275 W Market St UNIT 1000, San Diego, CA 92101
Public profile and review data last refreshed Aug 2, 2026.
Hamparyan Personal Injury Lawyers San Diego, APC is a personal injury attorney in San Diego, California with a 4.9-star rating across 107 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 107 reviews for this profile and analyzed 101 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 100% of retrieved reviews, 76% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 23% of analyzed reviews. Its review pattern is highly consistent based on a consistency index of 98.
The most common review themes are explicit recommendation (76%), professionalism (35%), and case results (28%). Reviews in the sample mention matters involving car accident, motorcycle, medical malpractice, and wrongful death. 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 (76%), professionalism (35%), and case results (28%). 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 Hamparyan Personal Injury Lawyers San Diego, APC at 275 W Market St UNIT 1000, San Diego, CA 92101. The listing has 107 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.
Hamparyan Personal Injury Lawyers San Diego, APC has a 4.9/5 public Google rating across 107 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 107 reviews and analyzed 101 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 100% of retrieved reviews, 76% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 23% of analyzed reviews. These are public feedback signals, not a legal endorsement or prediction of case results.
The current analyzed sample does not contain a recurring complaint category for Hamparyan Personal Injury Lawyers San Diego, APC. That does not prove that no client has complained; review coverage is incomplete and changes over time.
Public review data shows an owner reply on 100% of the reviews retrieved for Hamparyan Personal Injury Lawyers San Diego, APC. This measures responses to public reviews, not communication with clients during a case. Communication appears in 23% 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 | 78.1/100 | Moderate evidence; public-review evidence only. |
| Within-market score percentile | 64th percentile | Compared with the fixed San Diego, CA cohort. |
| Tracked Google reviews | 107 | Public review count currently visible on the profile. |
| Reviews retrieved | 107 | Review records stored in the current build. |
| Text reviews analyzed | 101 | Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics. |
| Owner response rate | 100% | Share of retrieved reviews with an owner reply. |
| Explicit recommendation rate | 76% | Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm. |
| Communication mentions | 23% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication. |
| Consistency index | 98 | 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
78.1/100
Score percentile
64th percentile
Rating percentile
56th percentile
Review-count percentile
24th percentile
Owner-reply percentile
Not scored
Moderate evidence from 101 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.
7.9%
8 matches: 8 positive, 0 negative. Precision in external QA: 96%.
5.9%
6 matches: 5 positive, 1 negative. Precision in external QA: 95%.
5.0%
5 matches: 4 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
Public-review aggregates captured through Apr 2, 2026. These figures describe the retrieved history, not a live feed.
Retrieved history begins
Apr 16, 2016
Latest dated review
Mar 5, 2026
Retrieved coverage
100%
107 retrieved of 107 tracked
Recent 12-month reviews
17
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
+5 reviews
17 recent reviews vs. 12 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.
Based on analysis of 101 text reviews in the current build.