JRE INJURY LAW Reviews, Ratings & Complaints

931 Basse Rd, San Antonio, TX 78212

Public profile and review data last refreshed Aug 2, 2026.

5
341 Google reviews
Claimed Google Business Profile

JRE INJURY LAW is a law firm in San Antonio, Texas with a 5.0-star rating across 341 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 341 reviews for this profile and analyzed 309 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 0% of retrieved reviews, 90% 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 99.4.

The most common review themes are explicit recommendation (90%), professionalism (37%), and communication (23%). Reviews in the sample mention matters involving car accident, motorcycle, and medical malpractice. Use these signals as due-diligence inputs rather than proof of specialty or likely outcome.

Review verdict

JRE INJURY LAW 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 (90%), professionalism (37%), and communication (23%). These percentages describe text labels in the captured sample, not independently verified service claims.

Is JRE INJURY LAW legitimate?

Law Leaderboard can confirm that this page represents a public Google Business listing for JRE INJURY LAW at 931 Basse Rd, San Antonio, TX 78212. The listing has 341 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 JRE INJURY LAW a good law firm?

JRE INJURY LAW has a 5.0/5 public Google rating across 341 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 341 reviews and analyzed 309 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 0% of retrieved reviews, 90% 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.

What do JRE INJURY LAW reviews complain about?

The current analyzed sample does not contain a recurring complaint category for JRE INJURY LAW. That does not prove that no client has complained; review coverage is incomplete and changes over time.

Does JRE INJURY LAW respond to reviews?

Public review data shows an owner reply on 0% of the reviews retrieved for JRE INJURY LAW. This measures responses to public reviews, not communication with clients during a case. Communication appears in 23% 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 Score78.1/100Strong evidence; public-review evidence only.
Within-market score percentile78.8th percentileCompared with the fixed San Antonio, TX cohort.
Tracked Google reviews341Public review count currently visible on the profile.
Reviews retrieved341Review records stored in the current build.
Text reviews analyzed309Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics.
Owner response rate0%Share of retrieved reviews with an owner reply.
Explicit recommendation rate90%Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm.
Communication mentions23%Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication.
Consistency index99.4Higher scores indicate a more consistently positive rating pattern.

Identity-linked office intelligence

Where This Office Sits in San Antonio, TX

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

78.1/100

Score percentile

78.8th percentile

Rating percentile

100th percentile

Review-count percentile

66.7th percentile

Owner-reply percentile

Not scored

Evidence strength and entity relationship

Strong evidence from 309 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-731843db944df2c0
Law Leaderboard brand ID
llb-brand-1aeb1d1db05abfe9
Brand relationship
JRE INJURY LAW

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

10.0%

31 matches: 31 positive, 0 negative. Precision in external QA: 96%.

responsiveness delays

2.3%

7 matches: 7 positive, 0 negative. Precision in external QA: 95%.

Outcome language (unverified)

1.6%

5 matches: 5 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

Review Activity and Response Detail

Public-review aggregates captured through Aug 2, 2026. These figures describe the retrieved history, not a live feed.

Method: review-trends-v1.0.0

Retrieved history begins

Aug 18, 2025

Latest dated review

Aug 2, 2026

Retrieved coverage

100%

341 retrieved of 341 tracked

Recent 12-month reviews

341

Average rating: 4.98/5

Year-over-year comparison withheld

The retrieved history does not yet meet the full-window coverage and rating-count gate for a fair twelve-month comparison.

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 malpractice

Quick Stats

Reviews/Month
26.6
Avg Review Length
198 chars
Local Guide %
7%

About

Personal Injury for motor vehicles accidents

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 309 text reviews in the current build.

Owner Response Rate
0%
replies to reviews
Explicit Recommendation Rate
90%
of analyzed reviewers
Communication Mentions
23%
of analyzed reviews
Professionalism Mentions
37%
of analyzed reviews
Results Mentions
8%
of analyzed reviews
Compassion Mentions
19%
of analyzed reviews

Rating Distribution

5 star
338 (99%)
4 star
2 (<1%)
3 star
0 (0%)
2 star
0 (0%)
1 star
1 (<1%)
100% positive reviews Consistency index: 99.4

What Clients Praise

explicit recommendation 90.3% of reviews
professionalism 36.9% of reviews
communication 22.7% of reviews
compassion and care 19.4% of reviews
expertise 13.3% of reviews

Other Personal Injury in San Antonio

Sources, Freshness & Limitations

Sources

  • Google Business profile data for the firm, including address, phone, website, business attributes, and aggregate public rating.
  • 341 retrieved reviews and 309 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 Aug 2, 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 13:28:15.
  • Review records last collected: 2026-08-02 20:35:10; derived metrics last analyzed: 2026-08-02 20:36:24.
  • 341 total Google reviews tracked; 341 reviews retrieved; 309 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: Aug 2, 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 San Antonio personal injury lawyers ranked by public review signals
Explore Texas personal injury markets → Compare this office in the Car Accident cohort → Compare this office in the Motorcycle Accident cohort → Report an outdated or incorrect detail on this profile →