Reputation management for lawyers: what you may say to reviews

A harsh review of your firm is sitting on Google or Avvo, and it is wrong, or unfair, or written by someone who was never your client. You want to answer it tonight, and you have heard that answering can breach client confidentiality. That worry is well founded, and it is the reason reputation management for lawyers works differently from the advice given to a plumber or a restaurant. Your first job is to decide whether to reply at all, and if you do, to say nothing that relates to the representation. Your second job is to sort out who wrote the review, because that decides whether Google or Avvo will act on it. Your third is to build a steady, rule-safe way of asking clients for real reviews, so one angry post stops carrying so much weight. This post walks through each step with wording you can adapt. It is general information, not legal advice, and your own state's rules control what you may say.

Post a short, safe reply, or leave the review alone

Start with the rule that shapes everything else. ABA Model Rule 1.6(a) says: "A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent," or the disclosure is impliedly authorized or permitted by Rule 1.6(b). The text of Rule 1.6 reaches beyond names. It covers information that could reasonably lead to identifying the client or the matter.

Lawyers often hope the self-defense exception in Rule 1.6(b)(5) opens the door. ABA Formal Opinion 496, issued January 13, 2021, says a negative online review is not ordinarily a "controversy" or "proceeding" that permits disclosure under that exception. It advises a lawyer to seriously consider not responding. If you do respond, you must not disclose information relating to the representation, even if the review is inaccurate. The opinion's sample wording begins: "Professional obligations do not allow me to respond as I would wish."

A client who posts a review has not handed you a blanket waiver, either. Posting first does not give you permission to tell the rest of the story. Silence is also not an admission that the review is accurate. A calm, restrained reply, or no reply, is a legitimate choice.

If you decide to reply, keep it to a few sentences. A restrained option is: "Professional obligations prevent us from discussing the details of any matter publicly. We take concerns seriously and invite the reviewer to contact our office privately." Notice what that wording leaves out: it does not say the person was a client, does not describe the case, and does not accuse anyone of lying.

Check your state's own rules before you post

The ABA rules are model rules. They are not automatically the law where you practice. Your state supreme court's adopted rules, and your state bar's opinions, are what govern you. Several state bars have published opinions on responding to online criticism, and the dates matter because guidance gets revisited.

You can read the North Carolina opinion, the Florida opinion and a Wisconsin Lawyer article directly. Colorado recognizes a narrow possibility where criticism rises to a true controversy, while other jurisdictions reject that approach for ordinary reviews. New York Opinion 1032 has been reaffirmed in later state guidance.

Treat the list as a starting point, not as a complete map. Before you post anything, open your own state bar's current guidance on online criticism and on lawyer advertising. Have the responsible lawyer, or ethics counsel, read the draft first. If a review comes with a threatened claim or a possible disciplinary issue, get jurisdiction-specific advice before you say anything in public.

Know who wrote the review before you decide what to do

The reviewer's identity decides your options, so sort each review before you draft a word. A review can come from a current client, a former client, a prospective client who never hired you, an opposing party, a relative of one of those, a staff member, a competitor, or someone you do not recognize.

For a current or former client, the confidentiality rules above apply in full. For a prospective client, the same caution applies, because information from an intake conversation may also relate to a representation. For an opposing party or a non-client, do not publicly confirm any representation, disclose case facts, or accuse the person of lying. Replying "You were never our client" can itself reveal something you should not, and it turns a review into an argument.

Avvo draws a firm line here. Its Community Guidelines require a review to come from someone who hired or consulted with the attorney for that person's own representation. Opposing parties, relatives, staff, competitors and people reviewing an attorney they never dealt with are generally ineligible. That gives you a route that does not involve any public rebuttal: report the review to Avvo Customer Care under its eligibility rules.

Before anything gets edited or removed, take a screenshot of the review, with the date and the reviewer's display name visible. Then log it somewhere the whole firm can find it, with the platform, the date, the reviewer type, whether it may break a policy, who owns the decision and whether anyone replied.

Report only what breaks a platform rule

Google lets you report any review, but it removes only reviews that violate its policies. Google says a business should not report a review just because it dislikes it or disagrees with it. Reportable categories include fake engagement, paid or incentivized reviews, conflicts of interest, harassment, personal information, off-topic content, prohibited commercial content, and reviews not based on a genuine experience. You can report from your Business Profile, use the Reviews Management Tool, follow the decision, and submit a one-time appeal when you are eligible.

Avvo works from eligibility, not fairness. You can dispute a review through Customer Care. Avvo does not remove a genuine review merely because the attorney disputes its facts. Avvo's page on negative reviews explains the process.

Two more points keep expectations sane. Avvo client reviews are separate from the Avvo Rating, and Avvo says it does not adjust ratings by request and generally does not remove attorney profiles. And no vendor can guarantee removal of a genuine negative review, so treat any promise of guaranteed removal as a warning sign. Paying someone to remove a lawful review is also a good way to create a second problem.

Ask for reviews in a way that fits Rules 7.1 and 7.2

Silence about your firm is not neutral, so you do want a steady flow of real client reviews. The rules simply shape how you ask. ABA Model Rule 7.1 states: "A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services." A communication is misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation or omits information needed to prevent a misleading overall impression. See the text of Rule 7.1.

Rule 7.2(b) says a lawyer "shall not compensate, give or promise anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer's services," with limited exceptions such as advertising costs, qualified referral services, reciprocal referrals disclosed to the client, and nominal gifts that are not compensation for a recommendation. A neutral request for a client's own review is generally different from paying for a recommendation, but state advertising rules may add requirements, so read yours.

Google adds its own limits. It prohibits selectively soliciting only positive reviews, and it prohibits offering payment, discounts, goods or services for reviews or review changes. Its review policy says reviews must reflect "an actual experience with a business" and be "genuine and unbiased." The FTC's Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 465, approved in August 2024 and effective October 21, 2024, prohibits buying or selling fake reviews, procuring reviews from people without actual experience, and conditioning compensation on a review expressing a particular sentiment.

A process that fits those limits looks like this:

1. Wait for a natural milestone, such as the end of the matter, and think about whether the client is still emotionally or legally vulnerable.
2. Send a private request through your normal channel for client communication.
3. Ask for a review of their real experience, not a positive one and not a set number of stars.
4. Give the platform link and say plainly that taking part is optional.
5. Offer no money, discounts, gifts, fee waivers or other benefits.
6. Do not review the draft, ask anyone to remove criticism, or route unhappy clients somewhere else.
7. Ask clients not to include private details about their legal matter.

Send it to clients generally, not only to the ones you expect to be enthusiastic. Timing and solicitation rules differ from state to state, so confirm yours against your state's advertising rules.

Copy-ready wording you can adapt

Adapt these lines to your firm, then have the responsible lawyer approve them before use. They are examples of the tone that fits the rules, not legal advice.

A reply to a review that appears to come from a client or former client:

> We take concerns about our services seriously. Professional obligations prevent us from discussing confidential matters publicly. Please contact our office directly if you would like to discuss your concerns.

A reply to a review from someone you do not recognize or from an opposing party, when you decide to reply at all:

> We take feedback seriously. Professional obligations prevent us from discussing any matter publicly. Please contact our office privately.

A review request:

> Thank you for working with our firm. If you choose to share your experience, we welcome a review of your experience here: [link]. Participation is completely optional. Please avoid including private details about your legal matter.

Each reply says the same three things: the firm listens, the rules limit what it can say, and the door is open in private. None of them names a case, confirms a relationship or argues a fact. If you cannot write a reply that stays inside those lines, leave the review without one.

Keep a short approval rule alongside the templates. Staff should know which reviews they can log, which need a lawyer's sign-off, and that nobody answers from a phone late at night. That single habit prevents most confidentiality slips.

Run a ten-minute check on your reviews

You can run a first check yourself, with no tools beyond a browser. It is triage, not a full ethics determination.

1. Read the newest Google and Avvo reviews.
2. Screenshot any review that may later be edited or removed.
3. Classify each one: client, former client, prospective client, opposing party, non-client, staff, competitor or unknown.
4. Flag reviews with obvious policy problems, such as impersonation, spam, paid content, personal information, threats, or an opposing-party relationship on Avvo.
5. Draft a two-sentence reply to one review, with no facts and no confirmation of representation.
6. Compare the draft with Opinion 496 and your state bar's guidance.
7. Do not post while angry. Put the draft into your approval step.
8. Check whether you have a neutral, incentive-free way of asking clients for reviews.

Some worries you can set down. You do not need to win a public argument with every reviewer. You do not need a perfect five-star profile: genuine reviews are more defensible than a manufactured pattern of praise, and a single negative review is not reputation-ending. And you do not need to treat every review as an emergency. Classify it, keep a copy, check the platform rule, and decide whether a reply helps a future reader.

If a past reply said too much, do not delete it in a panic. Preserve a record, revise or remove the reply where you can, and get jurisdiction-specific advice.

Hand off the routine work and keep the legal calls

You can do that first check on your own. Outside help earns its place when monitoring has to happen on schedule, several platforms need tracking, policy reports need documentation, profiles need upkeep, and review requests need a repeatable process. That is operational capacity, not deletion of criticism, and that is the reason to bring someone in.

A capable partner can monitor Google and Avvo, sort reviews by type, keep evidence, prepare policy-based reports, maintain your firm's profiles, draft confidentiality-safe language for a lawyer to approve, and set up a neutral request workflow. You still make every legal and ethics decision, and you still decide what any public statement says. If you want a closer comparison of doing this yourself against hiring help, reputation management for doctors and dentists covers a parallel confidentiality problem in another profession.

Profile accuracy matters here too. Wrong hours, a stale phone number or an unclaimed listing weaken the page a prospective client sees before they read a single review. Our Google Business Profile management covers that side of the work.

Frequently Asked Questions About reputation management for lawyers

Can a lawyer respond to a negative review?

Yes, but the reply must not disclose information relating to a client's representation. A short general statement, or no reply, is often the safer choice. Your state's rules control.

Does a client's public review waive confidentiality?

Not automatically. A client's public post does not create blanket permission to disclose the rest of the matter.

Can I say the reviewer was never my client?

Do not assume so. Avoid confirming or denying relationships or case facts unless your state's rules clearly permit the statement.

Will Google remove a review because it is unfair?

Usually not. Google removes reviews that violate its published policies, and it says businesses should not report a review only because they disagree with it.

Can Avvo remove a review from an opposing party?

Avvo's guidelines generally require the reviewer to have hired or consulted with the attorney for that person's own representation. Report an opposing-party review to Avvo Customer Care.

Can a firm ask clients for reviews, or offer a gift for one?

A neutral request for a review of the client's real experience may be possible under your state's rules and the platform's policies. Do not offer anything of value in return, because Rule 7.2(b), Google's policy and the FTC's rule all point away from it.

Moving Forward

A harsh review does not force you into a public argument. Opinion 496 supports a short, restrained reply or no reply, Rule 1.6 keeps client information private even when a review is wrong, and Google and Avvo act on policy and eligibility, not on how unfair a review feels. Sort the reviewer, keep a copy, report only what breaks a rule, and let your state's rules decide what you say.

Over time, the better protection is a record of real client experiences. A consistent, optional, incentive-free request, sent to clients generally, builds that record without putting your license in play. Write your reply templates once, put one lawyer's approval in front of every post, and check your reviews on a set day each week.

If you would like help with the monitoring, profile upkeep and review process, Web Leveling can set it up through our online reputation work, and you keep the legal judgment. We cannot promise removal of a genuine review, and we will not buy, script or screen reviews. We work with small and medium businesses across the country and overseas. Contact us about your firm's reviews, and we will look at where your profiles stand.

Terms