What clients praise
Morgan & Morgan reviews most often praise professionalism (17%), speed (7%), and case results (7%) in the analyzed sample. These percentages describe text labels in the captured sample, not independently verified service claims.
Claimed Google Business Profile Data refreshed Aug 2, 2026
Morgan & Morgan Reviews, Ratings & Complaints
Brand aliases: Morgan and Morgan
400 E Pratt St 8th Floor, Suites 801 & 833, Baltimore, MD 21202
4.8 · 1,465 Google reviews
Compare all tracked Morgan & Morgan locations
Review evidence score
- Within-market percentile
- 18.2th percentile
- Evidence depth
- Strong evidence
Compares public-review evidence only. Not a measure of legal ability or outcomes.
Morgan & Morgan is a personal injury attorney in Baltimore, Maryland with a 4.8-star rating across 1,465 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 539 reviews for this profile and analyzed 282 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 98% of retrieved reviews, 6% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 5% of analyzed reviews. Its review pattern is fairly consistent based on a consistency index of 74.5.
The most common review themes are professionalism (17%), speed (7%), and case results (7%). Reviews in the sample mention matters involving car accident, medical malpractice, and workplace injury. Use these signals as due-diligence inputs rather than proof of specialty or likely outcome.
Review verdict
Morgan & Morgan review summary, answered from data.
These direct answers separate what the public review dataset can confirm from licensing, disciplinary, and case-fit questions that require independent verification.
Is Morgan & Morgan legitimate?
Morgan & Morgan is listed on Google as a public business profile at 400 E Pratt St 8th Floor, Suites 801 & 833, Baltimore, MD 21202, with 1,465 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.
Is Morgan & Morgan a good law firm?
Morgan & Morgan has a 4.8/5 public Google rating across 1,465 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 539 reviews and analyzed 282 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 98% of retrieved reviews, 6% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 5% of analyzed reviews. These are public feedback signals, not a legal endorsement or prediction of case results.
What do Morgan & Morgan reviews complain about?
Morgan & Morgan reviews in the analyzed negative sample carry the recurring concern labels unprofessional (19%), slow process (3%), and passed around (3%). Percentages describe the relevant review sample and should be read with the rating distribution and coverage notes below.
Does Morgan & Morgan respond to reviews?
Morgan & Morgan has replied to 98% 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 5% of analyzed review texts.
Could experiences vary by location?
Yes. This evidence covers the Baltimore, Maryland office. Compare all tracked Morgan & Morgan offices before generalizing this location's rating, praise, or concern signals to the wider brand.
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.
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Review Evidence Score | 57.6/100 | Strong evidence; public-review evidence only. |
| Within-market score percentile | 18.2th percentile | Compared with the fixed Baltimore, MD cohort. |
| Tracked Google reviews | 1,465 | Public review count currently visible on the profile. |
| Reviews retrieved | 539 | Review records stored in the current build. |
| Text reviews analyzed | 282 | Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics. |
| Owner response rate | 98% | Share of retrieved reviews with an owner reply. |
| Explicit recommendation rate | 6% | Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm. |
| Communication mentions | 5% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication. |
| Professionalism mentions | 17% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention professionalism. |
| Case-results mentions | 7% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention case results. |
| Compassion mentions | 5% | Share of analyzed reviews that mention compassion or care. |
| Consistency index | 74.5 | Higher scores indicate a more consistently positive rating pattern. |
| Average owner response time | 110.5 days | Mean delay between a public review and the owner reply. |
Identity-linked office intelligence
Where This Office Sits in Baltimore, MD
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
57.6/100
Score percentile
18.2th percentile
Rating percentile
54.5th percentile
Review-count percentile
100th percentile
Owner-reply percentile
Not scored
Evidence strength and entity relationship
Strong evidence from 282 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-8e953cf3bd144282
- Law Leaderboard brand ID
- llb-brand-morgan-and-morgan
- Brand relationship
- Morgan & Morgan tracked locations
Nearby evidence comparisons
The nearest scored offices in the same fixed market by Review Evidence Score. Proximity is descriptive, not a recommendation.
- Cohen, Snyder & Eisenberg, P.A. 58.7/100
- LeViness, Tolzman & Hamilton, P.A. 59.3/100
- Monge & Associates Injury and Accident Attorneys 61.7/100
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.
responsiveness delays
1.8%
5 matches: 5 positive, 0 negative. Precision in external QA: 95%.
communication
1.4%
4 matches: 3 positive, 1 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
Review Activity and Response Detail
Public-review aggregates captured through Apr 6, 2026. These figures describe the retrieved history, not a live feed.
Retrieved history begins
Jun 29, 2021
Latest dated review
Apr 5, 2026
Retrieved coverage
37%
539 retrieved of 1,465 tracked
Recent 12-month reviews
255
Average rating: 4.76/5
Year-over-year review change
Average rating
+0.06 stars
4.76/5 in the recent period vs. 4.70/5 in the prior period
Review activity
+43 reviews
255 recent reviews vs. 212 in the prior period
Owner replies by rating group
Replies to 1–3-star reviews
93%
37 replies across 40 retrieved low-star reviews
Replies to 4–5-star reviews
99%
494 replies across 499 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.
Case Types Mentioned in Reviews
car accidentmedical malpracticeworkplace injury
Quick Stats
- Reviews/Month
- 4.9
- Avg Review Length
- 102 chars
- Local Guide %
- 24%
Practice Areas
Employment attorneyLaw firm
About
As America's Largest Injury Law Firm, we believe you deserve to have the best life, so our goal is to fight to get you the best results. For over 35 years, Morgan & Morgan has been fighting for the pe...
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.
Rating Distribution
5 star 1282 (88%)
4 star 98 (6.7%)
3 star 33 (2.3%)
2 star 10 (<1%)
1 star 42 (2.9%)
89% positive reviews 10% negative reviews Consistency index: 74.5
What Clients Praise
professionalism 16.7% of reviews
speed 7.4% of reviews
case results 6.7% of reviews
explicit recommendation 5.7% of reviews
communication 5.3% of reviews
Common Concerns (from negative reviews)
● unprofessional (19.4%)
● slow process (3.2%)
● passed around (3.2%)
Other Personal Injury in Baltimore
Alperstein & Diener, P.A
5 ★ (326 reviews)
Ballenger & Roche, LLC
4.9 ★ (33 reviews)
Baltimore Accident Center
4.9 ★ (39 reviews)
Benjamin D. Stirling, Esq.
5 ★ (137 reviews)
Berman | Sobin | Gross LLP
5 ★ (61 reviews)
Bob Katz Law
4.9 ★ (253 reviews)
Brown & Barron, LLC
4.9 ★ (236 reviews)
Cohen, Snyder & Eisenberg, P.A.
4.4 ★ (148 reviews)
Provenance
Sources, freshness, and limitations.
Sources
- • Google Business profile data for the firm, including address, phone, website, business attributes, and aggregate public rating.
- • 539 retrieved reviews and 282 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 Apr 6, 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 14:52:16.
- • Review records last collected: 2026-04-06 16:59:43; derived metrics last analyzed: 2026-08-02 20:36:26.
- • 1,465 total Google reviews tracked; 539 reviews retrieved; 282 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: Apr 6, 2026; retrieved coverage: 37% 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.