 text reviews analyzed.
  • Consumer intelligence release published 2026-08-12; that is a derived-release date, not a new profile or review observation.
  • Methodology version: review-evidence-v1.0.0. Build packaging timestamp: 2026-08-12 00:00:00Z; 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 New York personal injury lawyers ranked by public review signals
Explore New York personal injury markets → Compare this office in the Car Accident cohort → Compare this office in the Medical Malpractice cohort → Compare this office in the Truck Accident cohort → Report an outdated or incorrect detail on this profile →