1. Home
  2. Los Angeles, CA
  3. Personal Injury
  4. JUSTICENTER Personal Injury Lawyers

JUSTICENTER Personal Injury Lawyers

LFL Verified 2026Personal InjuryLos Angeles, CA● Accepting new clients
★★★★★ 5.0 · 40 Google reviews1 office3 attorneysEnglish
ContingencyFee model
FreeInitial consultation
24/7intake line
7Practice areas

About JUSTICENTER Personal Injury Lawyers

JUSTICENTER Personal Injury Lawyers is a personal injury firm with a single office in Encino.

The firm states that it works on a contingency fee, with nothing to pay unless the case is won; the first consultation is free; its intake line is open around the clock.

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.

18 results published

Across 7 case types on the firm's own site. We read the page and counted what is on it; the amounts are the firm's and we have not confirmed them.

28 years average at the bar

Mean 28.0 years since admission across 1 of 3 named attorneys (longest 28, shortest 28) · NYS Attorney Registration database

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

55out of 100
LFL Certification Score · Methodology v2.0Scored across 87 of the 87 points this firm's state lets anyone measure, out of 100 in the methodology: 13 of them need a register that California does not publish for us to read. Anything unscored counts neither for nor against the firm.

Verified

3 of 5 eligibility gates passed. 2 could not be answered from the available records (G2, G3) and do not count against the firm. Strongest pillar: C; most headroom in pillar D (9/25).

LFL Verified 2026
10 points to Certified
65 needed · A+B+C floor not yet met (59% of the A, B and C points assessed)
Most headroom: A6 Roster verifiability: +8 available · B3 Results disclosure: +4 available · C3 Review recency: +4 available
G1 Licensure1 of 3 named attorneys hold an active California licence and none carries an adverse status. 2 name(s) could not be told apart from namesakes and are counted neither way
G2 DisciplineNo answer in the recordNo disciplinary record is held against any of the 1 attorneys we identified. Thomas Cecil could not be told apart from 3 namesakes, one of whom is not eligible to practise. Held open.
G3 Entity & officeNot published by CA1 physical location verified on Google Business Profile. California publishes no business register we are able to query, so the registration itself is not verified here. The state's own business search is the place to check it.
G5 WebsiteSite has served over HTTPS, a working phone number published, 3 named attorneys published.
G6 Footprint40 public client reviews across 1 Google listing, above the 10 minimum, and the firm's domain has been registered since 2023-06-09, so it has been operating for more than a year
Professional Standing
14/25
A2 ExperienceRegistryMean 28.0 years since admission across 1 of 3 named attorneys (longest 28, shortest 28) · NYS Attorney Registration database10 / 10
A6 Roster verifiabilityRegistry1 of 3 named attorneys matched to the California register; no bar number published on any bio1 / 9
A5 AccountabilityObservedmember of American Board of Trial Advocates · 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 them3 / 3
BPublished Outcomes
8/15
B1 Results publishedFirm-submitted18 results published on the firm's own site, counted from stated amounts4.5 / 6
B2 SpecificityFirm-submitted7 case types named; no court or county named, so no result can be looked up3 / 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 Experience
12/20
C1 Authentic volumeObserved40 Google reviews · Google Business Profile via Places API. 1 listing, counts summed and rating weighted by count2 / 5
C2 Rating qualityObservedGoogle rating 5.0 over 40 reviews → Bayesian 4.88 (prior 4.83 weighted as 100 reviews, from 1410 scored firms) · single platform, Google only5 / 6
C3 Review recencyGoogle0 of 5 sampled reviews are from the last 12 months (newest 2025-10-14) · a sample of five per business listing, not every review1 / 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 & Authority
9/25
D1 Website trust & experienceObservedCWV fail · fee statement · privacy policy · 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 firm3 / 5
D2 Search authorityAhrefs · 2026-10-19DR 20.0 → 62th pct of 141-firm cohort (median 13) 2/3 · 983 referring domains, 25th pct 1/2 · 178 organic keywords / 662 visits·mo, 72th pct 1/2 · brand demand 0/1 (pending)4 / 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 · 2026-10-19JSON-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 & Responsiveness
6/15
E1 Free consult & fee transparencyObservedFree consultation · Contingency · the fee percentage itself is not published3 / 6
E3 Languages & accessibilityObservedEnglish0 / 4
E4 AvailabilityObserved24/7 intake line2.5 / 5
Next automated re-check: Nov 1, 2026 · Cohort: Los Angeles Personal Injury (144 firms measured)How the score works →

Digital presence snapshot

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

Domain authority
20· 61th percentile
983 ref. domains · cohort median 13.5 · Ahrefs rank 8.8M
Observed · Ahrefs, 2026-10-19
Trust pages
5 / 5
disclaimer · privacy policy · attorney bios · fee statement · blog
Observed
Core Web Vitals
Failmobile
Performance 58
Observed · PSI, 2026-10-12

Case results Only results verified against court records or documentation show amounts

What the firm publishes itself

JUSTICENTER Personal Injury Lawyers lists 18 case results on its own website, across 7 case types. The page carries no disclaimer about past results. We have read the page and counted what is on it. We have not confirmed the amounts, so none are repeated here.

constructionmotor vehicletruckpremiseswrongful deathpedestrianproduct liability
See the firm's own results page ↗

Results are specific to their facts and do not guarantee similar outcomes. Firms submit results through their claimed profile; only results we can substantiate are published with amounts.

Attorneys 1 attorney · every licence checked against the California attorney register · 2 more people are named by the firm without a role, so we do not call them attorneys

DB
David B. BobroskyAdmitted in CA

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.

Client reviews

5.0
★★★★★
Based on 40 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: Encino

Encino16633 Ventura Blvd Ste 1011, Encino, CA 91436, USA