- Home
- Los Angeles, CA
- Personal Injury
- Pisegna & Zimmerman
Pisegna & Zimmerman
LFL Verified 2026Personal InjuryLos Angeles, CA● Accepting new clients
Not statedFee model
FreeInitial consultation
2Practice areas
About Pisegna & Zimmerman
Pisegna & Zimmerman is a personal injury firm with a single office in Canoga Park.
The firm states that the first consultation is free. 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 named attorney carries a disbarment, a suspension or a disciplinary resignation on the State Bar of California's record, across the 1 we identified. Administrative suspensions, which the State Bar states are non-disciplinary, are not counted here
331 client reviews
Counted across 1 verified Google Business Profile listings, not collected by us and not solicited through us.
4.9 average over 331 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.
40 years average at the bar
Mean 40.0 years since admission across 1 of 3 named attorneys (longest 40, shortest 40) · 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
42out 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: C; most headroom in pillar B (0/15).
LFL Verified 202623 points to Certified
65 needed · A+B+C floor not yet met (49% of the A, B and C points assessed)
Most headroom: A6 Roster verifiability: +8 available · B1 Results published: +6 available · B2 Specificity: +5 available
G1 Licensure1 of 2 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 1 we identified. Administrative suspensions, which the State Bar states are non-disciplinary, are not counted here
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 Footprint331 public client reviews across 1 Google listing, above the 10 minimum, and the firm's domain has been registered since 2002-04-20, so it has been operating for more than a year
AProfessional Standing11/25
A2 ExperienceRegistryMean 40.0 years since admission across 1 of 3 named attorneys (longest 40, shortest 40) · 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 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 Experience17/20
C1 Authentic volumeObserved331 Google reviews · Google Business Profile via Places API. 1 listing, counts summed and rating weighted by count5 / 5
C2 Rating qualityObservedGoogle rating 4.9 over 331 reviews → Bayesian 4.88 (prior 4.83 weighted as 100 reviews, from 1410 scored firms) · single platform, Google only5 / 6
C3 Review recencyGoogle5 of 5 sampled reviews are from the last 12 months (newest 2026-07-29) · a sample of five per business listing, not every review5 / 5
C5 Complaint shareGoogle1 of 5 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 & Authority6/25
D1 Website trust & experienceObservedCWV fail · no 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 firm2 / 5
D2 Search authorityAhrefs · 2026-10-19DR 7.0 → 36th pct of 141-firm cohort (median 13) 1/3 · 1,069 referring domains, 42th pct 1/2 · 11 organic keywords / 59 visits·mo, 40th pct 1/2 · brand demand 0/1 (pending)3 / 8
D3 Local presenceGoogle1 operational Google Business Profile listing · 0 photos · 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 unearned0 / 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 & 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: 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
7· 35th percentile
1,069 ref. domains · cohort median 13.5 · Ahrefs rank 24.5M
Observed · Ahrefs, 2026-10-19Trust pages
4 / 4
blog · attorney bios · disclaimer · privacy policy
ObservedCore Web Vitals
Failmobile
Performance 66
Observed · PSI, 2026-10-12Practice areas 2 areas · primary focus highlighted
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
WZ
William ZimmermanAdmitted 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
4.9
★★★★★
Based on 331 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: Canoga Park
Canoga Park7500 Topanga Canyon Blvd, Canoga Park, CA 91303, USA