331 2nd Ave S Suite 455, Minneapolis, MN 55401
Review evidence score
Not scored
Compares public-review evidence only. Not a measure of legal ability or outcomes.
Monge & Associates Injury and Accident Attorneys is a personal injury attorney in Minneapolis, Minnesota with a 4.9-star rating across 54 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 54 reviews for this profile and analyzed 40 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 100% of retrieved reviews, 15% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 0% of analyzed reviews. Its review pattern is highly consistent based on a consistency index of 100.
The most common review themes are professionalism (18%), speed (18%), and explicit recommendation (15%). 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.
Monge & Associates Injury and Accident Attorneys reviews most often praise professionalism (18%), speed (18%), and explicit recommendation (15%) in the analyzed sample. These percentages describe text labels in the captured sample, not independently verified service claims.
Monge & Associates Injury and Accident Attorneys is listed on Google as a public business profile at 331 2nd Ave S Suite 455, Minneapolis, MN 55401, with 54 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.
Monge & Associates Injury and Accident Attorneys has a 4.9/5 public Google rating across 54 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 54 reviews and analyzed 40 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 100% of retrieved reviews, 15% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 0% of analyzed reviews. These are public feedback signals, not a legal endorsement or prediction of case results.
Monge & Associates Injury and Accident Attorneys 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.
Monge & Associates Injury and Accident Attorneys has replied to 100% 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 0% of analyzed review texts.
Yes. This evidence covers the Minneapolis, Minnesota office. Compare all tracked Monge & Associates offices before generalizing this location's rating, praise, or concern signals to the wider brand.
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 | Not scored | Insufficient evidence; public-review evidence only. |
| Within-market score percentile | Not scored | Compared with the fixed Minneapolis, MN cohort. |
| Tracked Google reviews | 54 | Public review count currently visible on the profile. |
| Reviews retrieved | 54 | Review records stored in the current build. |
| Text reviews analyzed | 40 | 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 | 15% | Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm. |
| Communication mentions | 0% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication. |
| Professionalism mentions | 18% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention professionalism. |
| Case-results mentions | 3% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention case results. |
| Compassion mentions | 5% | 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 | 68.8 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
Not scored
Score percentile
Not scored
Rating percentile
57.1th percentile
Review-count percentile
11.9th percentile
Owner-reply percentile
95.2th percentile
Insufficient evidence from 40 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.
No office-level theme result passed every current publication gate. This is not evidence that reviewers never mentioned these topics.
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
Nov 15, 2024
Latest dated review
Jan 31, 2026
Retrieved coverage
100%
54 retrieved of 54 tracked
Recent 12-month reviews
23
Average rating: 4.83/5
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.
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