1. Home
  2. Los Angeles, CA
  3. Personal Injury
  4. Pasadena Personal Injury Attorney

Pasadena Personal Injury Attorney

LFL Verified 2026Personal InjuryLos Angeles, CA● Accepting new clients
★★★★★ 4.9 · 47 Google reviews2 offices3 attorneysEnglish
Not statedFee model
FreeInitial consultation
6Practice areas

About Pasadena Personal Injury Attorney

Pasadena Personal Injury Attorney is a personal injury firm with offices in Pasadena and Glendale.

The firm states that the first consultation is free. 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 named attorney carries a disbarment, a suspension or a disciplinary resignation on the State Bar of California's record, across the 2 we identified. Administrative suspensions, which the State Bar states are non-disciplinary, are not counted here

18 years average at the bar

Mean 18.0 years since admission across 2 of 3 named attorneys (longest 21, shortest 15) · 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

38out 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

4 of 5 eligibility gates passed. 1 could not be answered from the available records (G3) and does not count against the firm. Strongest pillar: A; most headroom in pillar B (0/15).

LFL Verified 2026
27 points to Certified
65 needed · A+B+C floor not yet met (47% of the A, B and C points assessed)
Most headroom: A6 Roster verifiability: +6 available · B1 Results published: +6 available · B2 Specificity: +5 available
G1 Licensure2 of 3 named attorneys hold an active California licence and none carries an adverse status. 1 name(s) could not be told apart from namesakes and are counted neither way
G2 DisciplineNo named attorney carries a disbarment, a suspension or a disciplinary resignation on the State Bar of California's record, across the 2 we identified. Administrative suspensions, which the State Bar states are non-disciplinary, are not counted here
G3 Entity & officeNot published by CA2 physical locations 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 Footprint47 public client reviews across 2 Google listings, above the 10 minimum, and the firm's domain has been registered since 2009-04-09, so it has been operating for more than a year
Professional Standing
15/25
A2 ExperienceRegistryMean 18.0 years since admission across 2 of 3 named attorneys (longest 21, shortest 15) · NYS Attorney Registration database9 / 10
A6 Roster verifiabilityRegistry2 of 3 named attorneys matched to the California register; no bar number published on any bio3 / 9
A5 AccountabilityObservedmember of American Bar Association · 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
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. 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 volumeObserved47 Google reviews · Google Business Profile via Places API. 2 listings, counts summed and rating weighted by count2 / 5
C2 Rating qualityObservedGoogle rating 4.93 over 47 reviews → Bayesian 4.86 (prior 4.83 weighted as 100 reviews, from 1410 scored firms) · single platform, Google only5 / 6
C3 Review recencyGoogle1 of 10 sampled reviews are from the last 12 months (newest 2026-07-16) · a sample of five per business listing, not every review1 / 5
C5 Complaint shareGoogle0 of 10 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
5/25
D1 Website trust & experienceObservedCWV fail · no fee statement · no privacy policy · no disclaimer · no 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 firm0 / 5
D2 Search authorityAhrefs · 2026-10-19DR 4.8 → 29th pct of 141-firm cohort (median 13) 1/3 · 1,101 referring domains, 43th pct 1/2 · 13 organic keywords / 94 visits·mo, 43th pct 1/2 · brand demand 0/1 (pending)3 / 8
D3 Local presenceGoogle2 operational Google Business Profile listings · 10 or more photos, which is where the API stops counting · 6 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
1/15
E1 Free consult & fee transparencyObservedFree consultation · fee model not published · the fee percentage itself is not published1 / 6
E3 Languages & accessibilityObservedEnglish0 / 4
E4 AvailabilityObservedno availability published0 / 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
4.8· 28th percentile
1,101 ref. domains · cohort median 13.5 · Ahrefs rank 30.9M
Observed · Ahrefs, 2026-10-19
Trust pages
1 / 1
attorney bios
Observed
Core Web Vitals
Failmobile
Performance 36
Observed · PSI, 2026-10-12

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

MM
Mark MuradAdmitted in CA
JR
Joel RarangAdmitted in CA

Also named by the firm

The firm lists this person among its team and prints no role beside the name, so we do not describe them as attorneys.

Client reviews

4.9
★★★★★
Based on 47 Google reviews · Google Business Profile via Places API. 2 listings, counts summed and rating weighted by count · Quotes below are testimonials published by the firm

Offices 2 locations · main office: Law Offices of Mark Murad

Law Offices of Mark Murad155 N Lake Ave #800, Pasadena, CA 91101, USA
Law Offices of Mark Murad- California Personal Injury Law Center401 N Brand Blvd Ste 810, Glendale, CA 91203, USA