Direct answer · depth-50 consumer intelligence
Gallagher & Kennedy Injury Lawyers (84.7/100), Shapiro Law Team (79.8/100), Blake Law Firm (73.4/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 9 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Phoenix medical malpractice cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.
Release 2026.08.12-r4 · fixed cohort · published 2026-08-12 · minimum publication gate: 8 qualified offices
Fast comparison
| Rank / office | Score | Rating | Tracked reviews | Texts analyzed | Practice evidence | Maps visibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1Gallagher & Kennedy Injury Lawyers | 84.7 | 4.9 | 148 | 143 | Explicit public profile | #32 |
| #2Shapiro Law Team | 79.8 | 5 | 875 | 789 | Profile + review context | #13 |
| #3Blake Law Firm | 73.4 | 4.9 | 359 | 282 | Published practice evidence | #34 |
| #4Gage Mathers Law Group | 69.2 | 4.7 | 92 | 90 | Published practice evidence | #22 |
| #5Lerner and Rowe Injury Attorneys | 67.4 | 4.7 | 1,005 | 811 | Explicit public profile | #49 |
Maps visibility is shown separately and is never used to calculate the Review Evidence Score.
Each profile combines score depth, practice-signal basis, and a separate visibility observation. Read the office page before making a shortlist.
#1 in this cohort
Practice basis: Explicit public profile. Evidence depth: moderate. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#2 in this cohort
Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: strong. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#3 in this cohort
Practice basis: Published practice evidence. Evidence depth: strong. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#4 in this cohort
Practice basis: Published practice evidence. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#5 in this cohort
Practice basis: Explicit public profile. Evidence depth: strong. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#6 in this cohort
Practice basis: Published practice evidence. Evidence depth: extensive. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#7 in this cohort
Practice basis: Published practice evidence. Evidence depth: moderate. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#8 in this cohort
Practice basis: Explicit public profile. Evidence depth: moderate. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#9 in this cohort
Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →Market depth
5 qualified offices were observed beyond Maps position 20, while 4 were observed within the first 20. Discovery visibility and review evidence can tell different stories.
Hidden leaders
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.
Gallagher & Kennedy Injury Lawyers: 84.7 score, Maps #32Blake Law Firm: 73.4 score, Maps #34Gage Mathers Law Group: 69.2 score, Maps #22Review concentration
The five most-reviewed qualified offices account for 45.4% of tracked reviews. The review-volume HHI is 2799.1, a descriptive concentration measure rather than a quality score.
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.
“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
| Rank | Office | Score | Rating | Tracked | Analyzed | Evidence | Maps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Gallagher & Kennedy Injury Lawyers | 84.7 | 4.9 | 148 | 143 | moderate | #32 |
| #2 | Shapiro Law Team | 79.8 | 5 | 875 | 789 | strong | #13 |
| #3 | Blake Law Firm | 73.4 | 4.9 | 359 | 282 | strong | #34 |
| #4 | Gage Mathers Law Group | 69.2 | 4.7 | 92 | 90 | minimum | #22 |
| #5 | Lerner and Rowe Injury Attorneys | 67.4 | 4.7 | 1,005 | 811 | strong | #49 |
| #6 | Phillips Law Group - Injury Lawyers | 66.6 | 4.8 | 2,511 | 2,143 | extensive | #10 |
| #7 | Snyder & Wenner, P.C. | 66.2 | 4.8 | 106 | 100 | moderate | #37 |
| #8 | TopDog Law Personal Injury Lawyers | 59.8 | 4.7 | 270 | 158 | moderate | #15 |
| #9 | Sandweg & Ager, P.C. | 55.5 | 4.4 | 90 | 75 | minimum | #16 |
Gallagher & Kennedy Injury Lawyers (84.7/100), Shapiro Law Team (79.8/100), Blake Law Firm (73.4/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 9 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Phoenix medical malpractice cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.
9 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.
No. Maps visibility is reported as a separate discovery observation and never enters the Review Evidence Score.
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.
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.