Morgan & Morgan Reviews, Ratings & Complaints

Brand aliases: Morgan and Morgan

16225 Park Ten Pl # 500, Houston, TX 77084

4.7
3,043 Google reviews
Claimed Google Business Profile Compare all tracked Morgan & Morgan locations

Morgan & Morgan is a personal injury attorney in Houston, Texas with a 4.7-star rating across 3,043 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 917 reviews for this profile and analyzed 670 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 95% of retrieved reviews, 9% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 3% of analyzed reviews. Its review pattern is mixed based on a consistency index of 65.4.

The most common review themes are professionalism (11%), explicit recommendation (9%), and speed (7%). Reviews in the sample mention matters involving car accident and medical malpractice. Use these signals as due-diligence inputs rather than proof of specialty or likely outcome.

Review verdict

Morgan & Morgan 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 professionalism (11%), explicit recommendation (9%), and speed (7%). These percentages describe text labels in the captured sample, not independently verified service claims.

Is Morgan & Morgan legitimate?

Law Leaderboard can confirm that this page represents a public Google Business listing for Morgan & Morgan at 16225 Park Ten Pl # 500, Houston, TX 77084. The listing has 3,043 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 Morgan & Morgan a good law firm?

Morgan & Morgan has a 4.7/5 public Google rating across 3,043 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 917 reviews and analyzed 670 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 95% of retrieved reviews, 9% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 3% of analyzed reviews. These are public feedback signals, not a legal endorsement or prediction of case results.

What do Morgan & Morgan reviews complain about?

The recurring concern labels found in the analyzed negative-review sample are unprofessional (9%), slow process (90%), and passed around (90%). Percentages describe the relevant review sample and should be read with the rating distribution and coverage notes below.

Does Morgan & Morgan respond to reviews?

Public review data shows an owner reply on 95% of the reviews retrieved for Morgan & Morgan. This measures responses to public reviews, not communication with clients during a case. Communication appears in 3% of analyzed review texts.

Could experiences vary by location?

Yes. This evidence covers the Houston, Texas 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.

MetricValueWhat it means
Tracked Google reviews3,043Public review count currently visible on the profile.
Reviews retrieved917Review records stored in the current build.
Text reviews analyzed670Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics.
Owner response rate95%Share of retrieved reviews with an owner reply.
Explicit recommendation rate9%Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm.
Communication mentions3%Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication.
Consistency index65.4Higher scores indicate a more consistently positive rating pattern.

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.

Method: review-trends-v1.0.0

Retrieved history begins

Mar 4, 2021

Latest dated review

Apr 3, 2026

Retrieved coverage

30%

917 retrieved of 3,043 tracked

Recent 12-month reviews

424

Average rating: 4.66/5

Year-over-year review change

Average rating

+0.15 stars

4.66/5 in the recent period vs. 4.51/5 in the prior period

Review activity

+111 reviews

424 recent reviews vs. 313 in the prior period

Owner replies by rating group

Replies to 1–3-star reviews

89%

102 replies across 115 retrieved low-star reviews

Replies to 4–5-star reviews

97%

775 replies across 802 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 malpractice

Quick Stats

Reviews/Month
10.8
Avg Review Length
100 chars
Local Guide %
36%

Practice Areas

Business attorneyEmployment attorneyLaw firm

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 670 text reviews in the current build.

Owner Response Rate
95%
replies to reviews
Explicit Recommendation Rate
9%
of analyzed reviewers
Communication Mentions
3%
of analyzed reviews
Professionalism Mentions
11%
of analyzed reviews
Results Mentions
4%
of analyzed reviews
Compassion Mentions
3%
of analyzed reviews
Average response time: 112 days

Rating Distribution

5 star
2587 (85%)
4 star
245 (8.1%)
3 star
77 (2.5%)
2 star
22 (<1%)
1 star
112 (3.7%)
84% positive reviews 14% negative reviews Consistency index: 65.4

What Clients Praise

professionalism 10.9% of reviews
explicit recommendation 8.7% of reviews
speed 7% of reviews
case results 3.7% of reviews
communication 3.3% of reviews

Common Concerns (from negative reviews)

unprofessional (9.2%)
slow process (0.9%)
passed around (0.9%)

Other Personal Injury in Houston

Sources, Freshness & Limitations

Sources

  • Google Business profile data for the firm, including address, phone, website, business attributes, and aggregate public rating.
  • 917 retrieved reviews and 670 text reviews used to calculate praise, complaint, communication, and response metrics for this profile.
  • 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 00:10:07.
  • Review records last collected: 2026-04-06 16:59:16; derived metrics last analyzed: 2026-08-02 20:36:20.
  • 3,043 total Google reviews tracked; 917 reviews retrieved; 670 text reviews analyzed.
  • Review-history snapshot: Apr 6, 2026; retrieved coverage: 30% 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.
  • This page helps you evaluate a firm’s public client-feedback footprint, but hiring decisions still require direct due diligence.
← View all Houston personal injury lawyers ranked by public review signals
Explore Texas personal injury markets → Compare Houston car accident lawyers using the same review signals → Report an outdated or incorrect detail on this profile →