Direct answer · depth-50 consumer intelligence

Compare Workers' Compensation law firms in Las Vegas, NV

Benson & Bingham Car Accident & Personal Injury Lawyers (81.2/100), Tingey Injury Law Firm (81.0/100), Claggett & Sykes Trial Lawyers (80.7/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 15 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Las Vegas workers' compensation cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.

15qualified offices
8,650review texts analyzed
70.1median evidence score
30%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

Open side-by-side comparison →
Top five Las Vegas workers' compensation offices by Review Evidence Score
Rank / officeScoreRatingTracked reviewsTexts analyzedPractice evidenceMaps visibility
#1Benson & Bingham Car Accident & Personal Injury Lawyers 81.2 4.9 932 900 Published practice evidence #5
#2Tingey Injury Law Firm 81 5 515 474 Published practice evidence #13
#3Claggett & Sykes Trial Lawyers 80.7 4.9 326 286 Published practice evidence #33
#4Van Law Firm Injury and Accident Attorneys 78.6 5 662 587 Explicit public profile #48
#5Jerez Law 77 5 409 331 Published practice evidence #43

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.

#5 in this cohort

Jerez Law

77score
Rating
5/5
Analyzed
331
Maps
#43

Practice basis: Published practice evidence. Evidence depth: strong. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.

Review full office evidence →

#7 in this cohort

Benson Allred

70.5score
Rating
5/5
Analyzed
84
Maps
#38

Practice basis: Published practice evidence. Evidence depth: minimum. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.

Review full office evidence →

#8 in this cohort

GGRM Law Firm

70.1score
Rating
4.8/5
Analyzed
464
Maps
#44

Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: strong. 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

10 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.

Review concentration

Top five hold 24.8%

The five most-reviewed qualified offices account for 24.8% of tracked reviews. The review-volume HHI is 1457.1, a descriptive concentration measure rather than a quality score.

How practice and review evidence differ

For workers-compensation comparisons, the practice-evidence gate links included profiles to public practice language or sufficient context-classified review evidence after the review input gate. This supports consistent market comparison from available public signals. It does not show specialization, credentials, legal ability, expected results, or whether an office is suitable for a specific worker’s situation.

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 15 qualified offices

Explore this market’s data →
All qualified Las Vegas workers' compensation offices in Review Evidence Score order
RankOfficeScoreRatingTrackedAnalyzedEvidenceMaps
#1Benson & Bingham Car Accident & Personal Injury Lawyers81.24.9932900strong#5
#2Tingey Injury Law Firm815515474strong#13
#3Claggett & Sykes Trial Lawyers80.74.9326286strong#33
#4Van Law Firm Injury and Accident Attorneys78.65662587strong#48
#5Jerez Law775409331strong#43
#6Litigators for Justice Car Accident Personal Injury Attorneys71.155350minimum#21
#7Benson Allred70.559184minimum#38
#8GGRM Law Firm70.14.8611464strong#44
#9Lloyd Baker Injury Attorneys69.14.9644383strong#19
#10Eric Blank Injury Attorneys68.64.8464420strong#41
#11Cogburn Davidson68.44.9312274strong#40
#12Craig P. Kenny & Associates Injury and Accident Attorneys63.34.8457320strong#42
#13Richard Harris Personal Injury Law Firm62.74.73,6132,976extensive#6
#14Shook & Stone Personal Injury and Disability Lawyers55.74.6946768strong#1
#15Morgan & Morgan54.74.71,445333strong#37

Questions about this comparison

Which Las Vegas workers' compensation firms lead this review-evidence comparison?

Benson & Bingham Car Accident & Personal Injury Lawyers (81.2/100), Tingey Injury Law Firm (81.0/100), Claggett & Sykes Trial Lawyers (80.7/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 15 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Las Vegas workers' compensation cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.

How many Las Vegas offices qualified for this comparison?

15 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 workers' compensation 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 Workers' Compensation markets

View every published workers' compensation market →