Law Leaderboard Research · Dataset snapshot
A transparent, versioned benchmark built from 352,252 tracked public Google reviews across 523 law firm profiles in 25 US ranking markets and 32 represented office locations. The release includes 275,801 retrieved review records and 229,403 analyzed review texts.
Release llb-pi-reviews-2026-08-02-p108 · April 6 base · 108-profile review refresh through August 2 · analysis generated August 2 · published August 3, 2026.
Stable fact anchors
Citable Facts for 2026.08.02-p108
Each card has a permanent fragment link. Cite the release identifier with the metric and preserve the distinction between tracked, retrieved, and analyzed review counts.
Open release manifest → - Immutable release
- llb-pi-reviews-2026-08-02-p108
Profile-Level Quartile Benchmarks
The median describes the middle profile; P25 and P75 bound the middle half of profiles. These are profile-level distributions, not thresholds for deciding whether a firm is qualified.
| Metric | P25 | Median | P75 |
|---|
| Tracked Google reviews per profile | 141 | 301 | 622 |
| Public Google rating | 4.8 | 4.9 | 5.0 |
| Owner-reply rate | 46% | 78% | 96% |
| Explicit recommendation signal | 48% | 62% | 76% |
| Review-consistency index | 90 | 95 | 98 |
Historical Review Coverage
The benchmark now keeps aggregate retrieved-review history separate from the current profile totals. Change metrics publish only after the record passes the coverage gate.
523
Profiles with retrieved history
422
Fair 12-month rating comparisons
286
Reply-pattern comparisons by rating group
These aggregates exclude review text and reviewer identities. See the profile-level explorer for the downloadable fields and qualifying firms.
Common Praise Signals
Weighted averages within profiles where each NLP label appears.
- 1recommendation50%
- 2professionalism25%
- 3results17%
- 4communication17%
- 5accessibility15%
- 6dedication13%
- 7compassion12%
- 8expertise11%
Common Concern Signals
Derived from negative-review samples; not complaint filings or verified misconduct.
- 1hidden fees25%
- 2unprofessional22%
- 3passed around7%
- 4poor communication7%
- 5slow process4%
- 6low settlement4%
Review Coverage by City
Markets ordered by tracked public review volume. The rating is weighted by each profile's tracked review count.
| Market | Profiles | Tracked | Analyzed | Weighted rating |
|---|
| Orlando, Florida | 21 | 49,228 | 19,970 | 4.69/5 |
| Atlanta, Georgia | 20 | 29,450 | 14,791 | 4.67/5 |
| Houston, Texas | 21 | 27,885 | 21,659 | 4.85/5 |
| Los Angeles, California | 21 | 21,381 | 13,388 | 4.81/5 |
| Tampa, Florida | 21 | 18,166 | 10,923 | 4.82/5 |
| Chicago, Illinois | 21 | 16,836 | 11,823 | 4.81/5 |
| Las Vegas, Nevada | 21 | 16,287 | 13,669 | 4.82/5 |
| Dallas, Texas | 21 | 15,095 | 13,049 | 4.80/5 |
| Miami, Florida | 21 | 14,112 | 8,624 | 4.84/5 |
| Phoenix, Arizona | 20 | 13,690 | 9,626 | 4.84/5 |
| Jacksonville, Florida | 21 | 13,655 | 9,065 | 4.80/5 |
| Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | 21 | 13,621 | 7,336 | 4.73/5 |
| Charlotte, North Carolina | 21 | 12,381 | 8,751 | 4.87/5 |
| Denver, Colorado | 21 | 11,567 | 8,995 | 4.84/5 |
| Nashville, Tennessee | 21 | 11,146 | 5,781 | 4.76/5 |
| Austin, Texas | 21 | 9,807 | 8,562 | 4.85/5 |
| San Diego, California | 21 | 8,243 | 6,090 | 4.90/5 |
| San Antonio, Texas | 21 | 8,191 | 6,861 | 4.88/5 |
| Baltimore, Maryland | 21 | 8,003 | 5,002 | 4.81/5 |
| Sacramento, California | 21 | 7,468 | 5,570 | 4.85/5 |
| Seattle, Washington | 21 | 6,991 | 5,045 | 4.87/5 |
| New York, New York | 21 | 6,549 | 5,487 | 4.88/5 |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota | 21 | 5,102 | 3,825 | 4.82/5 |
| Portland, Oregon | 21 | 4,983 | 3,802 | 4.90/5 |
| San Francisco, California | 21 | 2,415 | 1,709 | 4.84/5 |
Selected Multi-Location Brand Comparisons
The nine brands below have multiple office profiles joined by a shared website domain in this dataset.
Morgan & Morgan
21 profiles · 84,298 tracked reviews
4.59/5 weighted rating · 20,579 texts analyzed
Compare locations →Dan Newlin Injury Attorneys
2 profiles · 18,111 tracked reviews
4.91/5 weighted rating · 5,379 texts analyzed
Compare locations →Moseley Collins Law
4 profiles · 7,608 tracked reviews
4.96/5 weighted rating · 5,578 texts analyzed
Compare locations →Herrman & Herrman
5 profiles · 4,823 tracked reviews
4.89/5 weighted rating · 4,735 texts analyzed
Compare locations →Amaro Law Firm
2 profiles · 3,612 tracked reviews
4.90/5 weighted rating · 2,816 texts analyzed
Compare locations →Jacoby & Meyers
3 profiles · 2,632 tracked reviews
4.79/5 weighted rating · 1,872 texts analyzed
Compare locations →Steinger, Greene & Feiner
3 profiles · 2,152 tracked reviews
4.83/5 weighted rating · 1,220 texts analyzed
Compare locations →TopDog Law
3 profiles · 1,668 tracked reviews
4.77/5 weighted rating · 1,112 texts analyzed
Compare locations →Arash Law
2 profiles · 1,274 tracked reviews
4.81/5 weighted rating · 1,078 texts analyzed
Compare locations →Monge & Associates
4 profiles · 1,170 tracked reviews
4.90/5 weighted rating · 668 texts analyzed
Compare locations →Shulman & Hill
2 profiles · 1,045 tracked reviews
4.90/5 weighted rating · 889 texts analyzed
Compare locations →Brandon J. Broderick
2 profiles · 618 tracked reviews
4.93/5 weighted rating · 336 texts analyzed
Compare locations →Harris Personal Injury Lawyers
3 profiles · 422 tracked reviews
4.97/5 weighted rating · 406 texts analyzed
Compare locations →Mova Law Group
3 profiles · 242 tracked reviews
5.00/5 weighted rating · 239 texts analyzed
Compare locations →Benchmark Questions and Direct Answers
What is a typical personal injury law firm review count?
Across 523 profiles in this dataset, the median public Google review count is 301. The middle 50% spans approximately 141 to 622 tracked reviews. Coverage is limited to the firms and markets included here.
What is the average rating for personal injury law firms?
The review-count-weighted public Google rating across this dataset is 4.80/5. The profile-level median is 4.9/5. These figures summarize public ratings and do not measure legal skill or likely case outcomes.
How often do personal injury law firms respond to reviews?
The retrieved-review-weighted owner-reply signal in the current dataset is 68%; the median profile-level rate is 78%. This measures replies to public reviews, not client communication during a case.
What do clients praise and complain about in personal injury law firm reviews?
The strongest recurring praise labels in the analyzed samples are recommendation, professionalism, results. The strongest recurring concern labels are hidden fees, unprofessional, passed around. Labels are NLP-derived review themes, not independently verified findings.
How to Cite and Interpret This Benchmark
Name the metric, release, and coverage when citing a finding—for example, “In Law Leaderboard release llb-pi-reviews-2026-08-02-p108, the median tracked public Google review count across 523 covered profiles was 301.” Do not describe the dataset as a census, substitute tracked reviews for analyzed texts, or turn review signals into claims about licensing or case outcomes. Read the full methodology for definitions.
This is a rights-reserved research release, not an open dataset. Limited attributed citation is permitted under the versioned usage terms.
Reproduce the Comparison
Use the interactive data explorer to filter the covered profiles, or download the immutable CSV or JSON. The export excludes review text and reviewer information and keeps tracked, retrieved, and analyzed counts in separate fields.
Sources, Freshness & Limitations
Sources
- • 523 identity-matched public Google Business Profiles across 25 ranking markets and 32 normalized represented office locations.
- • 352,252 public Google reviews tracked, 275,801 review records retrieved, and 229,403 review texts analyzed.
- • 523 profile-level retrieved-review histories, with coverage gates applied before publishing period or reply-pattern comparisons.
- • Public profile and review observations were collected through a third-party data provider; the public release excludes raw review text, reviewer identities, owner-response text, provider payloads, and Google identifiers.
Freshness
- • Base snapshot consolidated: 2026-04-06; public profile source fields were observed 2026-04-02.
- • Review collection: 392 profiles in the April base and 108 priority profiles refreshed through 2026-08-02. This was not a full profile refresh.
- • Aggregate analysis generated: 2026-08-02; immutable release published: 2026-08-03.
- • Dataset release: llb-pi-reviews-2026-08-02-p108, version 2026.08.02-p108.
Limitations
- • This is a benchmark of the firms and ranking markets in Law Leaderboard, not a census of every US personal injury law firm.
- • Tracked public review counts, retrieved reviews, and analyzed review texts are separate measures and must not be interchanged.
- • Twelve-month comparisons are withheld unless retrieved review history reaches both full windows and each period clears the rating-count threshold.
- • Review signals do not independently verify licensing, misconduct, legal skill, case outcomes, or suitability for a particular matter.