Best workers' compensation lawyers in Minneapolis, ranked by review evidence.

Direct answer

Published 2026-08-12 · Release 2026.08.12-r4

SiebenCarey Personal Injury Law (80.6/100), Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben, P.A. (79.4/100), Rochlin Law Firm, Ltd. (78.6/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 12 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Minneapolis workers' compensation cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.

12 qualified offices 3,541 review texts analyzed 68.9 median score 24% of discovered offices qualified

Fixed cohort · minimum publication gate: 8 qualified offices

Fast comparison

Top five, at a glance.

Open side-by-side comparison →
Top five Minneapolis workers' compensation offices by Review Evidence Score
Rank / officeScoreRatingTrackedAnalyzedPractice evidenceMaps pos.
#1 81 SiebenCarey Personal Injury Law 80.6 5 183 167 Profile + review context #17
#2 79 Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben, P.A. 79.4 4.9 509 450 Published practice evidence #6
#3 79 Rochlin Law Firm, Ltd. 78.6 4.9 57 55 Published practice evidence #50
#4 75 Fields Law Firm 75.4 4.8 2,036 1,646 Profile + review context #49
#5 73 Robert Wilson & Associates 72.8 4.9 110 92 Published practice evidence #16

Maps visibility is shown separately and is never used to calculate the Review Evidence Score.

Leading offices

The evidence, office by office.

Each profile combines score depth, practice-signal basis, and a separate visibility observation. Read the office page before making a shortlist.

04

Fields Law Firm

Rating
4.8/5
Analyzed
1,646
Maps
#49
75.4 Score

Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: extensive. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.

Review full office evidence →
06

Fields Injury Law

Rating
4.8/5
Analyzed
96
Maps
#45
70.5 Score

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

Review full office evidence →
10

Fay & Associates

Rating
4.7/5
Analyzed
295
Maps
#5
65.2 Score

Practice basis: Profile + review context. Evidence depth: strong. These are observed public signals, not a specialization or outcome finding.

Review full office evidence →

Market insights

What this market reveals.

Market depth

Evidence beyond the first 20 results

5 qualified offices were observed beyond Maps position 20, while 7 were observed within the first 20. Discovery visibility and review evidence can tell different stories.

5 of 12 beyond position 20

Review concentration

Top five hold 61.8%

The five most-reviewed qualified offices account for 61.8% of tracked reviews. The review-volume HHI is 2311.6, a descriptive concentration measure rather than a quality score.

HHI 2311.6

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 12 qualified offices, one table.

Explore this market's data →
All qualified Minneapolis workers' compensation offices in Review Evidence Score order
RankOfficeScoreRatingTrackedAnalyzedEvidenceMaps
#1 81 SiebenCarey Personal Injury Law80.65183167moderate#17
#2 79 Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben, P.A.79.44.9509450strong#6
#3 79 Rochlin Law Firm, Ltd.78.64.95755minimum#50
#4 75 Fields Law Firm75.44.82,0361,646extensive#49
#5 73 Robert Wilson & Associates72.84.911092minimum#16
#6 71 Fields Injury Law70.54.810696minimum#45
#7 67 Atkinson Gerber Law Office67.34.8130104moderate#36
#8 67 McCreadyLaw Injury Attorneys67.25226195moderate#39
#9 67 Meshbesher & Spence67.14.5223197moderate#9
#10 65 Fay & Associates65.24.7356295strong#5
#11 59 Osterbauer, Harper & Furth58.54.6169142moderate#1
#12 57 Morgan & Morgan56.64.7580102moderate#3

Rank movement between snapshots is withheld until the multi-snapshot publication gate is met, so this table reports one dated snapshot rather than a trend. Scores compare public-review evidence only.

FAQ

Asked before hiring.

Each answer is self-contained and mirrors this page's FAQ structured data.

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

SiebenCarey Personal Injury Law (80.6/100), Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben, P.A. (79.4/100), Rochlin Law Firm, Ltd. (78.6/100) have the three highest Review Evidence Scores among 12 qualified offices in Law Leaderboard’s fixed Minneapolis workers' compensation cohort. The score compares public-review evidence; it does not measure legal ability, credentials, outcomes, or fit.

How many Minneapolis offices qualified for this comparison?

12 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.

Provenance

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.

Keep comparing

More Workers' Compensation markets.

View every published workers' compensation market →