Practice evidence × review intelligence

Personal Injury law-firm comparisons by city

For personal-injury comparisons, the practice-evidence gate requires a public-profile practice signal or sufficient context-classified review evidence alongside the review input gate. That supports like-for-like comparison of available public evidence. It does not establish specialization, credentials, legal ability, likely results, or whether an office fits a particular matter.

25published city markets
775qualified market memberships
0below-threshold cities withheld

Direct answer

Where can you compare personal injury firms?

Law Leaderboard currently publishes 25 personal injury city comparisons. Every listed market has at least eight offices that passed both the public-review score gate and the versioned practice-evidence gate. Markets below that minimum remain non-indexable until their evidence depth improves.

Atlanta, GA

41 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
70.9/100
Texts analyzed
21,118

Austin, TX

25 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
74.8/100
Texts analyzed
8,182

Baltimore, MD

33 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
67.8/100
Texts analyzed
6,459

Charlotte, NC

37 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
72.6/100
Texts analyzed
11,864

Chicago, IL

39 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
72.5/100
Texts analyzed
13,364

Dallas, TX

33 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
72.5/100
Texts analyzed
14,227

Denver, CO

32 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
78.2/100
Texts analyzed
10,690

Houston, TX

39 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
72.2/100
Texts analyzed
16,970

Jacksonville, FL

28 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
71.6/100
Texts analyzed
9,651

Las Vegas, NV

40 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
72.8/100
Texts analyzed
16,344

Los Angeles, CA

30 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
71.2/100
Texts analyzed
14,242

Miami, FL

28 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
73.3/100
Texts analyzed
6,157

Minneapolis, MN

20 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
72.3/100
Texts analyzed
3,120

Nashville, TN

28 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
71.7/100
Texts analyzed
6,719

New York, NY

33 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
72.1/100
Texts analyzed
5,553

Orlando, FL

32 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
75.1/100
Texts analyzed
15,214

Philadelphia, PA

38 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
70.9/100
Texts analyzed
10,045

Phoenix, AZ

34 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
70.3/100
Texts analyzed
13,110

Portland, OR

23 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
72.4/100
Texts analyzed
3,753

Sacramento, CA

19 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
69.9/100
Texts analyzed
5,369

San Antonio, TX

33 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
74.1/100
Texts analyzed
10,476

San Diego, CA

25 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
75.6/100
Texts analyzed
5,231

San Francisco, CA

17 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
71/100
Texts analyzed
1,787

Seattle, WA

26 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
72/100
Texts analyzed
5,684

Tampa, FL

42 qualified of 50 discovered

Median score
71.8/100
Texts analyzed
14,600

Why some cities are not published

The research assessed 25 cities for this practice. A city page is published only when at least 8 offices pass both gates. 0 assessed cities currently fall below that minimum, so the release records their status but creates no market URL or sitemap entry.

What qualification means

Qualification means the office has enough complete public-review evidence to receive a score and enough explicit practice evidence to belong in this comparison. It does not certify specialization, legal ability, licensing, outcomes, or fit for an individual matter.

Read the methodology →

Use the data, not just the order

Start with the market page’s top-five comparison, then inspect detailed office evidence, recurring public-review patterns, evidence depth, and visibility. Build a shortlist and independently verify credentials, fee terms, relevant experience, conflicts, and who will handle the matter.

Release 2026.08.12-r4, published 2026-08-12. Fixed discovery cohort; public-review evidence only. Corrections are handled through the documented corrections policy.