Brand aliases: Morgan and Morgan
2355 E Camelback Rd Suite 335, Phoenix, AZ 85016
Public profile and review data last refreshed Aug 2, 2026.
Morgan & Morgan is a personal injury attorney in Phoenix, Arizona with a 4.6-star rating across 2,846 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 1,356 reviews for this profile and analyzed 1,115 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 94% of retrieved reviews, 6% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 5% of analyzed reviews. Its review pattern is mixed based on a consistency index of 67.4.
The most common review themes are professionalism (18%), compassion and care (7%), and speed (6%). Reviews in the sample mention matters involving car accident, slip and fall, medical malpractice, and workplace injury. 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 professionalism (18%), compassion and care (7%), and speed (6%). 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 Morgan & Morgan at 2355 E Camelback Rd Suite 335, Phoenix, AZ 85016. The listing has 2,846 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.
Morgan & Morgan has a 4.6/5 public Google rating across 2,846 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 1,356 reviews and analyzed 1,115 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 94% 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.
The recurring concern labels found in the analyzed negative-review sample are unprofessional (7%), poor communication (5%), and slow process (50%). Percentages describe the relevant review sample and should be read with the rating distribution and coverage notes below.
Public review data shows an owner reply on 94% of the reviews retrieved for Morgan & Morgan. This measures responses to public reviews, not communication with clients during a case. Communication appears in 5% of analyzed review texts.
Yes. This evidence covers the Phoenix, Arizona office. Compare all tracked Morgan & Morgan 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 | 48/100 | Extensive evidence; public-review evidence only. |
| Within-market score percentile | 13.3th percentile | Compared with the fixed Phoenix, AZ cohort. |
| Tracked Google reviews | 2,846 | Public review count currently visible on the profile. |
| Reviews retrieved | 1,356 | Review records stored in the current build. |
| Text reviews analyzed | 1,115 | Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics. |
| Owner response rate | 94% | 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. |
| Consistency index | 67.4 | 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
48/100
Score percentile
13.3th percentile
Rating percentile
26.7th percentile
Review-count percentile
100th percentile
Owner-reply percentile
Not scored
Extensive evidence from 1,115 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.
1.8%
20 matches: 13 positive, 6 negative. Precision in external QA: 96%.
1.1%
12 matches: 11 positive, 1 negative. Precision in external QA: 95%.
0.3%
3 matches: 3 positive, 0 negative. Precision in external QA: 82%.
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 6, 2026. These figures describe the retrieved history, not a live feed.
Retrieved history begins
Aug 23, 2021
Latest dated review
Apr 6, 2026
Retrieved coverage
48%
1,356 retrieved of 2,846 tracked
Recent 12-month reviews
204
Average rating: 4.54/5
Average rating
+0.26 stars
4.54/5 in the recent period vs. 4.28/5 in the prior period
Review activity
+24 reviews
204 recent reviews vs. 180 in the prior period
Replies to 1–3-star reviews
95%
181 replies across 190 retrieved low-star reviews
Replies to 4–5-star reviews
95%
1,105 replies across 1,166 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.
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 1,115 text reviews in the current build.