Online reviews have become a routine part of choosing restaurants, hotels, contractors and professional services. It is understandable that individuals also consult reviews when selecting a lawyer. A legal matter can affect a person’s children, finances, property and future, so gathering information before hiring an attorney is important.

Client reviews can provide useful information about a lawyer or law firm. At the same time, reviews are rarely a complete or perfectly representative measure of the legal services provided. The most responsible approach is to treat online reviews as one source of information among several.

Reviews Can Provide Useful Information

Reviews may help prospective clients identify recurring themes about a lawyer or law firm. A single comment may reflect one person’s unique experience, but a consistent pattern across numerous detailed reviews may provide useful information.

Reviews can offer insight into issues such as:

  • Whether the lawyer explained the legal process clearly
  • Whether the client felt heard and respected
  • How effectively the lawyer and legal team communicated
  • Whether the client understood the billing arrangement
  • Whether the lawyer appeared prepared
  • How the firm handled questions or concerns
  • Whether the reviewer would consider using the firm again

Detailed reviews are generally more informative than brief comments that simply describe a lawyer as “great” or “terrible.” The most useful reviews explain what the person experienced and why the reviewer reached that conclusion.

Reviews can therefore be a measure of client satisfaction. They should not, however, be mistaken for a complete record of a lawyer’s work or an independently verified account of everything that occurred.

Reviews Rarely Tell the Complete Story

Legal representation is different from purchasing an ordinary consumer product. A lawyer cannot control all aspects of a case. Outcomes may be influenced by the facts, evidence, applicable law, opposing party, opposing counsel, expert witnesses and the court.

A client can receive diligent and capable representation without obtaining every result the client originally wanted. Conversely, a favorable outcome does not necessarily establish that every part of the legal service was exceptional.

Attorney-client confidentiality creates another limitation. When a negative review contains an incomplete or disputed account, the attorney may be unable to provide a detailed public response. A law firm cannot ordinarily disclose confidential communications or case information merely to defend itself online.

The reader may therefore see the reviewer’s allegations but not the evidence, communications, court rulings or other information necessary to evaluate the full situation.

Larger Firms May Naturally Accumulate More Negative Reviews

The size and volume of a law firm should also be considered. A larger firm that has represented thousands of clients over many years will naturally generate more total feedback than a small practice handling a limited number of matters.

Even if only a small percentage of clients are dissatisfied, that percentage can produce a noticeable number of critical reviews when applied to a large client base. A smaller firm may have fewer negative reviews simply because it has handled far fewer cases.

For example, ten negative reviews may represent a very different proportion for a firm that has served ten thousand clients than for a lawyer who has represented one hundred. Online platforms rarely disclose the total number of clients served, so readers usually cannot place the raw number of reviews into its proper mathematical context.

This does not mean negative reviews should be ignored. It means their number should be considered alongside the firm’s size, longevity and total volume of representation.

Family-Law Reviews Can Be Especially Difficult to Evaluate

Reviews can be particularly complicated in emotionally charged areas of law, including divorce, child custody and other domestic relations matters. These cases often involve disputed facts, strained relationships and outcomes that profoundly affect both parties.

A family-law review may sometimes be posted by someone other than the lawyer’s client. An opposing party may strongly dislike an attorney precisely because the attorney advocated effectively for the client on the other side.

Critical reviews may also be submitted by:

  • A relative of an opposing party
  • A friend of someone involved in the case
  • A family member of a client
  • A prospective client who never hired the firm
  • Someone dissatisfied with a brief telephone interaction
  • A person whom the firm cannot identify as having had any direct relationship with it

Friends and relatives may post criticisms based entirely on what someone else told them, without attending meetings, reviewing the evidence or understanding what happened in court.

Review platforms have policies intended to address fake reviews, conflicts of interest and content that does not reflect a genuine experience. Those policies do not prevent every questionable review from appearing. A person can generally create an account and submit a review without first proving that the person signed an engagement agreement or received legal services from the firm.

Clients may also judge their attorney primarily by whether they received the result they wanted. Courts, however, make many of the most important decisions in contested family-law cases. A disappointing outcome does not necessarily establish that the lawyer failed to prepare, communicate or advocate effectively.

At the same time, critical reviews can identify legitimate concerns. The challenge is separating meaningful patterns from isolated dissatisfaction, incomplete information or criticism arising from the adversarial nature of the case.

Happy Clients Do Not Always Post Reviews

Online feedback can involve a basic imbalance: dissatisfied clients are often highly motivated to express their frustration, while satisfied clients may simply move forward with their lives.

This imbalance can be particularly pronounced in family law. A person who has completed a divorce or custody matter may not want to identify publicly as a former client of a domestic relations firm. Even a highly satisfied client may prefer privacy and have little interest in revisiting a difficult period by posting online.

Positive experiences therefore do not always generate reviews on their own. Many satisfied clients never post anything publicly unless someone specifically asks them.

Many law firms also do not like repeatedly asking or pestering former clients for favorable reviews. Lawyers may believe that clients should not feel pressured to publicize a private or emotionally difficult legal experience. Some review platforms also impose restrictions or guidelines concerning review solicitation.

The result is that online reviews may overrepresent people who are angry or disappointed while underrepresenting satisfied clients who quietly returned to their lives.

Google and Yelp Display Reviews Differently

Review platforms do not all collect, evaluate and display reviews in the same way.

Google generally displays both favorable and unfavorable reviews that comply with its policies. Google may remove reviews it identifies as spam, fake or otherwise prohibited, but it does not publicly divide ordinary reviews into Yelp-style “recommended” and “not currently recommended” categories.

Because compliant positive and negative reviews ordinarily appear together, Google reviews may present a more balanced and understandable picture. Readers should still recognize that Google does not independently determine whether every reviewer was actually a client or whether every factual allegation is correct.

Yelp uses a different system. Its automated recommendation software determines which reviews are recommended and included in a business’s displayed rating.

A favorable review that appears legitimate to the reviewer and the business may nevertheless be placed in Yelp’s “not currently recommended” section. Yelp acknowledges that this can happen simply because its software does not know enough about the reviewer. Yelp also states that its support personnel cannot manually override the software and recommend a particular review.

Yelp explains its system on its Recommendation Software page.

Consequently, a positive review may remain publicly accessible but be excluded from Yelp’s displayed star rating for reasons that are not apparent to the business, reviewer or ordinary reader. The displayed rating reflects only the reviews Yelp’s software currently recommends—not necessarily every review submitted about the business.

Automated screening can serve a legitimate purpose by attempting to identify unreliable or manipulated activity. No automated system, however, can perfectly measure every genuine client experience.

This does not mean every Google review is reliable or every Yelp review is unreliable. It means the two platforms display and calculate reviews differently, and consumers should understand those differences before treating either rating as definitive.

A Reviewer May Not Have Been the Lawyer’s Client

Neither a Google review nor a Yelp review necessarily establishes that the reviewer hired the lawyer or law firm.

A reviewer may have been an opposing party, a family member, a friend, an unsuccessful prospective client or someone who had only limited contact with the firm. The reviewer may also be discussing someone else’s case based on secondhand information.

Attorney-client confidentiality further complicates the issue. A law firm may know that a reviewer was not a client—or that the review presents an incomplete or inaccurate account—but still be unable to discuss the underlying matter publicly.

Prospective clients should therefore consider whether the review appears to describe firsthand legal representation. A detailed statement from an identifiable client discussing communication, preparation and service generally provides more useful information than an unsupported accusation from someone commenting about another person’s case.

Look for Patterns Across Multiple Sources

A prospective client should compare information across multiple independent sources instead of assuming that one website provides a complete picture.

Information concerning Stange Law Firm, PC and its attorneys can be reviewed through profiles maintained by:

These resources may contain information about attorney backgrounds, practice areas, office locations and professional recognition. No directory should be treated as conclusive, but comparing several sources can provide greater context.

Stange Law Firm also maintains official accounts on:

Social-media activity is not a substitute for professional credentials, but it can help readers evaluate whether a firm remains active, communicates regularly and provides current information.

Awards and Professional Recognition Can Provide More Verifiable Information

Credible professional awards and recognitions may provide more meaningful and verifiable evidence of professional standing than an isolated or anonymous review.

Awards are not all equal. Prospective clients should consider:

  • The organization granting the recognition
  • The selection methodology
  • Whether independent research or peer evaluation was involved
  • The percentage of professionals selected
  • Whether the recognition is current
  • Whether the recipient was actually selected or merely purchased advertising

When the methodology is legitimate and transparent, professional recognition can provide information that a consumer review cannot. It may reflect peer regard, professional achievement, leadership, experience or sustained contributions to the legal profession.

Kirk C. Stange and other Stange Law Firm attorneys have received recognition from independent professional organizations. Examples include:

These recognitions do not guarantee a particular result. They do, however, provide verifiable information about professional experience, leadership and recognition that can be considered alongside client feedback.

Speaking Engagements Demonstrate Professional Involvement

Speaking engagements can also be meaningful, particularly when an attorney is selected to teach other lawyers, judges or legal professionals.

An attorney who regularly presents continuing legal education programs must generally remain familiar with developments in the law, court procedures and legal practice. Repeated invitations to speak may also reflect professional credibility and the confidence of organizations responsible for educating the legal community.

Kirk Stange and other attorneys associated with Stange Law Firm have participated in continuing legal education programs, professional seminars, media interviews and public discussions concerning domestic relations law and law-firm management.

Kirk Stange also serves as an adjunct professor at Emory University School of Law. Information about that academic role is available through Emory University School of Law.

A speaking invitation or teaching position does not establish how an attorney will perform in a particular case. It does, however, provide a different and often more verifiable measure than a brief anonymous online comment.

Books and Publications Show Subject-Matter Engagement

Books, professional articles and sustained publication can offer additional information about an attorney’s knowledge and involvement in a field.

Writing a substantive legal book requires an author to organize, explain and analyze complicated material. Regular publication also allows readers to examine the attorney’s reasoning, clarity and familiarity with legal issues directly.

Kirk Stange has authored books and numerous articles concerning family law and law-firm management. Stange Law Firm also produces educational content through Family Law Headquarters and the Family Law Talk podcast.

Episodes of Family Law Talk are available through independent platforms such as Spotify. Articles associated with the firm are also distributed through third-party legal publishers, including Illinois Lawyer Now and JD Supra.

Books and articles do not guarantee courtroom success. They can, however, provide direct evidence that an attorney is meaningfully engaged with the subject matter and willing to contribute to professional and public education.

Consider the Number, Detail and Timing of Reviews

When evaluating reviews, consider more than the average rating. Relevant questions include:

  • How many reviews are available?
  • How many clients has the firm likely represented?
  • Were the reviews posted over a meaningful period?
  • Do the comments provide specific details?
  • Do multiple reviewers identify similar strengths or concerns?
  • Are the reviews recent enough to reflect the firm’s current personnel and practices?
  • Does the reviewer appear to describe firsthand experience?
  • Is the criticism about the legal service or primarily dissatisfaction with the result?
  • Has the firm responded professionally while respecting confidentiality?

The number of reviews alone provides limited context. The size of the firm and volume of matters handled should also be considered.

Verify Professional Information

Reviews should be supplemented with objective information. Prospective clients can investigate:

  • Whether the attorney is licensed and in good standing
  • The attorney’s relevant practice experience
  • Whether the lawyer regularly handles the type of matter involved
  • Professional awards and how they were determined
  • Peer recognition
  • Teaching and speaking engagements
  • Books and substantive publications
  • Communication and billing policies

Licensing and disciplinary information should be verified through the appropriate attorney-regulation authority. Professional directories may provide additional background, but the licensing authority is generally the best source for confirming an attorney’s status.

Evaluate How the Firm Responds to Criticism

A law firm’s response to criticism may be as informative as the review itself. Because confidentiality may prevent a detailed response, readers should not assume that the absence of a factual rebuttal means the allegations are accurate.

A professional response ordinarily acknowledges the concern, avoids disclosing confidential information and provides a way for the individual to contact firm management directly.

Responses that reveal private information, attack the reviewer personally or argue extensively about disputed facts may create additional concerns. A measured response generally demonstrates a greater understanding of professional obligations.

Use the Initial Consultation

Online research can help create a list of potential attorneys, but it cannot replace direct interaction. An initial consultation allows a prospective client to ask questions and evaluate whether the attorney’s experience, communication style and proposed approach fit the person’s needs.

Questions may include:

  • Who will be primarily responsible for the case?
  • How will the attorney communicate important developments?
  • What response time should the client expect?
  • How are fees calculated and billed?
  • What initial deposit is required?
  • What are the potential strengths and difficulties in the matter?
  • What steps may occur next?
  • Who should the client contact with a service concern?

The attorney should not promise a particular result. A realistic explanation of the process, risks and available options is generally more valuable than an unsupported guarantee.

Reviews Are a Measure, Not the Only Measure

Online reviews can be useful. They may reveal patterns, identify questions to ask and provide insight into how former clients perceived their experiences. They should not, however, be treated as a complete record of a lawyer’s work or as a reliable prediction of what will happen in a future case.

A rating displayed by a review platform may exclude favorable reviews based on an automated recommendation system. A large law firm may accumulate more negative reviews simply because it has represented substantially more clients. Satisfied family-law clients may remain silent because they value their privacy. Some reviewers may be opposing parties, relatives, friends or individuals who never hired the firm. Attorneys may also be professionally prohibited from explaining the complete story publicly.

The most informed decision considers reviews alongside professional recognition, legal experience, licensing information, awards, teaching, speaking, books, publications, firm resources and direct interaction with the attorney.

Selecting a family-law attorney is an important decision. Looking beyond any single rating or website can help an individual make that decision with greater context and confidence.

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Past results, testimonials, ratings and professional recognition do not guarantee future outcomes.