Careers
Part of Law firm reputation management: claims, reviews, and risk
How to judge law firm reputation management examples
Use four artifacts to judge law firm reputation management examples: a named owner, a dated register entry, a cited rule or policy, and proof it took effect.
What to take away
- Strong law firm reputation management examples carry four things: an owner named by job title, a dated register entry, a cited rule or platform policy, and evidence that the change took effect.
- A weak example stops at the visible artifact. The reply is posted, the profile is edited, the rating moves, and nothing underneath changes.
- Undisclosed insider reviews are deceptive endorsements. The FTC action over Sunday Riley in November 2020 turned on the hidden relationship.
- One owner per profile covers Google Business Profile, Avvo, Justia and Martindale-Hubbell.
- Every public reply needs a written approval route and a rule citation before it goes out.
What the strong version actually contains
Two firms can post the same apology and only one is managing reputation. The strong firm leaves a record that a stranger could check.
Four artifacts separate the two.
- An owner named by job title, holding one profile or one review queue at a time.
- A dated register entry for every public change, including corrections and removals.
- The rule or platform policy cited on the day the decision was made.
- Evidence that the change took effecta screenshot, a listing export, a confirmation email.
Four Things Strong Examples Carry
- A named owner
- A dated record
- A service change
- A way to test the change
A written set of reputation questions and answers keeps those four artifacts from being rebuilt on the spot every time a review lands on a platform the firm has not seen before.
Example: one line from a review register
Entries run short. One line carries the whole decision, and the line is the difference between the two columns.
14 March 2025 | Google Business Profile | Suite number corrected from 400 to 410 | Owner: Director of Marketing | Rule cited: ABA Model Rule 7.1 | Evidence: file GBP-2025-03-14-410.png plus the profile change export.
That line is a format, not a claim about any named firm. Copy the fields and fill them with your own dates, titles and file names.
Undisclosed insider reviews are deceptive endorsements
The FTC order against Sunday Riley Modern Skincare in November 2020 addressed reviews written by managers through accounts that did not disclose their role. The order applied the FTC's Endorsement Guides, 16 CFR Part 255, which require a material connection to be disclosed clearly and conspicuously. The product was skincare, not legal services, and that part does not carry over.
The mechanism does. A review whose relationship is hidden is a deceptive endorsement, and the relationship decides the outcome rather than the wording. Inside a law firm the insider is often a paralegal, a client's relative, or a vendor describing its own work.
Suppression draws the same attention. The costliest reputation management mistakes usually begin with a demand to delete a review instead of a written answer to it.
Five reputation cases, weak column and strong column
Judge each case on the same two columns. The weak column stops at the edit. The strong column continues into the record.
Weak column
- Girardi Keese
- Public denials with no remediation entry.
- Morgan & Morgan (founded in Orlando, 1988)
- Website updated, directory listing left behind.
- DLA Piper (combined in 2005, offices in more than 40 countries)
- Head office page current, local listings stale.
- Avvo profile
- Profile unclaimed, and a staff member confirming a client relationship in public.
- Birdeye-style review software
- Automated review requests sent with no policy check attached.
Strong column
- Girardi Keese
- A dated remediation sequence in the file, with a title attached to each step.
- Morgan & Morgan (founded in Orlando, 1988)
- One owner per profile, plus dated submission confirmations for each change.
- DLA Piper (combined in 2005, offices in more than 40 countries)
- One owner per office, plus a yearly alignment audit carrying its own date.
- Avvo profile
- Profile claimed, replies sent only after the file and the applicable rule are checked.
- Birdeye-style review software
- Automation running under a named approver and a dated log.
Girardi Keese supplies the dated part of that first row. The firm filed for bankruptcy in 2020, Thomas V. Girardi was disbarred in 2022 and convicted of fraud in 2024. The public record shows outcomes, not a remediation sequence.
Whether a firm's own reply counts as attorney advertising depends on the rule set that governs it, and the ABA Model Rules 7.1 to 7.5 set out how far those rules reach websites, listings and public statements.
Who approves a public reply, and where it gets logged
Write the route down before you need it.
- The matter handler drafts the reply and cites the file entry behind it.
- The marketing lead checks the platform's own policy on what a business may say about a client, starting with Google Business Profile's prohibited and restricted content policy.
- Counsel checks the advertising rule when the reply touches a case outcome or a client relationship.
- One named person posts it. The drafter is not the poster.
- The reply text, the rule cited and the approver's title enter the register the same day.
State rules sit on top of that route. A California firm answers to the California Rules of Professional Conduct, and the State Bar of California is the body that enforces them. Other states have their own versions of those advertising rules, so one reviewer has to know which rule set applies before a reply goes out.
Loudness should not set the order. Routing reputation issues by severity belongs in the written procedure, because the angriest review of the month is rarely the one with the largest exposure.
Common questions
Can a firm ask clients for reviews?
A neutral prompt about the experience differs from scripting an opinion. Check the platform policy and your state's advertising rule before the request is written, and never offer anything in exchange for a favorable rating. If the request goes by email to Canadian clients, the consent requirements in Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation apply to the message.
Should an employee post a review anyway, with disclosure?
The safer answer is usually no. If the firm considers it, get the relationship, the context and the platform rule reviewed first, because any disclosure has to be clear and conspicuous.
Who owns a directory profile?
Assign one job title per profile. Google Business Profile, Avvo, Justia and Martindale-Hubbell each drift on their own schedule, and an unclaimed profile is the cheapest problem on this page to fix.
What makes a service recovery count as public?
The client controls their own review. Resolve the service issue without tying anything to praise or removal, and keep the recovery steps in the file whether the review changes or not.
