691 John Wesley Dobbs Ave NE Suite C-04, Atlanta, GA 30312
Review evidence score
Compares public-review evidence only. Not a measure of legal ability or outcomes.
Graham Scofield Injury Lawyers is a personal injury attorney in Atlanta, Georgia with a 5.0-star rating across 138 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 138 reviews for this profile and analyzed 106 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 75% of retrieved reviews, 65% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 31% of analyzed reviews. Its review pattern is highly consistent based on a consistency index of 100.
The most common review themes are explicit recommendation (65%), professionalism (33%), and communication (31%). Reviews in the sample mention matters involving car accident, truck accident, and medical malpractice. 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.
Graham Scofield Injury Lawyers reviews most often praise explicit recommendation (65%), professionalism (33%), and communication (31%) in the analyzed sample. These percentages describe text labels in the captured sample, not independently verified service claims.
Graham Scofield Injury Lawyers is listed on Google as a public business profile at 691 John Wesley Dobbs Ave NE Suite C-04, Atlanta, GA 30312, with 138 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.
Graham Scofield Injury Lawyers has a 5.0/5 public Google rating across 138 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 138 reviews and analyzed 106 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 75% of retrieved reviews, 65% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 31% of analyzed reviews. These are public feedback signals, not a legal endorsement or prediction of case results.
Graham Scofield Injury Lawyers 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.
Graham Scofield Injury Lawyers has replied to 75% 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 31% 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 | 79.8/100 | Moderate evidence; public-review evidence only. |
| Within-market score percentile | 87.8th percentile | Compared with the fixed Atlanta, GA cohort. |
| Tracked Google reviews | 138 | Public review count currently visible on the profile. |
| Reviews retrieved | 138 | Review records stored in the current build. |
| Text reviews analyzed | 106 | Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics. |
| Owner response rate | 75% | Share of retrieved reviews with an owner reply. |
| Explicit recommendation rate | 65% | Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm. |
| Communication mentions | 31% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication. |
| Professionalism mentions | 33% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention professionalism. |
| Case-results mentions | 27% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention case results. |
| Compassion mentions | 14% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention compassion or care. |
| Consistency index | 100 | Higher scores indicate a more consistently positive rating pattern. |
| Average owner response time | 110.7 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
79.8/100
Score percentile
87.8th percentile
Rating percentile
100th percentile
Review-count percentile
22th percentile
Owner-reply percentile
Not scored
Moderate evidence from 106 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.
5.7%
6 matches: 6 positive, 0 negative. Precision in external QA: 96%.
2.8%
3 matches: 3 positive, 0 negative. 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
Public-review aggregates captured through Apr 2, 2026. These figures describe the retrieved history, not a live feed.
Retrieved history begins
Sep 4, 2018
Latest dated review
Mar 26, 2026
Retrieved coverage
100%
138 retrieved of 138 tracked
Recent 12-month reviews
18
Average rating: 5.00/5
Average rating
0.00 stars
5.00/5 in the recent period vs. 5.00/5 in the prior period
Review activity
-3 reviews
18 recent reviews vs. 21 in the prior period
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