#1 in this cohort
Aigen Injury Law
85score
- Rating
- 4.9/5
- Analyzed
- 178
- Maps
- #6
Practice basis: Explicit public profile. Evidence depth: moderate. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →Direct answer · depth-50 consumer intelligence
Compare Medical Malpractice law firms in Miami, FL
Aigen Injury Law (85.0/100), Raposo & Lukacs (84.7/100), Max Law Personal Injury Attorney Miami (83.9/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 14 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Miami medical malpractice cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.
14qualified offices
2,826review texts analyzed
76.1median evidence score
28%of discovered offices qualified
Release 2026.08.12-r4 · fixed cohort · published 2026-08-12 · minimum publication gate: 8 qualified offices
Fast comparison
Top five by Review Evidence Score
| Rank / office | Score | Rating | Tracked reviews | Texts analyzed | Practice evidence | Maps visibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1Aigen Injury Law | 85 | 4.9 | 201 | 178 | Explicit public profile | #6 |
| #2Raposo & Lukacs | 84.7 | 5 | 232 | 203 | Explicit public profile | #23 |
| #3Max Law Personal Injury Attorney Miami | 83.9 | 5 | 124 | 112 | Explicit public profile | #3 |
| #4Zayed Law Personal Injury Attorneys | 82.5 | 5 | 80 | 82 | Explicit public profile | #17 |
| #5Mesa Law Firm | 82.4 | 5 | 366 | 353 | Published practice evidence | #44 |
Maps visibility is shown separately and is never used to calculate the Review Evidence Score.
Leading office profiles
Each profile combines score depth, practice-signal basis, and a separate visibility observation. Read the office page before making a shortlist.
#2 in this cohort
Raposo & Lukacs
84.7score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 203
- Maps
- #23
Practice basis: Explicit public profile. Evidence depth: moderate. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#3 in this cohort
Max Law Personal Injury Attorney Miami
83.9score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 112
- Maps
- #3
Practice basis: Explicit public profile. Evidence depth: moderate. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#4 in this cohort
Zayed Law Personal Injury Attorneys
82.5score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 82
- Maps
- #17
Practice basis: Explicit public profile. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#5 in this cohort
Mesa Law Firm
82.4score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 353
- Maps
- #44
Practice basis: Published practice evidence. Evidence depth: strong. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#6 in this cohort
Freidin Brown, P.A.
81.6score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 98
- Maps
- #7
Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#7 in this cohort
Rust Injury Law, PLLC
79.4score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 56
- Maps
- #11
Practice basis: Explicit public profile. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#8 in this cohort
Goldberg & Rosen
72.7score
- Rating
- 4.9/5
- Analyzed
- 969
- Maps
- #9
Practice basis: Published practice evidence. Evidence depth: strong. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#9 in this cohort
Aronfeld Trial Lawyers
72.2score
- Rating
- 4.8/5
- Analyzed
- 187
- Maps
- #28
Practice basis: Published practice evidence. Evidence depth: moderate. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#10 in this cohort
Needle & Ellenberg, Medical Malpractice Lawyers
71.9score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 89
- Maps
- #12
Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →What this market reveals
Market depth
Evidence beyond the first 20 results
6 qualified offices were observed beyond Maps position 20, while 8 were observed within the first 20. Discovery visibility and review evidence can tell different stories.
Hidden leaders
2 offices meet the defined signal
A “hidden leader” appears beyond observed Maps position 20 but has a Review Evidence Score at or above the qualified-market median. It is a research label, not an endorsement.
Raposo & Lukacs: 84.7 score, Maps #23Mesa Law Firm: 82.4 score, Maps #44Review concentration
Top five hold 32.1%
The five most-reviewed qualified offices account for 32.1% of tracked reviews. The review-volume HHI is 1473.8, a descriptive concentration measure rather than a quality score.
How practice and review evidence differ
For medical-malpractice comparisons, the practice-evidence gate requires a public practice signal or sufficient context-classified review evidence, in addition to the public-review input gate. This supports a bounded comparison of public information. It does not establish specialization, expertise, credentials, legal merit, likely outcomes, or fit for any individual matter.
The practice gate decides whether an office belongs in this comparison. The Review Evidence Score then compares public-rating, depth, recommendation, communication, public owner-response, consistency, and low-concern signals. Neither step evaluates legal skill or likely results.
Maps visibility stays separate
“Best observed position” is the strongest discovery position captured across the fixed query collection. Multiple offices can show the same value when observations came from different queries or backfills. It is never a score input.
Read the complete methodology →Complete published cohort
All 14 qualified offices
| Rank | Office | Score | Rating | Tracked | Analyzed | Evidence | Maps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Aigen Injury Law | 85 | 4.9 | 201 | 178 | moderate | #6 |
| #2 | Raposo & Lukacs | 84.7 | 5 | 232 | 203 | moderate | #23 |
| #3 | Max Law Personal Injury Attorney Miami | 83.9 | 5 | 124 | 112 | moderate | #3 |
| #4 | Zayed Law Personal Injury Attorneys | 82.5 | 5 | 80 | 82 | minimum | #17 |
| #5 | Mesa Law Firm | 82.4 | 5 | 366 | 353 | strong | #44 |
| #6 | Freidin Brown, P.A. | 81.6 | 5 | 115 | 98 | minimum | #7 |
| #7 | Rust Injury Law, PLLC | 79.4 | 5 | 56 | 56 | minimum | #11 |
| #8 | Goldberg & Rosen | 72.7 | 4.9 | 1,005 | 969 | strong | #9 |
| #9 | Aronfeld Trial Lawyers | 72.2 | 4.8 | 202 | 187 | moderate | #28 |
| #10 | Needle & Ellenberg, Medical Malpractice Lawyers | 71.9 | 5 | 91 | 89 | minimum | #12 |
| #11 | Chalik & Chalik Injury and Accident Lawyers | 68.1 | 5 | 184 | 125 | moderate | #37 |
| #12 | Percy Martinez - Medical Malpractice Lawyers | 64.3 | 5 | 127 | 107 | moderate | #4 |
| #13 | Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada - Law Office | 63.9 | 4.8 | 226 | 193 | moderate | #49 |
| #14 | Amanda Demanda Injury Lawyers - Downtown Miami | 63.8 | 4.6 | 117 | 74 | minimum | #22 |
Questions about this comparison
Which Miami medical malpractice firms lead this review-evidence comparison?
Aigen Injury Law (85.0/100), Raposo & Lukacs (84.7/100), Max Law Personal Injury Attorney Miami (83.9/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 14 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Miami medical malpractice cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.
How many Miami offices qualified for this comparison?
14 of 50 discovered office profiles passed both the review-evidence and practice-signal gates. Law Leaderboard requires at least 8 qualified offices before publishing a market page.
Does Google Maps position affect the Law Leaderboard score?
No. Maps visibility is reported as a separate discovery observation and never enters the Review Evidence Score.
Does appearing here prove that a firm specializes in medical malpractice matters?
No. Practice inclusion requires explicit public-profile language or sufficient context-classified review evidence. It is not a credential, specialization certification, endorsement, or outcome claim.
Sources, freshness, and limitations
Source research release llb-depth50-research-2026-08-11-r1 was materialized 2026-08-12T08:00:43Z. Practice classification uses practice-signal-v1.0.0; scoring uses review-evidence-v1.0.0. The public consumer release was published 2026-08-12.
- The fixed discovery cohort is not a census of every law office in the market.
- Google Maps discovery positions are captured observations, may repeat across queries, and are not scoring inputs.
- Public reviews are incomplete, can change, and do not establish legal skill or predict a case outcome.
- Practice evidence reflects explicit public-profile language or classified review context; it is not a credential or specialization finding.
More Medical Malpractice markets
Atlanta, GA 12 qualifiedBaltimore, MD 12 qualifiedChicago, IL 23 qualifiedDenver, CO 12 qualifiedJacksonville, FL 8 qualifiedLas Vegas, NV 15 qualifiedNew York, NY 10 qualifiedOrlando, FL 16 qualifiedPhiladelphia, PA 17 qualifiedPhoenix, AZ 9 qualifiedTampa, FL 11 qualified
View every published medical malpractice market →