KIM LAW Reviews, Ratings & Complaints

55 Ivan Allen Jr Blvd NW Ste 330, Atlanta, GA 30308

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

5
785 Google reviews
Claimed Google Business Profile

KIM LAW is a personal injury attorney in Atlanta, Georgia with a 5.0-star rating across 785 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 787 reviews for this profile and analyzed 747 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 14% of retrieved reviews, 73% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 21% of analyzed reviews. Its review pattern is highly consistent based on a consistency index of 99.3.

The most common review themes are explicit recommendation (73%), professionalism (28%), and case results (24%). Reviews in the sample mention matters involving car accident, truck accident, motorcycle, and slip and fall. Use these signals as due-diligence inputs rather than proof of specialty or likely outcome.

Review verdict

KIM 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 (73%), professionalism (28%), and case results (24%). These percentages describe text labels in the captured sample, not independently verified service claims.

Is KIM LAW legitimate?

Law Leaderboard can confirm that this page represents a public Google Business listing for KIM LAW at 55 Ivan Allen Jr Blvd NW Ste 330, Atlanta, GA 30308. The listing has 785 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 KIM LAW a good law firm?

KIM LAW has a 5.0/5 public Google rating across 785 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 787 reviews and analyzed 747 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 14% of retrieved reviews, 73% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 21% of analyzed reviews. These are public feedback signals, not a legal endorsement or prediction of case results.

What do KIM LAW reviews complain about?

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

Does KIM LAW respond to reviews?

Public review data shows an owner reply on 14% of the reviews retrieved for KIM LAW. This measures responses to public reviews, not communication with clients during a case. Communication appears in 21% 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 Score77/100Strong evidence; public-review evidence only.
Within-market score percentile82.9th percentileCompared with the fixed Atlanta, GA cohort.
Tracked Google reviews785Public review count currently visible on the profile.
Reviews retrieved787Review records stored in the current build.
Text reviews analyzed747Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics.
Owner response rate14%Share of retrieved reviews with an owner reply.
Explicit recommendation rate73%Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm.
Communication mentions21%Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication.
Consistency index99.3Higher scores indicate a more consistently positive rating pattern.

Identity-linked office intelligence

Where This Office Sits in Atlanta, GA

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

77/100

Score percentile

82.9th percentile

Rating percentile

100th percentile

Review-count percentile

75.6th percentile

Owner-reply percentile

Not scored

Evidence strength and entity relationship

Strong evidence from 747 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-6de64110ebda932f
Law Leaderboard brand ID
llb-brand-fb466ceb2cb0a41e
Brand relationship
KIM 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

9.5%

71 matches: 71 positive, 0 negative. Precision in external QA: 96%.

Outcome language (unverified)

6.3%

47 matches: 35 positive, 0 negative, 12 neutral. Precision in external QA: 82%.

responsiveness delays

2.1%

16 matches: 16 positive, 0 negative. Precision in external QA: 95%.

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

Feb 28, 2018

Latest dated review

Jul 31, 2026

Retrieved coverage

100%

785 retrieved of 785 tracked

Recent 12-month reviews

89

Average rating: 4.96/5

Year-over-year review change

Average rating

+0.01 stars

4.96/5 in the recent period vs. 4.95/5 in the prior period

Review activity

+6 reviews

89 recent reviews vs. 83 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.

Case Types Mentioned in Reviews

car accidenttruck accidentmotorcycleslip and fallmedical malpracticewrongful deathdog bite

Quick Stats

Reviews/Month
7.3
Avg Review Length
293 chars
Local Guide %
15%

Practice Areas

Law firmAttorney

About

KIM LAW is a personal injury law firm in Atlanta, GA. We are dedicated to representing clients who have been injured in motor vehicle accidents, slip & fall injuries, or other incidents. We also repre...

Source-Backed Website Signals

Details are shown only when captured from qualifying pages on the firm’s own website; they are self-reported website statements captured at a point in time and are not independent verification of service quality, attorney licensing, or suitability for a specific case.

Intake And Fee Signals

Contingency fee mentioned No fee unless recovery stated Contact form observed Phone intake observed

Languages And Practice Signals

Languages
No source-backed language list captured yet.
Practice Areas Mentioned On Site
bicycle accident brain injury car accident dog bite motorcycle accident pedestrian accident truck accident wrongful death

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 747 text reviews in the current build.

Owner Response Rate
14%
replies to reviews
Explicit Recommendation Rate
73%
of analyzed reviewers
Communication Mentions
21%
of analyzed reviews
Professionalism Mentions
28%
of analyzed reviews
Results Mentions
24%
of analyzed reviews
Compassion Mentions
8%
of analyzed reviews
Average response time: 169.8 days

Rating Distribution

5 star
782 (100%)
4 star
0 (0%)
3 star
0 (0%)
2 star
1 (<1%)
1 star
2 (<1%)
100% positive reviews 0% negative reviews Consistency index: 99.3

What Clients Praise

explicit recommendation 72.7% of reviews
professionalism 27.6% of reviews
case results 24.2% of reviews
communication 21.3% of reviews
speed 14.3% of reviews

Other Personal Injury in Atlanta

Sources, Freshness & Limitations

Sources

  • Google Business profile data for the firm, including address, phone, website, business attributes, and aggregate public rating.
  • 787 retrieved reviews and 747 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.
  • 4 captured pages from the firm's website support the displayed self-reported intake signals, languages, and practice-area mentions.
  • 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 11:25:22.
  • Review records last collected: 2026-08-02 20:35:11; derived metrics last analyzed: 2026-08-02 20:36:20.
  • 785 total Google reviews tracked; 787 reviews retrieved; 747 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 Atlanta personal injury lawyers ranked by public review signals
Explore Georgia personal injury markets → Compare this office in the Car Accident cohort → Report an outdated or incorrect detail on this profile →