Common law firm reputation management questions: a framework

What to take away

Common law firm reputation management questions rarely have a one-line answer. The reviewer, jurisdiction, relationship, platform, claim, audience, matter status, and proposed response can change the analysis. Preserve the item and obtain qualified review before confirming private facts.

Use a question ladder

Use the ladder to reach a decision, not just to identify risks:

The North Carolina State Bar's opinion on negative online reviews applies North Carolina Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(a), which protects information acquired during the professional relationship, and says a lawyer may not disclose confidential information in response to a client's negative review. ABA Model Rule 1.6 is the corresponding model confidentiality rule; the controlling state's adopted rules govern. California State Bar Formal Opinion No. 2014-189 also addresses lawyers' responses to online criticism under California's rules. Neither state opinion controls in another jurisdiction.

Other regulators fill in parts of the picture. The Federal Trade Commission's rule on consumer reviews and testimonials, in force since 2024, bars fake reviews, undisclosed insider reviews, review suppression, and some incentivized reviews. Civil penalties adjust each year.

In Canada, the Competition Act bans false or misleading representations, which covers fake reviews. State rules still vary, so read the controlling state's guidance before drafting a reply.

Create a decision note for every material item using this field template: source; exact text; capture time; likely identity, without public confirmation; factual evidence; controlling ethics and advertising rules; platform policy; service issue; potential harm; options; decision owner; required approval; response; and follow-up. Identify the jurisdiction and rule version rather than writing only “applicable rules.” Keep privileged analysis out of ordinary marketing tools.

Store the record with the firm's marketing or client-service files. Privileged analysis, matter facts, and advice from counsel stay in the legal file held by counsel, which the record cites rather than copies.

Google's instructions for reporting inappropriate Business Profile reviews distinguish a policy violation from a review the business merely dislikes. To report one, find the review on Google Search or Maps, open its menu, choose the report option, and select the reason that fits the policy concern. Check the report's status in Google's Reviews Management Tool; if Google does not remove the review, use the available appeal process there. Reporting or appealing does not guarantee removal and is not a legal ruling.

Yelp's content guidelines govern its review decisions. To report a review, locate it on the business's Yelp page or in Yelp for Business, select the flag or report option, choose the reason, and provide the relevant details. Yelp decides whether the content violates its guidelines; a business's disagreement with a review is not by itself a basis for removal. Keep any response professional and do not assume that reporting will remove the review.

Resolve the question with a decision record

For each item, answer these questions before choosing an action: Does the content identify a specific platform-policy violation? Could a reply confirm a client relationship or disclose information about a representation? Is there a factual service issue that can be addressed privately? Does the proposed response make a truthful, supportable claim about the firm's services? Record the evidence for each answer and choose reporting, a carefully reviewed public reply, private service recovery, or no public response accordingly.

A neutral draft for ethics review is: “Thank you for sharing your feedback. We take concerns seriously, but we cannot discuss whether someone is or was a client or address any matter details here. Please contact our office through its usual channels if you would like to discuss a concern.” Adapt it to the facts and the controlling rules before use; do not imply that the reviewer is a client.

Before closing the record, state why the chosen action fits the evidence and the applicable rules, who approved it, and what follow-up is needed. If the firm tracks review patterns, define the population, evidence period, and method in advance, and note what the results cannot establish. Compare later records using the same definitions unless the source or method has changed.

A filled-in record for one item looks like this. The entry is illustrative, not a real matter.

Keep the evidence record beside the decision, because the record is the written answer to a common law firm reputation management question. A reviewer can then reproduce the reasoning without memory.

Set the next review date for common law firm reputation management questions. Review every quarter, and sooner after a new public accusation, a platform policy change, new bar guidance, or a change in the decision owner. Record rejected options and the chosen path; the original constraint may change.

Common questions

Does a reviewer waive confidentiality?

No. A client's public post does not by itself waive the lawyer's confidentiality duties under the applicable version of Rule 1.6. Do not disclose information about a representation unless the controlling rule permits it; get jurisdiction-specific ethics review before replying.

Can the firm say there is no record of the person?

Do not say there is no record without reviewing the wording and context: even that statement can reveal information or invite further disclosure. Use a neutral response that does not confirm or deny a relationship, and obtain ethics review if the facts make even that response risky.

Should criticism be deleted from firm pages?

Apply a published moderation rule consistently and preserve material records; do not suppress solely because sentiment is negative.