Redondo Law Reviews, Ratings & Complaints

2828 Coral Wy suite 303, Miami, FL 33145

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

4.8
166 Google reviews
Claimed Google Business Profile

Redondo Law is a personal injury attorney in Miami, Florida with a 4.8-star rating across 166 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 166 reviews for this profile and analyzed 141 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 89% of retrieved reviews, 78% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 31% of analyzed reviews. Its review pattern is fairly consistent based on a consistency index of 88.7.

The most common review themes are explicit recommendation (78%), professionalism (47%), and communication (31%). Reviews in the sample mention matters involving car accident, truck accident, medical malpractice, and wrongful death. Use these signals as due-diligence inputs rather than proof of specialty or likely outcome.

Review verdict

Redondo 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 (78%), professionalism (47%), and communication (31%). These percentages describe text labels in the captured sample, not independently verified service claims.

Is Redondo Law legitimate?

Law Leaderboard can confirm that this page represents a public Google Business listing for Redondo Law at 2828 Coral Wy suite 303, Miami, FL 33145. The listing has 166 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 Redondo Law a good law firm?

Redondo Law has a 4.8/5 public Google rating across 166 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 166 reviews and analyzed 141 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 89% of retrieved reviews, 78% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 31% of analyzed reviews. These are public feedback signals, not a legal endorsement or prediction of case results.

What do Redondo Law reviews complain about?

The recurring concern labels found in the analyzed negative-review sample are low settlement (14%). Percentages describe the relevant review sample and should be read with the rating distribution and coverage notes below.

Does Redondo Law respond to reviews?

Public review data shows an owner reply on 89% of the reviews retrieved for Redondo Law. This measures responses to public reviews, not communication with clients during a case. Communication appears in 31% 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 Score76.9/100Moderate evidence; public-review evidence only.
Within-market score percentile73.8th percentileCompared with the fixed Miami, FL cohort.
Tracked Google reviews166Public review count currently visible on the profile.
Reviews retrieved166Review records stored in the current build.
Text reviews analyzed141Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics.
Owner response rate89%Share of retrieved reviews with an owner reply.
Explicit recommendation rate78%Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm.
Communication mentions31%Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication.
Consistency index88.7Higher scores indicate a more consistently positive rating pattern.

Identity-linked office intelligence

Where This Office Sits in Miami, FL

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

76.9/100

Score percentile

73.8th percentile

Rating percentile

19th percentile

Review-count percentile

16.7th percentile

Owner-reply percentile

69th percentile

Evidence strength and entity relationship

Moderate evidence from 141 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-8453d1f33ccfc83c
Law Leaderboard brand ID
llb-brand-ea3eb78036417c25
Brand relationship
Redondo 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

6.4%

9 matches: 8 positive, 1 negative. Precision in external QA: 96%.

Outcome language (unverified)

2.8%

4 matches: 1 positive, 0 negative, 3 neutral. 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

Review Activity and Response Detail

Public-review aggregates captured through Apr 2, 2026. These figures describe the retrieved history, not a live feed.

Method: review-trends-v1.0.0

Retrieved history begins

Apr 29, 2019

Latest dated review

Feb 18, 2026

Retrieved coverage

100%

166 retrieved of 166 tracked

Recent 12-month reviews

33

Average rating: 4.76/5

Year-over-year review change

Average rating

+0.70 stars

4.76/5 in the recent period vs. 4.06/5 in the prior period

Review activity

+15 reviews

33 recent reviews vs. 18 in the prior period

Owner replies by rating group

Replies to 1–3-star reviews

63%

5 replies across 8 retrieved low-star reviews

Replies to 4–5-star reviews

92%

146 replies across 158 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 accidenttruck accidentmedical malpracticewrongful death

Quick Stats

Reviews/Month
1.7
Avg Review Length
273 chars
Local Guide %
23%

Practice Areas

Insurance attorneyLaw firmAttorneyLegal servicesTrial attorney

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 141 text reviews in the current build.

Owner Response Rate
89%
replies to reviews
Explicit Recommendation Rate
78%
of analyzed reviewers
Communication Mentions
31%
of analyzed reviews
Professionalism Mentions
47%
of analyzed reviews
Results Mentions
17%
of analyzed reviews
Compassion Mentions
9%
of analyzed reviews
Average response time: 197.7 days

Rating Distribution

5 star
156 (94%)
4 star
2 (1.2%)
3 star
0 (0%)
2 star
0 (0%)
1 star
8 (4.8%)
95% positive reviews 5% negative reviews Consistency index: 88.7

What Clients Praise

explicit recommendation 78% of reviews
professionalism 46.8% of reviews
communication 30.5% of reviews
case results 17% of reviews
speed 15.6% of reviews

Common Concerns (from negative reviews)

low settlement (14.3%)

Other Personal Injury in Miami

Sources, Freshness & Limitations

Sources

  • Google Business profile data for the firm, including address, phone, website, business attributes, and aggregate public rating.
  • 166 retrieved reviews and 141 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 2, 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 13:54:43.
  • Review records last collected: 2026-04-02 13:58:35; derived metrics last analyzed: 2026-08-02 20:36:25.
  • 166 total Google reviews tracked; 166 reviews retrieved; 141 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 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 Miami personal injury lawyers ranked by public review signals
Explore Florida personal injury markets → Report an outdated or incorrect detail on this profile →