#1 in this cohort
Nick Major Law
86.9score
- Rating
- 4.9/5
- Analyzed
- 64
- Maps
- #9
Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →Direct answer · depth-50 consumer intelligence
Compare Personal Injury law firms in Seattle, WA
Nick Major Law (86.9/100), Cherin Law Firm (86.2/100), Pendergast Law (81.5/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 26 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Seattle personal injury cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.
26qualified offices
5,684review texts analyzed
72median evidence score
52%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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1Nick Major Law | 86.9 | 4.9 | 77 | 64 | Profile + review context | #9 |
| #2Cherin Law Firm | 86.2 | 5 | 82 | 79 | Published practice evidence | #11 |
| #3Pendergast Law | 81.5 | 5 | 165 | 158 | Profile + review context | #6 |
| #4Davis Law Group Car Accident and Personal Injury Lawyers Seattle | 79.5 | 4.9 | 691 | 623 | Profile + review context | #2 |
| #5Herrmann Law Group | 79.3 | 5 | 88 | 79 | Profile + review context | #40 |
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
Cherin Law Firm
86.2score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 79
- Maps
- #11
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
Pendergast Law
81.5score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 158
- Maps
- #6
Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: moderate. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#4 in this cohort
Davis Law Group Car Accident and Personal Injury Lawyers Seattle
79.5score
- Rating
- 4.9/5
- Analyzed
- 623
- Maps
- #2
Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: strong. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#5 in this cohort
Herrmann Law Group
79.3score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 79
- Maps
- #40
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
Dayani Law Firm
79.2score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 109
- Maps
- #25
Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: moderate. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#7 in this cohort
Puget Law Group
78.5score
- Rating
- 4.9/5
- Analyzed
- 156
- Maps
- #14
Practice basis: Explicit public profile. Evidence depth: moderate. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#8 in this cohort
Elsner Law Firm
78.5score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 83
- Maps
- #38
Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#9 in this cohort
Seattle Injury Law
78score
- Rating
- 4.9/5
- Analyzed
- 199
- Maps
- #20
Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: moderate. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.
Review full office evidence →#10 in this cohort
Community Law Firm, PLLC
77.7score
- Rating
- 5/5
- Analyzed
- 141
- Maps
- #31
Practice basis: Explicit public profile. Evidence depth: moderate. 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
13 qualified offices were observed beyond Maps position 20, while 13 were observed within the first 20. Discovery visibility and review evidence can tell different stories.
Hidden leaders
5 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.
Herrmann Law Group: 79.3 score, Maps #40Dayani Law Firm: 79.2 score, Maps #25Elsner Law Firm: 78.5 score, Maps #38Review concentration
Top five hold 14.5%
The five most-reviewed qualified offices account for 14.5% of tracked reviews. The review-volume HHI is 1038, a descriptive concentration measure rather than a quality score.
How practice and review evidence differ
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.
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 26 qualified offices
| Rank | Office | Score | Rating | Tracked | Analyzed | Evidence | Maps |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Nick Major Law | 86.9 | 4.9 | 77 | 64 | minimum | #9 |
| #2 | Cherin Law Firm | 86.2 | 5 | 82 | 79 | minimum | #11 |
| #3 | Pendergast Law | 81.5 | 5 | 165 | 158 | moderate | #6 |
| #4 | Davis Law Group Car Accident and Personal Injury Lawyers Seattle | 79.5 | 4.9 | 691 | 623 | strong | #2 |
| #5 | Herrmann Law Group | 79.3 | 5 | 88 | 79 | minimum | #40 |
| #6 | Dayani Law Firm | 79.2 | 5 | 124 | 109 | moderate | #25 |
| #7 | Puget Law Group | 78.5 | 4.9 | 165 | 156 | moderate | #14 |
| #8 | Elsner Law Firm | 78.5 | 5 | 91 | 83 | minimum | #38 |
| #9 | Seattle Injury Law | 78 | 4.9 | 297 | 199 | moderate | #20 |
| #10 | Community Law Firm, PLLC | 77.7 | 5 | 159 | 141 | moderate | #31 |
| #11 | Premier Law Group | 73.4 | 4.8 | 62 | 60 | minimum | #1 |
| #12 | Craig Swapp & Associates | 72.5 | 4.9 | 266 | 221 | moderate | #29 |
| #13 | Boohoff Law, P.A. - Auto Accident Lawyers | 72.5 | 4.9 | 226 | 145 | moderate | #8 |
| #14 | The Fang Law Firm | 71.5 | 5 | 63 | 61 | minimum | #21 |
| #15 | GLP Attorneys, P.S., Inc. | 71.4 | 4.8 | 113 | 90 | minimum | #83 |
| #16 | Khan Injury Law - Seattle | 70.3 | 4.9 | 351 | 330 | strong | #3 |
| #17 | Siegfried & Jensen | 69.8 | 5 | 124 | 69 | minimum | #13 |
| #18 | The Advocates Injury Attorneys | 69.3 | 4.8 | 675 | 559 | strong | #27 |
| #19 | Pacific West Injury Law | 69.3 | 4.9 | 123 | 110 | moderate | #46 |
| #20 | Luat Su Son, P.S. | 68.5 | 4.9 | 157 | 144 | moderate | #43 |
| #21 | Moseley Collins Law | 67.1 | 5 | 1,897 | 1,434 | extensive | #24 |
| #22 | Monge & Associates | 63.4 | 4.9 | 249 | 146 | moderate | #10 |
| #23 | Alpine Law Group | 62.1 | 4.7 | 82 | 69 | minimum | #50 |
| #24 | Bernard Law Group - Seattle Accident Attorneys | 61.6 | 4.6 | 301 | 209 | moderate | #39 |
| #25 | Phillips Law Firm | 55.6 | 4.6 | 101 | 79 | minimum | #15 |
| #26 | Morgan & Morgan | 54.8 | 4.7 | 886 | 267 | strong | #5 |
Questions about this comparison
Which Seattle personal injury firms lead this review-evidence comparison?
Nick Major Law (86.9/100), Cherin Law Firm (86.2/100), Pendergast Law (81.5/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 26 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Seattle personal injury cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.
How many Seattle offices qualified for this comparison?
26 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 personal injury 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 Personal Injury markets
Atlanta, GA 41 qualifiedAustin, TX 25 qualifiedBaltimore, MD 33 qualifiedCharlotte, NC 37 qualifiedChicago, IL 39 qualifiedDallas, TX 33 qualifiedDenver, CO 32 qualifiedHouston, TX 39 qualifiedJacksonville, FL 28 qualifiedLas Vegas, NV 40 qualifiedLos Angeles, CA 30 qualifiedMiami, FL 28 qualified
View every published personal injury market →