Law Leaderboard Research · Dataset snapshot

Law Firm Review Evidence Benchmark

Name: Law Leaderboard Consumer Review Intelligence Benchmark
Published: 2026-08-12

A transparent, versioned benchmark built from 527,168 tracked public Google reviews across 1130 maintained office profiles, including 1,029 offices qualified for at least one of 121 published practice/city comparisons. The release analyzes 365,756 review texts and keeps raw review content private.

The release publishes 121 practice/city pages across six assessed practices and 25 cities, with 1,029 distinct qualified office profiles and 2,573 qualified practice/city memberships. Pages require at least eight qualified offices; 29 assessed cells are withheld below that gate. Twenty-five wrongful-death cells were not assessed and are outside this release.

1130

Office profiles

121

Ranking markets

Scored offices

71.8

Median evidence score

Brand benchmarks

Current consumer release llb-consumer-intelligence-2026-08-12-r4, derived from research release llb-depth50-research-2026-08-11-r1. The historical 500-profile personal-injury research release remains preserved below.

Compare offices Market depth CSV Office index CSV Coverage JSON

Current consumer intelligence release

Citable Review-Evidence Benchmarks for 2026.08.12-r4

Discovery targeted 50 offices in every assessed practice/city cell. An office profile is included only when it passes the public-review score input gate and has an explicit public-profile practice signal or sufficient context-classified review evidence. This creates a consistent comparison set from public information, with limits where evidence is sparse.

Open current manifest →

Identity-matched offices: 1,130
Fixed ranking markets: 121
Evidence-scored offices: 54
Median evidence score: 71.8/100
Tracked public reviews: 527,168
Analyzed review texts: 365,756
Multi-office brand benchmarks: 83
Immutable release: llb-consumer-intelligence-2026-08-12-r4

Practice membership and review scoring are separate gates. Maps discovery visibility is reported separately and never affects the Review Evidence Score.

Practice/City Review-Evidence Benchmarks

All 121 published markets ordered by their median Review Evidence Score. Use each market page for the complete qualified cohort and limitations.

Download market-depth CSV →

Practice / market	Qualified / discovered	Median score	Middle 50%	Median tracked	Median rating
Motorcycle AccidentDenver, CO	18/50	79	69.1-83	270	4.9/5
Truck AccidentSan Diego, CA	9/50	78.9	71-80.3	284	5.0/5
Personal InjuryDenver, CO	32/50	78.2	68.5-82.6	244	4.9/5
Car AccidentSan Diego, CA	27/50	78.1	71.2-80.9	179	4.9/5
Motorcycle AccidentSan Diego, CA	15/50	78.1	72.8-80.7	284	5.0/5
Car AccidentDenver, CO	33/50	77.8	68.1-81.4	225	4.9/5
Truck AccidentOrlando, FL	14/50	77.8	75.7-81.4	295	4.9/5
Medical MalpracticeOrlando, FL	16/50	76.8	69.9-79.3	214	4.9/5
Motorcycle AccidentAustin, TX	8/50	76.8	71.5-80.9	322	5.0/5
Motorcycle AccidentSacramento, CA	8/50	76.7	70.3-77.6	261	4.9/5
Motorcycle AccidentChicago, IL	14/50	76.5	71.7-80.3	208	4.9/5
Motorcycle AccidentOrlando, FL	11/50	76.3	71.6-79.9	282	4.9/5
Medical MalpracticeMiami, FL	14/50	76.1	69-82.5	156	5.0/5
Motorcycle AccidentNashville, TN	13/50	75.6	69.1-80.2	177	4.9/5
Personal InjurySan Diego, CA	25/50	75.6	70.6-79.7	202	4.9/5
Truck AccidentChicago, IL	18/50	75.4	68.8-78.8	231	4.9/5
Car AccidentOrlando, FL	32/50	75.3	70.3-78.2	322	4.9/5
Truck AccidentNew York, NY	10/50	75.3	68.8-77.9	140	4.9/5
Medical MalpracticeDenver, CO	12/50	75.2	68.5-78.5	204	4.9/5
Truck AccidentAustin, TX	21/50	75.2	71.2-82.5	216	4.9/5
Car AccidentSan Antonio, TX	35/50	75.1	69.7-77.9	214	4.9/5
Personal InjuryOrlando, FL	32/50	75.1	69-77.8	322	4.9/5
Workers' CompensationBaltimore, MD	15/50	75.1	62-77.5	252	4.9/5
Personal InjuryAustin, TX	25/50	74.8	67.9-81.5	172	4.9/5
Car AccidentAustin, TX	24/50	74.7	68.3-81.8	190	4.9/5
Car AccidentPortland, OR	23/50	74.6	70.5-78	118	4.9/5
Motorcycle AccidentPortland, OR	11/50	74.5	66.5-78	131	4.9/5
Workers' CompensationCharlotte, NC	21/50	74.5	67.2-80.2	224	4.9/5
Personal InjurySan Antonio, TX	33/50	74.1	69.5-77.8	214	4.9/5
Car AccidentMiami, FL	30/50	74	68.3-81.1	150	5.0/5
Truck AccidentJacksonville, FL	10/50	74	70.4-79.8	284	5.0/5
Car AccidentNew York, NY	28/50	73.8	67.7-75.5	158	4.9/5
Truck AccidentMiami, FL	12/50	73.7	65.5-82.4	249	5.0/5
Motorcycle AccidentMinneapolis, MN	13/50	73.5	71.9-78.6	110	4.9/5
Motorcycle AccidentSan Antonio, TX	14/50	73.5	69-78.5	376	4.9/5
Car AccidentMinneapolis, MN	21/50	73.3	69.2-78.6	169	4.9/5
Personal InjuryMiami, FL	28/50	73.3	67.8-80.1	150	4.9/5
Car AccidentLas Vegas, NV	38/50	73.2	67.9-79.1	319	5.0/5
Car AccidentLos Angeles, CA	30/50	73.2	67.2-79.4	311	4.9/5
Truck AccidentLos Angeles, CA	15/50	73.1	63.9-78.1	407	4.9/5
Truck AccidentSan Antonio, TX	25/50	73.1	66.6-76.2	214	4.9/5
Motorcycle AccidentPhiladelphia, PA	8/50	73	70.2-81.7	250	4.9/5
Motorcycle AccidentTampa, FL	18/50	73	68-78.2	328	4.9/5
Car AccidentDallas, TX	34/50	72.8	65.2-77.8	256	4.9/5
Motorcycle AccidentJacksonville, FL	9/50	72.8	70.3-75.8	359	4.9/5
Motorcycle AccidentLos Angeles, CA	16/50	72.8	67.1-77.3	402	4.9/5
Personal InjuryLas Vegas, NV	40/50	72.8	68.2-78.8	319	5.0/5
Car AccidentJacksonville, FL	29/50	72.7	70.3-75.9	159	4.9/5
Car AccidentNashville, TN	32/50	72.7	65.3-77.5	138	4.9/5
Truck AccidentDallas, TX	20/50	72.7	65.3-76.5	294	4.9/5
Workers' CompensationNashville, TN	14/50	72.7	64.2-79.2	362	4.8/5
Personal InjuryCharlotte, NC	37/50	72.6	67.2-79.1	214	4.9/5
Car AccidentSeattle, WA	23/50	72.5	69.3-79.2	124	4.9/5
Personal InjuryChicago, IL	39/50	72.5	64.6-77.7	207	4.9/5
Personal InjuryDallas, TX	33/50	72.5	64.7-77.9	262	4.9/5
Car AccidentCharlotte, NC	32/50	72.4	65.9-79.4	254	4.9/5
Car AccidentChicago, IL	39/50	72.4	65.3-78	207	4.9/5
Personal InjuryPortland, OR	23/50	72.4	66.9-78	111	4.9/5
Motorcycle AccidentLas Vegas, NV	17/50	72.3	69.1-74.7	372	5.0/5
Personal InjuryMinneapolis, MN	20/50	72.3	66.6-77.9	154	4.9/5
Car AccidentHouston, TX	41/50	72.2	68.8-79.1	247	4.9/5
Car AccidentSan Francisco, CA	16/50	72.2	68.2-76.7	99	4.9/5
Medical MalpracticeAtlanta, GA	12/50	72.2	67.2-78.5	292	4.9/5
Personal InjuryHouston, TX	39/50	72.2	68.1-79.2	247	4.9/5
Truck AccidentLas Vegas, NV	14/50	72.2	68-77.8	485	4.9/5
Workers' CompensationHouston, TX	9/50	72.2	67.7-77.1	889	4.9/5
Car AccidentTampa, FL	40/50	72.1	68.4-79.3	271	4.9/5
Medical MalpracticeNew York, NY	10/50	72.1	68.2-75.8	126	4.8/5
Motorcycle AccidentCharlotte, NC	13/50	72.1	65.7-79.1	499	4.9/5
Personal InjuryNew York, NY	33/50	72.1	66.8-75.3	145	4.9/5
Workers' CompensationAtlanta, GA	23/50	72.1	67.1-76.2	349	4.9/5
Personal InjurySeattle, WA	26/50	72	68.7-78.5	158	4.9/5
Truck AccidentHouston, TX	30/50	72	67.8-78.2	367	4.9/5
Personal InjuryTampa, FL	42/50	71.8	67-79.3	266	4.9/5
Workers' CompensationTampa, FL	16/50	71.8	63.3-77.2	230	4.8/5
Motorcycle AccidentHouston, TX	13/50	71.7	70.4-78.4	273	4.9/5
Personal InjuryNashville, TN	28/50	71.7	64.1-77.2	170	4.8/5
Truck AccidentDenver, CO	19/50	71.7	65.3-78.4	307	4.9/5
Personal InjuryJacksonville, FL	28/50	71.6	69.3-75.8	169	4.9/5
Workers' CompensationChicago, IL	24/50	71.6	64.2-77.5	392	4.8/5
Motorcycle AccidentSeattle, WA	10/50	71.5	69.3-73.2	144	4.8/5
Motorcycle AccidentDallas, TX	16/50	71.2	64-75.4	268	4.9/5
Motorcycle AccidentMiami, FL	14/50	71.2	67.1-78.2	150	5.0/5
Personal InjuryLos Angeles, CA	30/50	71.2	67.2-76.8	286	4.9/5
Medical MalpracticeLas Vegas, NV	15/50	71.1	68.1-73.8	377	5.0/5
Car AccidentAtlanta, GA	40/50	71	66.4-76.7	263	4.9/5
Personal InjurySan Francisco, CA	17/50	71	63.9-76.6	100	4.9/5
Truck AccidentCharlotte, NC	12/50	71	58.2-78	380	4.8/5
Truck AccidentNashville, TN	21/50	71	63.4-76.9	178	4.8/5
Personal InjuryAtlanta, GA	41/50	70.9	66.5-76.7	251	4.9/5
Personal InjuryPhiladelphia, PA	38/50	70.9	66.8-75.8	234	4.9/5
Motorcycle AccidentPhoenix, AZ	20/50	70.7	67.4-78.1	476	4.9/5
Medical MalpracticeChicago, IL	23/50	70.4	61.5-76.3	172	4.8/5
Car AccidentPhiladelphia, PA	31/50	70.3	65.4-75.8	231	4.9/5
Car AccidentPhoenix, AZ	40/50	70.3	67.2-78	271	4.9/5
Medical MalpracticePhiladelphia, PA	17/50	70.3	61.6-73.2	99	4.9/5
Personal InjuryPhoenix, AZ	34/50	70.3	66.9-74.9	268	4.9/5
Truck AccidentMinneapolis, MN	10/50	70.3	67.1-73.5	176	4.8/5
Truck AccidentSacramento, CA	8/50	70.3	63.4-77.6	274	4.9/5
Workers' CompensationPhiladelphia, PA	18/50	70.3	64.7-76.1	292	4.9/5
Medical MalpracticeBaltimore, MD	12/50	70.2	61.1-75.5	205	4.9/5
Workers' CompensationLas Vegas, NV	15/50	70.1	65.8-77.8	515	4.9/5
Personal InjurySacramento, CA	19/50	69.9	64.7-76.9	106	4.9/5
Truck AccidentAtlanta, GA	26/50	69.9	66.3-76.5	398	4.8/5
Truck AccidentPhiladelphia, PA	10/50	69.8	66.9-75.5	227	4.9/5
Car AccidentSacramento, CA	21/50	69.7	63.9-76.8	106	4.9/5
Truck AccidentPhoenix, AZ	19/50	69.6	67.2-76.1	471	4.9/5
Workers' CompensationNew York, NY	19/50	69.6	62.9-74.1	226	4.8/5
Motorcycle AccidentAtlanta, GA	18/50	69.5	66.8-76	357	4.9/5
Workers' CompensationSan Antonio, TX	8/50	69.3	65.4-71.8	242	4.8/5
Car AccidentBaltimore, MD	28/50	69	61-76.2	151	4.9/5
Workers' CompensationOrlando, FL	12/50	69	67.2-74.2	434	4.8/5
Workers' CompensationMinneapolis, MN	12/50	68.9	66.6-76.2	203	4.8/5
Medical MalpracticeJacksonville, FL	8/50	68.8	64.3-80.8	160	4.8/5
Workers' CompensationLos Angeles, CA	9/50	68.4	67.7-69.2	165	4.8/5
Medical MalpracticeTampa, FL	11/50	68	61.5-71.5	210	4.7/5
Personal InjuryBaltimore, MD	33/50	67.8	61.7-75.2	154	4.8/5
Workers' CompensationDenver, CO	14/50	67.5	65.3-71.9	430	4.8/5
Medical MalpracticePhoenix, AZ	9/50	67.4	66.2-73.4	270	4.8/5
Workers' CompensationPhoenix, AZ	15/50	66.6	61.5-73	422	4.7/5
Workers' CompensationDallas, TX	8/50	60	54.7-66.7	444	4.8/5

Historical profile-level release

Preserved 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 →

Covered profiles: 500
Ranking markets: 25
Represented office locations: 32
Tracked public Google reviews: 527,168
Analyzed review texts: 365,756
Median tracked reviews per profile: 191
Retrieved-review-weighted owner-reply rate: 65%
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	104	191	416
Public Google rating	4.8	4.9	5.0
Owner-reply rate	34%	75%	96%
Explicit recommendation signal	49%	64%	78%
Review-consistency index	89	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.

1recommendation53%
2professionalism26%
3results17%
4communication17%
5accessibility16%
6dedication13%
7compassion13%
8expertise12%

Common Concern Signals

Derived from negative-review samples; not complaint filings or verified misconduct.

1unprofessional24%
2hidden fees14%
3poor communication7%
4passed around7%
5slow process5%
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	37	55,594	24,901	4.70/5
Atlanta, Georgia	44	43,010	24,980	4.65/5
Houston, Texas	47	32,952	25,915	4.86/5
Los Angeles, California	37	27,295	18,192	4.79/5
Tampa, Florida	46	23,877	15,576	4.82/5
Las Vegas, Nevada	46	22,733	19,104	4.83/5
Chicago, Illinois	43	20,574	15,064	4.82/5
Phoenix, Arizona	37	20,091	14,406	4.85/5
Dallas, Texas	40	19,353	16,202	4.80/5
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	42	18,240	11,156	4.73/5
Charlotte, North Carolina	42	17,219	12,816	4.85/5
Miami, Florida	36	15,922	10,168	4.84/5
Jacksonville, Florida	32	15,347	10,514	4.79/5
Denver, Colorado	36	14,034	11,261	4.84/5
San Antonio, Texas	39	13,824	11,517	4.88/5
Nashville, Tennessee	30	12,495	6,929	4.77/5
Austin, Texas	32	12,035	10,441	4.85/5
New York, New York	46	10,991	9,287	4.84/5
San Diego, California	33	10,289	7,876	4.91/5
Baltimore, Maryland	36	10,013	6,601	4.77/5
Seattle, Washington	32	8,848	6,641	4.87/5
Sacramento, California	24	7,712	5,787	4.85/5
Minneapolis, Minnesota	27	5,867	4,385	4.82/5
Portland, Oregon	28	5,664	4,435	4.90/5
San Francisco, California	25	2,790	2,044	4.85/5

Selected Multi-Location Brand Comparisons

These 14 public brand hubs connect identity-linked office profiles and add Release 3 score-dispersion, evidence-depth, and QA-published theme context.

Morgan & Morgan

23 profiles · 88,523 tracked reviews

4.60/5 weighted rating · 21,508 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

5 profiles · 8,784 tracked reviews

4.96/5 weighted rating · 6,444 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

3 profiles · 3,795 tracked reviews

4.90/5 weighted rating · 2,946 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

5 profiles · 2,084 tracked reviews

4.75/5 weighted rating · 1,357 texts analyzed

Compare locations →

Monge & Associates

6 profiles · 1,432 tracked reviews

4.89/5 weighted rating · 835 texts analyzed

Compare locations →

Arash Law

2 profiles · 1,274 tracked reviews

4.81/5 weighted rating · 1,078 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 1130 profiles in this dataset, the median public Google review count is 191. The middle 50% spans approximately 104 to 416 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 4.79/5. 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 65%; the median profile-level rate is 75%. 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 unprofessional, hidden fees, poor communication. 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 1130 covered profiles was 191.” 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 bounded side-by-side comparison for within-market office evaluation, the market-shard explorer for filtering, or download the current qualified office index JSON. The preserved historical 500-profile personal-injury CSV and JSON remain immutable.

Provenance

Sources, freshness, and limitations.

Sources

• Current consumer benchmark llb-consumer-intelligence-2026-08-12-r4: 1130 maintained office profiles, 1029 depth-50 qualified offices, 121 published practice/city markets, and 83 multi-office brand benchmarks.
• 1130 identity-matched public Google Business Profiles across 25 ranking markets and 32 normalized represented office locations.
• 527,168 public Google reviews tracked, 450,536 review records retrieved, and 365,756 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

• Current consumer intelligence release published: 2026-08-12; source research release: llb-depth50-research-2026-08-11-r1.
• 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.
• Published theme prevalence uses only offices whose individual theme result passed all current sample, confidence, and external precision gates.