Reputation management for lawyers

Avvo, Martindale, and where prospective clients check a lawyer

A person choosing a lawyer looks in a small number of places, and several of them hold a profile the lawyer never created.

Surface	What it holds	Control available
Google Business Profile	Firm reviews, map placement, hours	Claim, respond, report policy violations
Avvo	An algorithmic rating plus reviews	Claim and complete; the rating remains computed
Martindale-Hubbell	Peer review ratings and a directory listing	Participate in the peer process; listing persists
Justia and similar directories	Listing built from bar admission data	Correct details, rarely remove
State bar directory	Admission status and public discipline	None; it is the regulator's record
Reported decisions and dockets	Case outcomes under your name	None; these are court records

The Avvo row is the one that generates the most frustration. The rating is computed from data the site holds about experience, discipline and professional activity, and it applies to unclaimed profiles as well as claimed ones. Claiming the profile lets you add material that the calculation uses. It does not let you remove the profile or the number.

Bar advertising rules constrain what you say, not only what you advertise

Most professions can reply to a review however they like. Lawyers cannot, and the constraint comes from two directions at once.

The first is the rule on communications about a lawyer's services. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct contain Rule 7.1, which prohibits false or misleading communications about the lawyer or the lawyer's services, and the commentary treats an unsubstantiated comparison or a statement likely to create unjustified expectations about results as within that prohibition. States adopt their own versions, some considerably stricter, and several impose specific requirements on claims of specialisation or on the publication of past results. Nothing here is legal advice, and the operative text is your own jurisdiction's rule rather than the model.

The second is confidentiality, and it is the one that bites in practice.

Read that against a one-star review from a former client. The lawyer knows why the case ended as it did. Saying so publicly means revealing information relating to the representation, which the rule prohibits regardless of who spoke first or how inaccurate the review is. Bar authorities have consistently taken the position that a client's public criticism does not by itself authorise a public reply that discloses the representation.

Client confidentiality in responses, and what a compliant reply looks like

The permitted response is narrower than a business owner's instinct and it is not nothing.

1. Do not confirm the representation or any detail of it, including outcomes, fees, and dates.
2. Speak to the firm's general practice: how matters are staffed, how the firm handles billing questions, how communication is managed.
3. Offer a direct contact for someone with a concern, and end there.
4. Consider not replying at all. For lawyers this is a legitimate strategy more often than for other professions, because the risk of the reply exceeds the benefit.
5. Check your own state's guidance before adopting any template. Several bars have published opinions specifically about responding to online criticism.

Where a review is not from a client at all, which happens with opposing parties, family members of clients, and occasionally competitors, the route is the platform's policy rather than a reply. Google's process for reporting an inappropriate review covers reviews from people with no experience of the business, off-topic content, and conflicts of interest. The outcome is the platform's decision and it is uncertain, but it is the correct door and it does not require you to say anything publicly.

Testimonials and past results

Client testimonials are a standing exposure for law firms because two rulebooks apply at once.

The professional rules govern what a testimonial may imply about future outcomes, and many states require a disclaimer where past results are described. The consumer protection rules govern the honesty of the endorsement itself. The FTC's endorsement guides require that an endorsement reflect the honest opinion of the endorser and that any material connection between the endorser and the business be disclosed, which reaches incentives, employment relationships, and family ties. A testimonial from a paralegal's relative, uncredited, is a problem under both rulebooks at once.

The practical consequences: do not incentivise reviews, do not write them, do not edit a client's words into something they did not say, and do not publish a result-based testimonial without whatever disclaimer your state requires. The page on the FTC review rule covers the consumer side in full.

Court records are the other half of a lawyer's search results

Reviews are only part of what a search for a lawyer's name returns. Reported decisions, dockets, filings, and disciplinary records are public, indexed, and frequently high-ranking for an uncommon name. A lost motion, quoted unkindly by an appellate court, can sit on the first page for years.

None of that is removable. It is the public record of the courts, and requesting its removal is both futile and, if pursued aggressively, its own reputational event. The workable response is composition: enough accurate, substantive, indexable material under the lawyer's name that the record is one result among many rather than the whole page. Published writing, speaking, bar association work, a complete firm biography, and a claimed directory profile all contribute.

Where a review or an article is genuinely defamatory rather than merely damaging, the analysis is the ordinary one and it is covered on the page about how to prove online defamation. Lawyers, more than most clients, know how rarely that route is proportionate.

Referral impact, and where a firm should start

Most legal work still arrives by referral, and the search that follows a referral either confirms it or quietly ends it, which is what makes the whole of the above worth doing. Claim what can be claimed, complete it properly, and get the name and address consistent across the directories so reviews are not split across duplicate listings. Build review volume from clients where your rules permit requesting it. Adopt a reply template that has been checked against your state's rule rather than borrowed from a marketing blog. Then look at what else ranks for the firm name and for each named partner, because that is usually where the real problem is. Working out which of those is actually costing you enquiries is the first thing a reputation audit establishes.