1300 Godward St NE #4000, Minneapolis, MN 55413
Public profile and review data last refreshed Aug 2, 2026.
Keller, Woods & Thompson, P.A. is a personal injury attorney in Minneapolis, Minnesota with a 4.7-star rating across 82 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 82 reviews for this profile and analyzed 71 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 38% of retrieved reviews, 78% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 30% of analyzed reviews. Its review pattern is fairly consistent based on a consistency index of 84.5.
The most common review themes are explicit recommendation (78%), communication (30%), and professionalism (21%). 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.
The strongest recurring praise signals in the analyzed review sample are explicit recommendation (78%), communication (30%), and professionalism (21%). 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 Keller, Woods & Thompson, P.A. at 1300 Godward St NE #4000, Minneapolis, MN 55413. The listing has 82 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.
Keller, Woods & Thompson, P.A. has a 4.7/5 public Google rating across 82 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 82 reviews and analyzed 71 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 38% of retrieved reviews, 78% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 30% 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 Keller, Woods & Thompson, P.A.. 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 38% of the reviews retrieved for Keller, Woods & Thompson, P.A.. This measures responses to public reviews, not communication with clients during a case. Communication appears in 30% 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 | 70.1/100 | Minimum evidence; public-review evidence only. |
| Within-market score percentile | 40th percentile | Compared with the fixed Minneapolis, MN cohort. |
| Tracked Google reviews | 82 | Public review count currently visible on the profile. |
| Reviews retrieved | 82 | Review records stored in the current build. |
| Text reviews analyzed | 71 | Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics. |
| Owner response rate | 38% | Share of retrieved reviews with an owner reply. |
| Explicit recommendation rate | 78% | Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm. |
| Communication mentions | 30% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication. |
| Consistency index | 84.5 | 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
70.1/100
Score percentile
40th percentile
Rating percentile
30th percentile
Review-count percentile
30th percentile
Owner-reply percentile
Not scored
Minimum evidence from 71 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.
11.3%
8 matches: 5 positive, 3 negative. Precision in external QA: 96%.
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 23, 2014
Latest dated review
Mar 9, 2026
Retrieved coverage
100%
82 retrieved of 82 tracked
Recent 12-month reviews
14
Average rating: 4.71/5
Average rating
+0.02 stars
4.71/5 in the recent period vs. 4.69/5 in the prior period
Review activity
+1 reviews
14 recent reviews vs. 13 in the prior period
Replies to 1–3-star reviews
20%
1 replies across 5 retrieved low-star reviews
Replies to 4–5-star reviews
36%
28 replies across 77 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.
If you or a loved one has been involved in an accident, getting experienced representation is crucial. Our firm is committed to helping those who need it most. While we aggressively defend your rights...
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 71 text reviews in the current build.