1. Home
  2. Baltimore, MD
  3. Workers' Compensation
  4. Cohen, Snyder & Eisenberg, P.A.

Cohen, Snyder & Eisenberg, P.A.

LFL Verified 2026Workers' CompensationBaltimore, MD● Accepting new clients
★★★★★ 4.5 · 189 Google reviews3 offices7 attorneysEnglish · Spanish
Not statedFee model
FreeInitial consultation
24/7intake line
1Practice areas

About Cohen, Snyder & Eisenberg, P.A.

Cohen, Snyder & Eisenberg, P.A. is a workers' compensation firm with offices in Baltimore, Essex and Glen Burnie.

The firm states that the first consultation is free; its intake line is open around the clock. It publishes material in English and Spanish. It does not state a fee model on its public pages, so none is recorded here.

What this firm has earned Every one from a measured value, with the evidence behind it

LFL Verified 2026

Every eligibility gate this firm's state allows us to check has been checked and held: licensure, discipline, entity, website and footprint. Certification additionally requires a score of 70.

No public discipline

No attorney this firm names appears as the respondent in any of the 2614 published discipline decisions of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, 1976 to 2026. 2 of them share a surname with a disciplined attorney and were read against the text of those decisions, which name somebody else. Published decisions record what has been decided, so this covers a disbarment or suspension on the record and not whether a registration is current today.

Service in Spanish

Published by the firm on its own pages, which is how this was measured rather than assumed from a name.

LFL Certification Score Scored under Methodology v2.0 · rows tagged Registry, Observed or Ahrefs are measured; rows tagged Illustrative are sample values pending full verification

35out of 100
LFL Certification Score · Methodology v2.0Scored across 78 of the 91 points this firm's state lets anyone measure, out of 100 in the methodology: 9 of them need a register that Maryland does not publish for us to read. Anything unscored counts neither for nor against the firm.

Verified

All 5 eligibility gates passed. Certification needs more of the scale measured than we have managed here, pillar A in particular. Strongest pillar: C; most headroom in pillar A (0/25).

LFL Verified 2026
Certified needs more measured
70 needed · A+B+C floor not yet met (40% of the A, B and C points assessed)
Most headroom: A2 Experience: not yet measured (10 pts) · A6 Roster verifiability: +9 available · B1 Results published: +6 available
G1 LicensureNot published by MDMaryland does not publish an attorney register we can query, so licensure is not verified here. The state's own attorney search is the place to check it.
G2 DisciplineNo attorney this firm names appears as the respondent in any of the 2614 published discipline decisions of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, 1976 to 2026. 2 of them share a surname with a disciplined attorney and were read against the text of those decisions, which name somebody else. Published decisions record what has been decided, so this covers a disbarment or suspension on the record and not whether a registration is current today.
G3 Entity & officeNot published by MD3 physical locations verified on Google Business Profile. Maryland publishes no business register we can query. SDAT's entity search is a form rather than a dataset, its bulk data is sold rather than published, and the state's open data portal carries a count of businesses instead of the register. This is a limit of the published record and not something the firm can change.
G5 WebsiteSite has served over HTTPS, a working phone number published, 7 named attorneys published.
G6 Footprint189 public client reviews across 3 Google listings, above the 10 minimum, and the firm's domain has been registered since 2000-08-10, so it has been operating for more than a year
Professional Standing
0/25
A2 ExperiencePendingNot yet assessed0 / 10
A6 Roster verifiabilityno queryable sourceMaryland publishes no attorney register we can query, so the roster is not verified here and this is not scored.0 / 9
A5 AccountabilityObservedno bar or trial lawyers' association named on the pages we read · no professional liability cover disclosed, which is not scored here: plaintiff firms in this market do not publish it, and an absence shared by every firm separates none of them0 / 3
BPublished Outcomes
0/15
B1 Results publishedFirm-submittedThe firm publishes no case results we could read0 / 6
B2 SpecificityFirm-submitted0 case types named; no court or county named, so no result can be looked up0 / 5
B3 Results disclosureFirm-submittedNo prior-results disclaimer on the results page, which the New York advertising rules effectively require0 / 4
CClient Experience
15/20
C1 Authentic volumeObserved189 Google reviews · Google Business Profile via Places API. 3 listings, counts summed and rating weighted by count4 / 5
C2 Rating qualityObservedGoogle rating 4.49 over 189 reviews → Bayesian 4.61 (prior 4.82 weighted as 100 reviews, from 217 scored firms) · single platform, Google only4 / 6
C3 Review recencyGoogle10 of 15 sampled reviews are from the last 12 months (newest 2026-06-09) · a sample of five per business listing, not every review5 / 5
C5 Complaint shareGoogle2 of 15 sampled reviews rate 1 or 2 stars · a sample, so this is the shape of the complaints rather than a count of them2 / 4
DDigital Presence & Authority
7/25
D1 Website trust & experienceObservedCWV fail · no bar numbers on bios · no fee statement · privacy policy · disclaimer · fresh content2 / 7
D2 Search authorityAhrefs · 2026-09-16DR 10 → 26th pct of 19-firm cohort (median 20.5) 1/3 · 736 referring domains, 68th pct 1/2 · 217 organic keywords / 588 visits·mo, 44th pct 1/2 · brand demand 0/1 (pending)3 / 8
D3 Local presenceGoogle3 operational Google Business Profile listings with reviews · profile completeness, NAP consistency across citations and local-pack rank not yet measured (4 of 5 pts still available)1 / 5
D4 Content, E-E-A-T & schemaAhrefs · 2026-09-16content 0/2 · JSON-LD detected 1/1 · earned media 0/11 / 5
EAccess & Responsiveness
5/15
E1 Free consult & fee transparencyObservedFree consultation · fee model not published · the fee percentage itself is not published1 / 6
E3 Languages & accessibilityObservedEnglish, Spanish1.5 / 4
E4 AvailabilityObserved24/7 intake line2.5 / 5
Next automated re-check: Oct 1, 2026 · Cohort: Baltimore x Workers' Compensation (20 firms measured)How the score works →

Digital presence snapshot

Pillar D signals, re-measured monthly. Paid advertising is not scored.

Domain authority
10· 26th percentile
736 ref. domains · cohort median 20.5 · Ahrefs rank 16.7M
Observed · Ahrefs, 2026-09-16
Trust pages
4 / 4
attorney bios · blog · disclaimer · privacy policy
Observed
Core Web Vitals
Failmobile
Performance 56
Observed · PSI, 2026-09-14

Practice areas 1 areas · primary focus highlighted

Workers' Compensation

The firm’s people the firm names its people without saying who among them practises law · 7 more people are named by the firm without a role, so we do not call them attorneys

Also named by the firm

The firm lists these people among its team and prints no role beside the names, so we do not describe them as attorneys.

  • Mark A. Snyder
  • Bruce A. Eisenberg
  • Thomas C. Newbrough
  • Stuart H. Arnovits
  • Erin H. Snyder
  • Nathan Chenkin
  • Strong Advocacy For Injured Riders

Client reviews

4.5
★★★★★
Based on 189 Google reviews · Google Business Profile via Places API. 3 listings, counts summed and rating weighted by count · Quotes below are testimonials published by the firm

Offices 3 locations · main office: Baltimore

Baltimore347 N Charles St, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA
Essex1760 Eastern Blvd, Essex, MD 21221, USA
Glen Burnie7420 Baltimore Annapolis Blvd Suite 2, Glen Burnie, MD 21061, USA