Responding is a bar complaint waiting to happen
Attorneys face the same trap physicians do, from a different direction. Client confidentiality does not lapse because a former client criticised you in public, and correcting the record by explaining what actually happened in the matter is precisely the disclosure the rules prohibit.
Lawyers in several states have been disciplined for exactly this: replying to a negative review with details of the representation, the fee dispute or the client’s conduct. The review was unfair. The response was a rules violation. Only one of those two things carries a sanction.
Everything we file on an attorney’s behalf is written so that nothing about any client engagement is confirmed or disclosed.
Half the Avvo problem is the rating, not the reviews
Avvo generates a numerical rating for attorneys from data it collects rather than from client feedback alone: practice areas, experience, publications, speaking, awards and disciplinary history. Attorneys who have never engaged with the site often have a low or incomplete score simply because nothing has been filled in.
That number sits at the top of the profile and gets read as a verdict on your competence. Claiming the profile and completing it accurately frequently does more for how you appear than removing a review would, and it is entirely within your control.
What can be removed
Grounds that work
- Reviews from people who were never your clients
- Reviews from the opposing party in a matter
- Content about a different attorney or firm
- Posts revealing confidential case information
- Threats, slurs or abusive language
- Reviews from a competitor
- Incorrect disciplinary or credential data
Grounds that do not
- A client unhappy with the outcome of their case
- Complaints about your fees
- Criticism of your communication or availability
- Disagreement with your strategy
Reviews from the opposing party are more common than most attorneys expect, and they are a clear breach of the site’s rules on who may review you.
What it costs
Quoted per case. Profile corrections and clearly ineligible reviewers are quick work. A fee dispute that has generated posts across several directories is a larger engagement.
Nothing up front, nothing until a removal is complete, and no part of the process requires you to disclose anything covered by privilege or confidentiality.
How we handle an Avvo case
-
We audit the profile and the rating inputs
Practice areas, admissions, publications, and any disciplinary field. Incorrect or missing data is the fastest improvement available.
-
We test reviewer eligibility
Whether the reviewer was actually a client is the strongest challenge on this platform, and it can be argued without confirming who your clients are.
-
We file without disclosing anything
Every submission is drafted with confidentiality obligations in mind, because a successful removal is not worth a grievance.
-
We check the other legal directories
The same review is frequently on Lawyers.com, Martindale and Google as well.
-
We get your firm site ranking
A directory profile outranking your own firm for your own name is common and fixable.
Choosing help
-
They know the ethics rules
Any company that drafts a public reply mentioning the matter is exposing you to a grievance to solve a marketing problem.
-
They work the rating, not just reviews
The score is the first thing anybody sees and it is largely built from data you can correct.
-
They check eligibility first
Opposing parties and non-clients account for a real share of attorney reviews and are the most winnable challenges.
-
They cover the legal directories together
Clearing one leaves the same content ranking elsewhere.
The realistic outcome
Ineligible reviews come off, the profile becomes accurate, and the rating reflects your actual practice. Prospective clients searching your name reach your firm site and your credentials before they reach a directory page, which is what determines whether they call you.