great company to have working for you.
Reputation Management for Lawyers
Lawyer reputation runs on a platform stack unlike most professional services. Avvo (now part of Internet Brands) dominates lawyer-specific search with profile-driven discovery and a 1–10 rating system. Martindale-Hubbell carries decades of peer-rating weight. FindLaw, Justia, Lawyers.com, and Super Lawyers each occupy distinct search positions for prospective-client research. State bar directories serve as the verification surface where prospects confirm license status. Google and Yelp sit alongside as general-purpose review platforms.
Beyond the platform mix, lawyer reputation work runs into two unique structural issues. First: opposing parties are not customers — under most platforms’ published policies, a review from an opposing party in litigation is not a legitimate client review. This is the highest-leverage framing in lawyer-vertical work and most reputation services miss it. Second: state bar advertising rules vary materially by jurisdiction. Response strategy in Texas, New York, and Florida looks meaningfully different from response strategy in less-restrictive states. We work the platform stack with attention to both.
Documented engagements across PI, family, criminal defense, immigration, business and estate planning practice areas
Multi-platform coverage: Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, FindLaw, Justia, Lawyers.com, Super Lawyers, Google, Yelp, state bar directories
Opposing-party review framing on every relevant case
State bar advertising rule-aware response strategy by jurisdiction
Reputation management for lawyers — the platform stack
Lawyer reputation work lives across three platform layers. Layer one is the lawyer-specific platforms — Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, FindLaw, Justia, Lawyers.com, Super Lawyers — each with distinct review systems, peer-rating frameworks, and removal policies. Layer two is the general review platforms, Google and Yelp, where lawyer profiles compete with every other professional category. Layer three is the verification surface — state bar directories — where prospects cross-check license status and disciplinary history.
Each layer needs distinct handling. Avvo reviews tie to a 1–10 rating algorithm that weights reviewer-claimed experience. Martindale operates a peer-rating system that runs on attorney-to-attorney evaluations rather than client reviews. State bar disciplinary records sit outside the review-platform framework entirely but appear in branded SERPs and affect prospect perception. Opposing-party reviews — reviews from the other side of a litigation matter, not the attorney’s actual client — are eligible for removal under most platforms’ policies if framed and documented correctly. This is the framing most reputation services don’t execute well.
What we do for lawyers
Avvo work — opposing-party framing and policy-violation submissions
Avvo’s review policy explicitly limits reviews to clients of the attorney. Opposing parties in litigation, family members of clients (unless the family member was the client), and parties with no client relationship are not eligible reviewers. We frame opposing-party reviews under this clause specifically, with documentation showing the reviewer’s relationship to the matter. This is the highest-leverage takedown pathway on Avvo and most reputation services miss it.
Martindale-Hubbell peer-rating context
Martindale’s primary review system runs on peer ratings (attorney-to-attorney evaluations) rather than client reviews. The platform also accepts client reviews under a separate framework. We handle both. Peer-rating context is unique to legal practice and most reputation services don’t understand the distinction.
Google and Yelp coverage with attorney-vertical framing
Google and Yelp reviews of attorneys carry the same general-platform mechanics as any business, but with vertical-specific framing on opposing-party reviews and on reviews violating attorney-client confidentiality (reviewer disclosing privileged information). We work each platform under its specific policy framework.
FindLaw, Justia and Lawyers.com directory management
Lawyer-specific directories carry different review policies and weight differently in branded SERPs. FindLaw and Justia serve as research destinations; Lawyers.com integrates Martindale ratings. We handle profile-level work on each.
State bar advertising rule-aware response strategy
Texas, New York, Florida, and several other jurisdictions restrict attorney advertising in specific ways — testimonials, comparison claims, and response language can all create disciplinary exposure if drafted carelessly. We tune response strategy to your jurisdiction’s specific rules. This is risk management as much as reputation management.
Bar disciplinary record context
Disciplinary records on state bar directories cannot be removed (they’re public regulatory information), but their visibility in branded SERPs can be managed through reputation cleanup work. We assess this surface and coordinate suppression where appropriate — separate from removal work.
Ready to take control of your firm's reputation?
Book a consultation and we’ll review Avvo, Martindale, Google, Yelp, and the lawyer-specific directories.
Why MGMT Reputation for lawyers
Opposing-party framing fluency
The highest-leverage framing in lawyer-vertical work, and the one most reputation services miss. We catalog opposing-party reviews and frame them under the platforms' own client-relationship requirements.
Multi-jurisdiction state bar awareness
Response strategy that doesn't create disciplinary exposure. Jurisdiction-specific advertising rule context built into every response draft.
Attorney-client privilege-aware response drafting
Public responses that defend the firm's position without disclosing privileged information — a constraint most reputation services don't even consider.
Practice-area pattern recognition
PI, family, criminal defense, and immigration each have distinct attack pattern signatures. We frame engagements to the patterns specific to your practice area.
Disciplinary record SERP management
Where state bar disciplinary records appear in branded SERPs, we handle reputation cleanup as a parallel workstream — separate from review work but coordinated under one engagement.
Documented closure
Every takedown closed out with a dated screenshot pack. Proof of outcome, not status updates.
Protect your case acquisition and your bar standing
Your consultation covers your full platform mix plus state bar directory visibility.
How lawyers reputation management works
How public content affects lawyers
Lawyer selection is research-heavy. Prospective clients typically check three to five attorneys before booking a consultation, and the screening sequence runs platform-by-platform: Avvo for lawyer-specific search, Google reviews and profile for general signal, Martindale for peer ratings on more sophisticated retainers, and state bar directory for license verification. Adverse content on any of these surfaces reduces consultation conversion rate.
Practice-area mechanics add specific compound effects. Personal injury practices live or die on Avvo and Google profile strength because PI prospects are searching reactively after an injury. Family law practices face elevated risk of opposing-party reviews because contested divorces and custody matters generate adversarial relationships. Criminal defense practices face client-outcome dissatisfaction reviews that can be framed under the platform’s policies (a client found guilty is still a client; their dissatisfaction with the outcome doesn’t violate platform policy unless the review contains false factual claims or threats). Business and estate planning practices face longer review cycles but heavier weight on Martindale peer ratings. We tune the framing to your practice area’s patterns.
The Cost of Inaction
- Avvo profile rating drops affect case acquisition rate — Avvo's algorithm weights reviewer-claimed experience and the rating shifts compound
- Opposing-party reviews left in place set precedent inviting future opposing-party reviews — each contested matter becomes a potential review
- State bar advertising rule violations in poorly-drafted responses can create disciplinary exposure
- Branded SERPs that surface disciplinary records or unflattering content suppress consultation booking rate measurably
Our 4-step process
1
Intake and relationship-documentation evidence
We capture the content under review and the reviewer-relationship evidence. For opposing-party reviews, this is documentation showing the reviewer’s role in the matter (court filings, opposing-counsel records). For non-client reviews, documentation of the absence of any client engagement.
2
Platform-specific framing
Each platform — Avvo, Martindale, FindLaw, Justia, Lawyers.com, Super Lawyers, Google, Yelp — has distinct policy clauses for removal. We frame each takedown to the relevant clause. Opposing-party framing is the strongest pathway on most platforms when applicable.
3
Submission, escalation, closure
Initial submission through each platform’s review flow. Where first-tier rejects, escalation through policy-team contact paths. Response drafting where removal isn’t realistic — jurisdiction-aware to avoid disciplinary exposure.
4
Documented closure and verification-surface management
On closure, dated screenshots and closure summary. Where state bar directory visibility is part of the engagement, parallel search-cleanup documentation. 30-day re-takedown coverage included.
Don't let opposing-party reviews compound
Book a consultation.
What our clients say
The best ever
Reputation Management in Chicago at the very best. I needed help with my Google my business account and they smash it.
Thanks so much team MGMT Reputation
Very happy with the service, thank you MGMT Reputation Nashville
(Translated by Google) Thank you for the amazing service 🙌🏻
(Original)
Gracias por el increíble servicio 🙌🏻
Fake review from a competitor sitting on my Nashville restaurant’s profile for months. MGMT Reputation had it removed in under three weeks and now monitors the listing. Straight answers, no runaround.
Incredible work with MGMT, can’t recommend them enough!
Amazing service
We had a fake 1-star review on our Google Business Profile from someone who was never a patient — it dropped us from 4.8 to 4.4 and new bookings noticeably slowed. I called three companies. MGMT Reputation was the only one that explained what Google’s policy actually allows instead of just quoting me a price. Luis laid out the case they’d file and what the realistic odds were. The review was gone in under three weeks. Our rating is back to 4.8 and new patient calls are where they were before. If you run a Chicago practice and you’re dealing with a review you know is fraudulent, start here.
Thanks MGMT
Amazing services - helped with Google reviews
MGMT Reputation Seattle was just a great help - 5 stars!
Reputation management in Nashville at its best
Helped me so much, thanks MGMT Reputation Buffalo
MGMT provides a valuable service for those who seek a level of integrity across the internet in an age where reputations can be unfairly smeared in a matter of seconds. They care about protecting truth and honesty!
Guys, if y'all need someone to check if people are saying shit in private groups, this company is the best and honestly the only place that actually provides a good service. They even work in Canada. It was a pleasure doing business with them. Definitely recommend!
I had an old article tied to my name that kept showing up on Google, and it was the first thing people saw when they searched me. I reached out to MGMT Reputation in Nashville and they handled the whole thing. The article is gone now. Honestly didn't think it was possible — really glad I called them.
Very much appreciated for the excellent service provided by MGMT Reputation. 5 stars! ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
MGMT Reputation Buffalo helped my small business recover from a string of fake reviews. Professional, fast, and effective. If you need reputation management in Buffalo, call these guys.
After getting hit with fake Google reviews, I found MGMT Reputation Buffalo. They handled the removal process and helped protect my business going forward. Excellent reputation management company.
Happy with the service
MGMT Reputation in Chicago helped me clean up negative Google reviews that were hurting my business. Their team was responsive and knew exactly what to do. Highly recommend their reputation management services.
Found MGMT Reputation Buffalo after searching for online reputation help. Their team handled the content removal perfectly and kept me informed every step of the way.
Worked with the Nashville office of MGMT Reputation for Google review removal. They were honest about what they could deliver and then exceeded those expectations. Excellent company.
MGMT Reputation Nashville took care of a reputation crisis for my business. They removed harmful content from Google and rebuilt my online image. Top-notch reputation management!!!! ⭐️
Where we deliver for lawyers
Three representative cases across practice areas. We handle work across personal injury, family law, criminal defense, immigration, business and corporate, and estate planning practices.
Personal injury firm — multi-state practice
Cluster of negative Avvo reviews from accounts traceable to opposing-counsel relationships across several recent cases. Documented the reviewer-relationship evidence using public court records and litigation history. Framed under Avvo’s client-relationship requirement and removed through Avvo’s compliance team. Closed across a 21-day window. Avvo rating recovered to pre-incident baseline.
Family law solo practitioner
Opposing-party review cluster on Google and Avvo following a contested custody matter. Documented the opposing-party relationship through court filings. Framed under each platform’s client-relationship requirements. Closed across an 18-day window. Public response drafted in jurisdiction-compliant language for one remaining review that didn’t meet the opposing-party threshold.
Criminal defense boutique
Defamatory review from a former client containing demonstrably false claims about case handling and outcome. Documented the factual contradictions through publicly-available court records. Framed under each platform’s false-claims and defamation clauses. Removed across Google and Yelp; remaining unfavorable content addressed through suppression.
Protect your law firm's reputation across every surface
Lawyer reputation work runs across a wider platform stack than most verticals, with two specific structural issues — opposing-party reviews and state bar advertising rules — that most reputation services don’t handle well. We handle law firm reputation work with attention to the full platform mix, the opposing-party framing that’s specific to this vertical, and the jurisdiction-aware response strategy that avoids disciplinary exposure — with documented closure on every primary engagement.
Latest From Our Blog
How to Remove a Fake or Copied Obituary From the Internet (2026)
Fake and copied obituaries can be removed through the site, its host, its registrar and Google. The four methods that
The Tea App Is Now in Canada: What Canadian Men Can Do
Tea is now in Canada and Canadian men are being posted. What a PIPEDA complaint can and can’t do, and
Can Lawyers Respond to Negative Online Reviews? What ABA Opinion 496 and the State Bars Actually Allow
A former client posts a one-star Google review saying you “took the money and did nothing.” The truth is that
Lawyers reputation management FAQs
Can I remove a review from someone I'm currently in litigation with?
Often yes, under most platforms’ published policies. Avvo, Google, and Yelp all limit reviews to genuine client relationships. An opposing party in litigation is not a client. We document the opposing-party relationship through publicly-available court records and frame the takedown under each platform’s client-relationship requirement — this is the highest-leverage pathway in lawyer-vertical work.
How does state bar advertising rules affect my response options?
Significantly, and the rules vary by jurisdiction. Texas, New York, Florida, and several other states restrict attorney advertising in specific ways — testimonials, comparison claims, certain response language can create disciplinary exposure. We draft public responses tuned to your jurisdiction’s specific rules so you defend the firm without creating bar exposure.
What about attorney-client privilege when responding to a former client's review?
You can’t disclose privileged communications even when defending the firm publicly — the privilege survives termination of the relationship. We draft responses that defend the firm’s position without disclosing privileged information. Most reputation services don’t even consider this constraint and recommend response language that would create ethics exposure.
How do you handle bad reviews from real former clients?
If the review is from a real client and the language is policy-compliant, the review stays. What we do is draft a public response that defends the firm in jurisdiction-compliant, privilege-aware language; assess whether the review contains factual claims that can be challenged under platforms’ false-claims policies; and coordinate search-cleanup work on branded SERPs where the review surfaces.
Can you remove state bar disciplinary records from Google?
Disciplinary records themselves cannot be removed — they’re public regulatory information and platforms won’t take them down. What can be done is search-cleanup work that influences which results surface for branded searches of your name. This is suppression rather than removal, and it’s a parallel workstream we coordinate under one engagement.
How long do lawyer-platform takedowns take?
Avvo opposing-party framing typically 14–21 days. Martindale-Hubbell 14–28 days. FindLaw, Justia, Lawyers.com 10–21 days. Google 7–14 days. Yelp 14–21 days. Cases requiring documentation of court relationships typically run at the higher end of these windows.
Does this work for both solo practitioners and large firms?
Yes. The pattern set differs — solo practitioners face more direct opposing-party review risk; large firms face more ex-employee patterns and broader practice-area exposure — but the framing and methodology applies across firm sizes. Multi-attorney firms typically have one named case manager coordinating with the firm’s marketing or operations lead.