Claimed Google Business Profile Data refreshed Aug 3, 2026

Walner Law Reviews, Ratings & Complaints

33 N LaSalle St, Chicago, IL 60602

4.4 · 511 Google reviews

Review evidence score

LAW LEADERBOARD · REVIEW EVIDENCE SCORE · FIXED COHORT · 50.8 / 100
Within-market percentile
2.6th percentile
Evidence depth
Strong evidence

Compares public-review evidence only. Not a measure of legal ability or outcomes.

Walner Law is a personal injury attorney in Chicago, Illinois with a 4.4-star rating across 511 tracked Google reviews. The current build retrieved 511 reviews for this profile and analyzed 378 text reviews. The firm has an owner reply on 85% of retrieved reviews, 27% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 19% of analyzed reviews. Its review pattern is mixed based on a consistency index of 68.

The most common review themes are explicit recommendation (27%), professionalism (21%), and case results (20%). 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

Walner Law 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.

What clients praise

Walner Law reviews most often praise explicit recommendation (27%), professionalism (21%), and case results (20%) in the analyzed sample. These percentages describe text labels in the captured sample, not independently verified service claims.

Is Walner Law legitimate?

Walner Law is listed on Google as a public business profile at 33 N LaSalle St, Chicago, IL 60602, with 511 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 Walner Law a good law firm?

Walner Law has a 4.4/5 public Google rating across 511 tracked reviews. Law Leaderboard retrieved 511 reviews and analyzed 378 review texts for this profile. In that sample, the firm has an owner reply on 85% of retrieved reviews, 27% of analyzed reviewers explicitly recommend it, and communication is mentioned in 19% of analyzed reviews. These are public feedback signals, not a legal endorsement or prediction of case results.

What do Walner Law reviews complain about?

Walner Law reviews in the analyzed negative sample carry the recurring concern labels unprofessional (32%), poor communication (8%), and passed around (7%). Percentages describe the relevant review sample and should be read with the rating distribution and coverage notes below.

Does Walner Law respond to reviews?

Walner Law has replied to 85% 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 19% 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 Score50.8/100Strong evidence; public-review evidence only.
Within-market score percentile2.6th percentileCompared with the fixed Chicago, IL cohort.
Tracked Google reviews511Public review count currently visible on the profile.
Reviews retrieved511Review records stored in the current build.
Text reviews analyzed378Review texts used for NLP-derived praise, complaint, and communication metrics.
Owner response rate85%Share of retrieved reviews with an owner reply.
Explicit recommendation rate27%Share of analyzed reviewers who explicitly recommend the firm.
Communication mentions19%Share of analyzed reviews that mention communication.
Professionalism mentions21%Share of analyzed reviews that mention professionalism.
Case-results mentions20%Share of analyzed reviews that mention case results.
Compassion mentions5%Share of analyzed reviews that mention compassion or care.
Consistency index68Higher scores indicate a more consistently positive rating pattern.
Average owner response time96.1 daysMean delay between a public review and the owner reply.

Identity-linked office intelligence

Where This Office Sits in Chicago, IL

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

50.8/100

Score percentile

2.6th percentile

Rating percentile

5.1th percentile

Review-count percentile

79.5th percentile

Owner-reply percentile

Not scored

Evidence strength and entity relationship

Strong evidence from 378 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-3cf41437ff207b1e
Law Leaderboard brand ID
llb-brand-238f375bd3eb7f9e
Brand relationship
Walner 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

7.9%

30 matches: 22 positive, 8 negative. Precision in external QA: 96%.

Outcome language (unverified)

5.6%

21 matches: 12 positive, 0 negative, 9 neutral. Precision in external QA: 82%.

responsiveness delays

1.3%

5 matches: 5 positive, 0 negative. Precision in external QA: 95%.

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 Aug 3, 2026. These figures describe the retrieved history, not a live feed.

Method: review-trends-v1.0.0

Retrieved history begins

Mar 14, 2016

Latest dated review

Jul 31, 2026

Retrieved coverage

100%

511 retrieved of 511 tracked

Recent 12-month reviews

214

Average rating: 4.65/5

Year-over-year review change

Average rating

+0.25 stars

4.65/5 in the recent period vs. 4.40/5 in the prior period

Review activity

+107 reviews

214 recent reviews vs. 107 in the prior period

Owner replies by rating group

Replies to 1–3-star reviews

64%

46 replies across 72 retrieved low-star reviews

Replies to 4–5-star reviews

85%

374 replies across 439 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
3
Avg Review Length
267 chars
Local Guide %
21%

About

Walner Law, Chicago Personal Injury Lawyers is located in Chicago Illinois. Since 1961, our firm has been dedicated to securing justice for injury victims. With decades of experience and a proven reco...

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
418 (82%)
4 star
20 (3.9%)
3 star
9 (1.8%)
2 star
4 (<1%)
1 star
60 (12%)
84% positive reviews 15% negative reviews Consistency index: 68

What Clients Praise

explicit recommendation 26.7% of reviews
professionalism 21.2% of reviews
case results 19.6% of reviews
communication 18.5% of reviews
speed 9.5% of reviews

Common Concerns (from negative reviews)

● unprofessional (31.7%)
● poor communication (8.3%)
● passed around (6.7%)

Other Personal Injury in Chicago

Provenance

Sources, freshness, and limitations.

Sources

  • • Google Business profile data for the firm, including address, phone, website, business attributes, and aggregate public rating.
  • • 511 retrieved reviews and 378 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 Aug 3, 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: 2026-08-03 09:44:12.
  • • Review records last collected: 2026-08-03 09:44:12; derived metrics last analyzed: 2026-08-03 09:45:44.
  • • 511 total Google reviews tracked; 511 reviews retrieved; 378 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: Aug 3, 2026; retrieved coverage: 100% of the tracked-review total.
  • • Methodology version: 2026.04.07. Build packaging timestamp: 2026-08-03 09:57:09 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 Chicago personal injury lawyers ranked by public review signals
Explore Illinois personal injury markets → Compare this office in the Car Accident cohort → Compare this office in the Medical Malpractice cohort → Compare this office in the Truck Accident cohort → Compare this office in the Workers' Compensation cohort → Report an outdated or incorrect detail on this profile →