#1 in this cohort
Carter Injury Law
88.1score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 255
- Maps
- #30
Practice basis: Explicit public profile. Evidence depth: strong. 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 Tampa, FL
Carter Injury Law (88.1/100), Senior Justice Law Firm | Nursing Home Abuse Attorneys (79.3/100), Distasio Law Firm (71.8/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 11 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Tampa medical malpractice cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.
11qualified offices
3,632review texts analyzed
68median evidence score
22%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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1Carter Injury Law | 88.1 | 5 | 266 | 255 | Explicit public profile | #30 |
| #2Senior Justice Law Firm | Nursing Home Abuse Attorneys | 79.3 | 5 | 71 | 70 | Published practice evidence | #45 |
| #3Distasio Law Firm | 71.8 | 5 | 80 | 67 | Profile + review context | #8 |
| #4The Pawlowski Mastrilli Law Group | 71.3 | 4.6 | 210 | 173 | Explicit public profile | #42 |
| #5Fernandez Firm Medical Malpractice Attorneys | 68.2 | 4.8 | 126 | 97 | Profile + review context | #10 |
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
Senior Justice Law Firm | Nursing Home Abuse Attorneys
79.3score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 70
- Maps
- #45
Practice basis: Published practice evidence. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#3 in this cohort
Distasio Law Firm
71.8score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 67
- Maps
- #8
Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#4 in this cohort
The Pawlowski Mastrilli Law Group
71.3score
- Rating
- 4.6/5
- Analyzed
- 173
- Maps
- #42
Practice basis: Explicit public profile. Evidence depth: moderate. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#5 in this cohort
Fernandez Firm Medical Malpractice Attorneys
68.2score
- Rating
- 4.8/5
- Analyzed
- 97
- Maps
- #10
Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#6 in this cohort
MattLaw Car Accident and Personal Injury Lawyers
68score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 971
- Maps
- #17
Practice basis: Explicit public profile. Evidence depth: strong. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#7 in this cohort
Catania & Catania Injury Lawyers
63.4score
- Rating
- 4.7/5
- Analyzed
- 976
- Maps
- #7
Practice basis: Published practice evidence. Evidence depth: strong. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#8 in this cohort
Rubenstein Law Personal Injury Lawyers
62.3score
- Rating
- 4.6/5
- Analyzed
- 273
- Maps
- #14
Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: strong. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#9 in this cohort
John Bales
60.6score
- Rating
- 4.4/5
- Analyzed
- 67
- Maps
- #25
Practice basis: Explicit public profile. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#10 in this cohort
MANEY | GORDON Trial Lawyers
60.1score
- Rating
- 4.4/5
- Analyzed
- 87
- Maps
- #31
Practice basis: Explicit public profile. 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 5 were observed within the first 20. Discovery visibility and review evidence can tell different stories.
Hidden leaders
3 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.
Carter Injury Law: 88.1 score, Maps #30Senior Justice Law Firm | Nursing Home Abuse Attorneys: 79.3 score, Maps #45The Pawlowski Mastrilli Law Group: 71.3 score, Maps #42Review concentration
Top five hold 11.6%
The five most-reviewed qualified offices account for 11.6% of tracked reviews. The review-volume HHI is 2598.7, 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 11 qualified offices
| Rank | Office | Score | Rating | Tracked | Analyzed | Evidence | Maps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Carter Injury Law | 88.1 | 5 | 266 | 255 | strong | #30 |
| #2 | Senior Justice Law Firm | Nursing Home Abuse Attorneys | 79.3 | 5 | 71 | 70 | minimum | #45 |
| #3 | Distasio Law Firm | 71.8 | 5 | 80 | 67 | minimum | #8 |
| #4 | The Pawlowski Mastrilli Law Group | 71.3 | 4.6 | 210 | 173 | moderate | #42 |
| #5 | Fernandez Firm Medical Malpractice Attorneys | 68.2 | 4.8 | 126 | 97 | minimum | #10 |
| #6 | MattLaw Car Accident and Personal Injury Lawyers | 68 | 5 | 1,234 | 971 | strong | #17 |
| #7 | Catania & Catania Injury Lawyers | 63.4 | 4.7 | 1,151 | 976 | strong | #7 |
| #8 | Rubenstein Law Personal Injury Lawyers | 62.3 | 4.6 | 359 | 273 | strong | #14 |
| #9 | John Bales | 60.6 | 4.4 | 84 | 67 | minimum | #25 |
| #10 | MANEY | GORDON Trial Lawyers | 60.1 | 4.4 | 105 | 87 | minimum | #31 |
| #11 | Morgan & Morgan | 47.5 | 4.7 | 2,780 | 596 | strong | #40 |
Questions about this comparison
Which Tampa medical malpractice firms lead this review-evidence comparison?
Carter Injury Law (88.1/100), Senior Justice Law Firm | Nursing Home Abuse Attorneys (79.3/100), Distasio Law Firm (71.8/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 11 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Tampa medical malpractice cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.
How many Tampa offices qualified for this comparison?
11 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 qualifiedMiami, FL 14 qualifiedNew York, NY 10 qualifiedOrlando, FL 16 qualifiedPhiladelphia, PA 17 qualifiedPhoenix, AZ 9 qualified
View every published medical malpractice market →