- Home
- Portland, OR
- Personal Injury
- Hooton & Chen LLP
Hooton & Chen LLP
ListedPersonal InjuryPortland, OR● Accepting new clients
Not statedFee model
FreeInitial consultation
1Practice areas
About Hooton & Chen
Hooton & Chen is a two-name Portland practice on Huber Street that publishes in English, Spanish and Chinese, and describes itself as a small firm giving individual attention.
A free consultation, published. Its Google listing averages a flat five stars across 173 reviews. It states no fee model, publishes only a blog of the trust pages pillar D looks for, and names no attorney on the pages we could reach.
What this firm has earned Every one from a measured value, with the evidence behind it
5 average over 174 reviews
A high rating is easy at low volume and hard to hold at this one. Pillar C scores it against the market rather than against five stars.
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
36out of 100
LFL Certification Score · Methodology v2.0Scored across 68 of the 68 points this firm's state lets anyone measure, out of 100 in the methodology: 32 of them need a register that Oregon does not publish for us to read. Anything unscored counts neither for nor against the firm.
Listed
1 eligibility gate(s) still to be checked. 3 could not be answered from the available records (G1, G2, G3) and do not count against the firm. Strongest pillar: C; most headroom in pillar A (0/25).
29 points to Certified
65 needed · A+B+C floor not yet met (50% of the A, B and C points assessed)
Most headroom: A2 Experience: +10 available · A6 Roster verifiability: +9 available · D2 Search authority: +8 available
G1 LicensureNot published by OROregon 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 attorneys publishedThis firm names no attorney on the pages we could read, so there is nobody to look up. The register itself exists: Oregon publishes its attorney discipline as court decisions and we read them for the other firms in this market.
G3 Entity & officeNot published by OR1 physical location verified on Google Business Profile. We read the Active Businesses register (data.oregon.gov tckn-sxa6), published as open data by the Oregon Secretary of State and could not identify this firm in it: no entity whose name contains the firm's name. A miss there is not evidence that the firm is unregistered, so this gate is unresolved rather than failed.
G5 WebsiteNot checkedSite has served over HTTPS, a working phone number published, no attorney is named on the site we could read. The gate also asks for no misleading claims, which is an editorial read we have not recorded.
G6 Footprint173 public client reviews across 1 Google listing, above the 10 minimum, and the firm's domain has been registered since 2018-11-21, so it has been operating for more than a year
AProfessional Standing0/25
A2 Experienceno queryable sourceOregon publishes no attorney register we can query, so years since admission cannot be established here for any firm and this is not scored.0 / 10
A6 Roster verifiabilityno roster publishedOur crawl found no roster on this firm's site, so there is nothing here to verify against a register. Publishing one, or telling us where it is, is what gate G5 asks for.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 Outcomes0/15
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. A past result is not a prediction of another one, and the disclaimer is the sentence that says so0 / 4
CClient Experience19/20
C1 Authentic volumeObserved174 Google reviews · Google Business Profile via Places API. 1 listing, counts summed and rating weighted by count4 / 5
C2 Rating qualityObservedGoogle rating 5.0 over 174 reviews → Bayesian 4.94 (prior 4.83 weighted as 100 reviews, from 1410 scored firms) · single platform, Google only6 / 6
C3 Review recencyGoogle5 of 5 sampled reviews are from the last 12 months (newest 2026-07-31) · a sample of five per business listing, not every review5 / 5
C5 Complaint shareGoogle0 of 5 sampled reviews rate 1 or 2 stars · a sample, so this is the shape of the complaints rather than a count of them4 / 4
DDigital Presence & Authority3/25
D1 Website trust & experienceObservedCWV fail · no fee statement · no privacy policy · no disclaimer · fresh content · scored out of 5 of the 7: nothing has measured accessibility or bar numbers on bios here yet, so it is not counted against this firm1 / 5
D2 Search authorityAhrefs · 2026-09-16DR 0.9 → 5th pct of 19-firm cohort (median 24) 0/3 · 424 referring domains, 11th pct 0/2 · 7 organic keywords / 15 visits·mo, 5th pct 0/2 · brand demand 0/1 (pending)0 / 8
D3 Local presenceGoogle1 operational Google Business Profile listing · 10 or more photos, which is where the API stops counting · 5 categories, hours published, which almost every listing here has and so separates nobody · the services list, Q&A and recent posts are owner-side fields the Places API does not expose, and NAP consistency across citations and local-pack rank have no source here, so the rest of this sub-factor leaves the scale rather than being scored as unearned1 / 1
D4 Content, E-E-A-T & schemaAhrefs · 2026-09-16JSON-LD detected 1/1 · not assessed on any firm yet, so content depth and earned media and AI citations leave the scale (4 pts)1 / 1
EAccess & Responsiveness2/15
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 AvailabilityObservedno availability published0 / 5
Next automated re-check: Nov 1, 2026 · Cohort: Portland x Personal Injury (20 firms measured)How the score works →
Digital presence snapshot
Pillar D signals, re-measured monthly. Paid advertising is not scored.
Domain authority
0.9· 5th percentile
424 ref. domains · cohort median 24 · Ahrefs rank 58.5M
Observed · Ahrefs, 2026-09-16Trust pages
1 / 1
blog
ObservedCore Web Vitals
Failmobile
Performance 49
Observed · PSI, 2026-09-15Practice areas 1 areas · primary focus highlighted
Client reviews
5.0
★★★★★
Based on 174 Google reviews · Google Business Profile via Places API. 1 listing, counts summed and rating weighted by count · Quotes below are testimonials published by the firm
Offices 1 location · main office: Portland
Portland4225 SW Huber St #440, Portland, OR 97219, USA
Frequently asked questions
How much does Hooton & Chen charge?
Hooton & Chen publishes no fee terms on the pages we read, so none is recorded on this profile. An absence here is not a claim that the firm has no fee arrangement, only that it does not state one publicly. The rate itself is not published, so ask for it in writing, along with how case expenses are handled and whether they come out of the recovery before or after the fee. The first consultation is free, which is the place to ask.
Does Hooton & Chen offer a free consultation?
Yes. Hooton & Chen publishes a free initial consultation. It publishes material in Spanish.
Where does Hooton & Chen have offices?
Hooton & Chen publishes one office, in Portland. Addresses and the Google listing behind each one are on this profile under Offices.
Who are the attorneys at Hooton & Chen?
Hooton & Chen names no attorney on the public pages we could read. That is a gap in what the firm publishes rather than a statement about who works there, and it is why the licensure and discipline checks on this profile have nothing to run against.
What has Law Firm Listings verified about Hooton & Chen?
Hooton & Chen scores 35 and sits at Listed. Passed: footprint. Did not pass: website. Could not be answered from any public source and therefore counts neither for nor against the firm: licensure, discipline and entity registration. Every row of the scorecard above names where the value came from and when it was read. Nothing on this profile was supplied by the firm for payment, and no placement here can be bought.