Brandon Burke A one-star review lands on your firm’s Google profile. It’s unfair, or at least incomplete, and the first instinct is to set the record straight. When you respond to a negative review as a lawyer, you can post a reply. What you can’t do is use anything from the client’s matter to make your case, even to correct something false.
That one limit changes the whole playbook. Generic review advice tells a business to explain what really happened. A law firm doesn’t have that option.
Here’s what the ethics rules allow, what to post, what never to post, and how to prevent the next one.
Why lawyers can’t respond like other businesses
A restaurant can reply, “We checked the receipt, and you ordered the fish.” A law firm can’t do the equivalent.
ABA Model Rule 1.6 covers “information relating to the representation of a client.” That is much broader than privileged communications. It can include dates, documents, what was said on a call, and the fact that a case settled. The duty also continues after the representation ends, so former clients are covered too.
The ABA addressed online reviews directly in Formal Opinion 496, issued in January 2021. Rule 1.6 has a “self-defense” exception. It lets a lawyer disclose some information in a controversy with a client, or to respond to allegations in a formal proceeding about their work. The opinion concludes that a negative online review, by itself, does not trigger that exception. It adds that even if it did, a public online reply would go beyond the disclosure the rule allows.
In practice, that means the reviewer can say anything, and your firm can say almost nothing about the matter. For more on the underlying duty, see our guide to lawyer client confidentiality.
Rules vary by state, so check your state bar’s version of Rule 1.6 and any local ethics opinions on online reviews.
Your options, by who wrote the review
Opinion 496 lists a short set of acceptable moves. You can decline to respond. You can ask the platform to remove the post. You can invite the person to talk offline. You can post a reply that reveals no client information.
Which move fits depends on who wrote the review.
| Who wrote it | What you can say publicly | Usually the best move |
|---|---|---|
| Current or former client | Nothing about the matter, and don’t confirm they were a client | A short, neutral reply or no reply, plus private outreach through normal channels |
| Someone who was never a client and isn’t tied to one of your matters | That the person is not and was not a client | A brief factual reply, after confirming in your records |
| Fake, spam, or off-topic post | Nothing needed | Flag it to the platform for removal under its content policy |
The non-client row is the one real exception. Opinion 496 notes that a lawyer owes no confidentiality duty to someone who was never a client. So you can say that. Verify it in your case management system first, because calling an actual client a non-client would be a false public statement. Be careful with reviewers tied to a real matter, such as a client’s relative or an opposing party. The opinion says you still can’t disclose anything about that client’s representation. Even a general denial can reveal your firm’s involvement.
What a safe response looks like
A safe reply is short, calm, and written for the next prospective client who reads it. That reader isn’t judging who was right. They’re judging whether your firm stays professional under pressure.
The ABA’s opinion offers one line that works in almost any situation:
Professional obligations do not allow me to respond as I would wish.
ABA Formal Opinion 496
That sentence signals there’s another side without revealing it. You can use it as written or build around it. Here are three sample replies to adapt.
General reply (any reviewer):
“We take every concern about our service seriously. Our professional obligations prevent us from discussing any legal matter in a public forum. We’re always willing to talk directly with anyone who has concerns about our firm.”
Invitation to talk offline:
“Thank you for sharing this. Professional obligations do not allow us to respond here as we would wish. If you’d like to talk, please call our client relations manager, [Name], at [phone number].”
Reviewer who was never a client (confirmed in your records):
“We have no record of this person as a client of our firm. We take feedback seriously and welcome anyone with questions to contact our office directly.”
Notice what the first two replies leave out. Neither confirms the reviewer was a client. Neither mentions a case, a timeline, or a result. Swap in your firm’s tone, but keep that discipline.
What not to say
Most confidentiality problems in review replies come from a firm trying to be helpful or accurate. These are the common ones:
- Confirming the relationship or the case. “We’re sorry your car accident claim took longer than expected” discloses both.
- Correcting facts from the file. “We sent that document on the 3rd” or “we never received your records” both reveal information about the representation.
- Blaming the client. Even a mild “the client missed several appointments” is a disclosure and reads as defensive.
- Mentioning outcomes, amounts, or fees. Settlement figures and fee details are off limits, however favorable they’d make the firm look.
- Offering refunds or compensation publicly. That belongs in a private conversation, if anywhere.
- Replying to the reply. A back-and-forth thread draws more attention to the review and raises the odds someone slips.
Opinion 496 also suggests, as a best practice, that lawyers consider not responding at all. A reply can bring the review more attention and invite a second round. Silence is a legitimate choice, especially for an old or isolated review.
How to respond to a negative review as a lawyer, step by step
A written process keeps the reply from being drafted in the heat of the moment by whoever saw the review first. Here’s a simple one your firm can reuse.
- Pause. Nobody replies on the day the review appears. Anger reads clearly in a reply, even a polite one.
- Check who wrote it. Search your case management system for the reviewer’s name. This tells you which row of the table above applies.
- Route it to one named person. Pick one owner for review replies who knows the confidentiality limits, such as a managing partner or marketing director.
- Decide whether to respond publicly. For many reviews, no reply is the right call. If you do reply, use approved language like the samples above.
- Reach out privately if it’s a client. Contact them through your normal channels, not through the review platform. A private conversation with your own client doesn’t carry the same disclosure problem. If the client has threatened a claim, talk to counsel first.
- Log the root cause. Note what actually went wrong, such as a missed callback or a surprise about fees. That log is where the real fix starts.
Step six is the easiest one to skip. It’s also the one that reduces future reviews. For the broader reputation program, including monitoring and review requests, see our guides to attorney reputation management and getting more Google reviews.
Many bad reviews start as communication gaps
In our experience, a lot of negative law firm reviews aren’t really about the legal work. They’re about silence.
The pattern is familiar. A personal injury case goes quiet for weeks while records are requested or the insurer reviews a demand. Nothing is wrong, but the client hears nothing. They call, leave a message, and wait. Eventually they post: “Nobody ever called me back. I have no idea if anyone is working on my case.”
You can’t answer that review in public. You can, however, make it much less likely to be written.
The fix is upstream. Tell clients what normal waiting looks like at each stage. Update them when something moves, even if the update is small. Give them a way to check status without having to reach a person. Our guide on managing client expectations covers the conversation side. For the mechanics of keeping clients informed without adding staff time, see automated case status updates.
A firm that fixes the gap will still get the occasional unfair review. It will get fewer of the “is anyone working on my case” kind. Those are the hardest to answer and the easiest to prevent.
Where CasePulse fits
CasePulse is a client portal that layers on top of the case management system your firm already uses. Clients get 24/7 access to their case status, automated updates when the case moves, forms, and file sharing, all under your firm’s own branding. It works with Neos, Needles, LawBase, Litify, and Salesforce. Updates come from the data your team already keeps, not a separate system clients have to go hunting through. It can’t make a client happy with an outcome, and it can’t take a review down. What it does is close the silence that turns into “nobody ever called me back” reviews. See the full feature list for details.
Is your firm losing time to status calls, and to the reviews that follow them? Book a demo to see how CasePulse works with your case management system.