1. Home
  2. Methodology
Our Methodology · LFL Certified™ v2.0

The score behind the badge.

Every certified firm earns a 0–100 Certification Score from verifiable evidence: licensure and discipline records, court-confirmed outcomes, authenticated client reviews, published fee and access terms, and the quality and authority of its digital presence. No firm can pay for a point. Here is exactly how it works.

Score composition · 100 points
15Published outcomes
20Client experience
25Digital presence & authority
15Access & responsiveness
Certified from 65Distinguished 78Elite 85
Design principles

Gates before points. Evidence before claims. Local before national.

Gates before points

Licensure, discipline and identity checks are pass/fail. A suspended partner is not a deduction. It is a zero. Only firms that pass every gate are scored at all.

Evidence before claims

Court records, bar registries and API-sourced reviews outrank anything a firm tells us about itself. Self-reported "$1B recovered" totals score nothing until we can confirm them.

Local before national

Outcomes, review volume and search authority are compared within the firm's state and practice area, so a strong firm in Tulsa is measured against Tulsa, not Manhattan.

Layer 0

Five eligibility gates every firm must pass

Fail one and the firm is listed with a neutral profile but cannot be certified, regardless of reviews, results or website.

G1Active licensureEvery attorney named on the firm's site holds an active license in each state of practice.New York State attorney registrations, published as open data by the Unified Court System. A state without a register we can query carries no licence finding at all rather than an assumed one.
G2Clean public disciplineNo current attorney carries a disciplinary status on the public register: disbarred, suspended, or resigned for disciplinary reasons. Those statuses persist, so the check reaches back years, but it will not show a censure or a suspension since lifted. We say which firms this has been run for.In New York, the same attorney register, read per attorney. In Maryland, Florida, Oregon and Indiana, the published discipline decisions of the state's highest court, indexed by CourtListener and read per attorney, which records what has been decided rather than whether a registration is current today. Each profile prints the years its state's decisions cover. Texas has no source here: its discipline is decided by panels rather than by an appellate court, so those profiles carry no finding.
G3Verified entity & officeRegistered legal entity and at least one confirmed physical office. No virtual-office-only listings.NY Department of State active corporations register · Google Business Profile verification
G5Honest website baselineLive HTTPS site with working contact and named attorneys; no "guaranteed results", fake badges or misleading claims.Automated crawl + editorial review
G6Minimum footprintAt least 10 client reviews on the firm's verified Google listings, and one year in operation by its entity filing date. In a transactional practice, a verified listing and the year in operation, for the reason set out beside this.Google Business Profile via the Places API, summed across a firm's verified listings · Department of State filing date. The ten-review minimum was calibrated on consumer injury markets, where a client who has just been paid leaves a review. Transactional practices work by referral and do not: the most established real estate firm in our first such market, eighty years in Naples with fifteen attorneys on its own roster, has five reviews. For those practices the gate asks for a verified listing and a year in operation, and the review count is scored in pillar C instead, where a thin listing costs a firm points rather than its eligibility.

A gate has three answers, not two. It can pass, it can fail, and it can have no answer available. A check we have not run yet holds the firm at Listed until we run it, because that is our unfinished work and the firm should not be described as verified on the strength of it. But a check that cannot be answered is different, and it no longer costs a firm its tier. Two things produce that. Some states publish no source at all: Maryland's business filings are behind a crawler block and no state but New York gives us an attorney register we may query. And some records exist but cannot answer for a particular firm: New York does not require a general partnership to file with the Department of State, so the entity register has nothing to return for one and never will, and a register that lists eight people with the same name cannot tell us which of them works at the firm. In every one of those cases the profile says which check could not be made and why, in words, because the limit belongs to us or to the record rather than to the firm.

The numbering skips G4. It asked for the absence of a consumer-protection action across every enforcement body in the country, and no search can establish a negative that broad, so it was retired at v2.0 rather than being reported as passed. The gates that remain are the ones a machine can settle from a public source, and the numbers stay put so a score computed last month still means what it said.

Layer 1

Five pillars, 100 points

Each pillar is built from sub-factors with fixed point values. Percentile-based sub-factors are computed within the firm's cohort (state × practice area). Open any pillar for the full scoring table.

Professional Standing

Who the lawyers are and how the profession regards them
25points
Sub-factorPtsHow it's scored
A6 Roster verifiability9Share of the attorneys a firm names that we can match to the state register: 95%+ = 6 · 80% = 4.5 · 50% = 3 · below that = 1 · plus 3 where the firm publishes bar numbers on its own bios, which is a text change and the cheapest points on this scale
A2 Experience10Mean years since admission across the attorneys we matched, from their registration records: 15+ = 10 · 10–15 = 7 · 5–10 = 5 · under 5 = 2. The profile states how many of the firm's attorneys the mean covers.
A5 Accountability6Professional liability cover disclosed (3) · membership of a substantive bar or trial lawyers' association such as the AAJ, a state trial lawyers association, NACDL or AILA (3). Read off the firm's own pages, so a firm that publishes neither scores nothing here rather than being asked for it. Two things this deliberately will not count: the word insurance where the sentence is about the other side's carrier, which on a personal injury site is nearly every mention of it, and the paid "Top 100" and "Million Dollar" forums a firm can join by invoice, which are the badges G5 exists to screen out.
B

Published Outcomes

What the firm publishes about its own results, and how openly
15points
Sub-factorPtsHow it's scored
B1 Results published6How many results the firm publishes on its own site: 25+ = 6 · 10 = 4.5 · 3 = 3 · at least one = 1. A firm that publishes none scores nothing, which is a finding about the firm; a page we could not read leaves the pillar unscored instead.
B2 Specificity5Each kind of case the results are attributed to, 1 each up to 3 · a court or county named anywhere on the page 2. A figure with a venue can be looked up; a figure on its own cannot.
B3 Results disclosure4A prior-results disclaimer on the results page, which New York's advertising rules effectively require. Of the first ten firms we read, four carried one.
Where the work has no outcomes: a property closing that went well produces no verdict and no settlement, so this pillar reads the transaction instead and keeps its fifteen points. B1 Fee terms published pays 6 for a figure the firm prints for its own fee, 4 for a flat fee stated without one and 2 for anything else it says about charging, because the title insurance premium in Florida is fixed by rule under section 627.782 and identical everywhere, which leaves the firm's own settlement fee as the only number worth comparing. B2 The transaction explained pays 1 for each stage of the deal the firm names, to 5: the title search, the commitment, the survey, the lien search, the estoppel, the settlement statement. B3 Escrow disclosed pays 4 where the firm publishes how client funds are held and where, and 2.5 where it names the account without saying where it sits. Every firm doing this work holds client money and every one of them could say so, which is what makes a silence here the firm's choice rather than a limit of ours.
Where the outcome is somebody’s children: in a family law practice this pillar asks for no results at all, and a firm that publishes none is not marked down. Custody proceedings concern children, matrimonial files are routinely sealed, and a firm advertising the custody arrangement it obtained is advertising a stranger’s private life. It asks about the price instead, and a rule makes that possible: Rule 1.5(d)(5)(i) of the Rules of Professional Conduct forbids a contingent fee in a domestic relations matter, so the hourly rate and the retainer are the only prices there are. B1 Fee terms published pays 6 for an hourly rate, 4.5 for a retainer figure without one, 4 for a flat fee and 2 for anything else it says about charging. B2 The case explained pays 1 for each stage of a matrimonial case the firm names, to 4: the ground, the summons, the net worth statement, the preliminary conference, the attorney for the child, equitable distribution, the stipulation, trial. The fifth point is for naming at least two of mediation, collaborative divorce, litigation and an uncontested filing, which are different services at different prices. B3 Billing and the retainer disclosed pays 4 where the firm publishes how it bills and cites the rules that govern it, 3 for the billing alone and 1.5 for the rules alone. Section 1400.3 of the court rules already requires every one of these firms to put the rate of each person who may bill you, the amount of the retainer and itemized billing “at least every 60 days” into a signed agreement before the work starts, and section 1400.2 forbids a non-refundable retainer. The client is guaranteed all of it in the room where they sign, after choosing. Nothing requires publishing any of it beforehand, which is the moment somebody is comparing three firms.
What counts as verified: court dockets and judgments (PACER via CourtListener, state e-courts), published decisions, jury-verdict reporters, or redacted settlement documentation attested by the attorney under our protocol. Self-reported totals score 0.
C

Client Experience

How clients rate and describe the firm, after authenticity filtering
20points
Sub-factorPtsHow it's scored
C1 Authentic volume5Total reviews across the firm's verified Google listings, on a fixed ladder rather than a percentile: 300+ = 5 · 150 = 4 · 75 = 3 · 25 = 2 · 10 = 1. A fixed ladder because a firm should be able to read its own row without knowing what its neighbours did, and because volume is the one signal here that needs no interpretation.
C2 Rating quality6Bayesian average with the cohort mean as prior, so 3 reviews at 5.0 never beat 400 at 4.8
C3 Review recency5Share of the sampled reviews left in the last 12 months: 60%+ = 5 · 40% = 4 · 20% = 2.5 · any at all = 1. Google returns five reviews per business listing, so this is a sample and the profile says how large it was.
C5 Complaint share4Share of the sampled reviews rating 1 or 2 stars: none = 4 · up to 10% = 3 · up to 20% = 2 · up to 35% = 1. A sample, so this is the shape of the complaints rather than a count of them.
Authenticity filter: reviews are screened for velocity spikes, reviewer-account age, template language and geographic mismatch before scoring. A verified fake-review finding revokes certification for 12 months.
E

Access & Responsiveness

How easy it is to reach and afford the firm
15points
Sub-factorPtsHow it's scored
E1 Free consultation & fee transparency6Free consultation 1 · fee model stated publicly, whether contingency %, hourly range or flat fee 2 · the actual fee terms published, not just the model 1
E3 Languages & accessibility4Each language beyond English 1.5 (max 3) · ADA-accessible offices or virtual consultations 1
E4 Availability524/7 intake line 2.5 · evening or weekend hours, hospital or home visits 2.5
Tiers

What the badge says, and what it takes

Listed
Gates open

One or more gates still to be checked, or a gate not passed. A neutral profile with no badge, and the sub-scores we do have.

Shows the firm which gates are open
LFL Verified
Gates clear

All five eligibility gates checked and passed: licensure, discipline, entity and office, consumer-protection actions, website baseline and public footprint. This says the firm is what it says it is. It says nothing about the score.

Five gates pass · no score threshold
LFL Certified
65–77

Every gate passed, and a score of 65 or better across the sub-factors we have assessed.

Gates all pass · A+B+C ≥ 40 of 65 assessed · at least 60 of 100 points assessed
Certified · Distinguished
78–84

Strong verified outcomes and client record, plus a mature digital presence.

Gates all pass · A+B+C ≥ 50 of 65 assessed
Certified · Elite
85–100top 5%

The top 5% of the firm's state × practice cohort.

Gates all pass · A+B+C ≥ 55 of 65 assessed · cohort top 5%
74/ 100
Worked example · illustrative

A New York personal injury firm → LFL Certified

A · Professional standing
20 / 25
B · Published outcomes
10 / 15
C · Client experience
16 / 20
D · Digital presence
16 / 25
E · Access
12 / 15

A + B + C = 46 of 65, so the firm clears the Certified floor. The example assumes every sub-factor was assessable; where one is not, it leaves the scale rather than costing the firm points. Path to Distinguished (78): publish each result with its case type and date instead of a lump total (+4 in B2 and B3), add JSON-LD and bylined attorney pages (+5 in D1 and D4), and state the fee terms in full (+2 in E1). Every one of those is something a firm changes on its own website, and nothing on that list is submitted to us.

Reading a scorecard

Every certified profile publishes this exact breakdown

Gates first, then the five pillars with every sub-score and the evidence behind it. Rows are tagged by source: Registry, Observed or, during onboarding, Illustrative. The card always states the shortest path to the next tier.

See it on a live profile
62out of 100
LFL Certification Score · Methodology v2.0Scored across 90 of the 90 points this firm's state lets anyone measure, out of 100 in the methodology: 10 of them need a register that New York does not publish for us to read. Anything unscored counts neither for nor against the firm.

Verified

All 5 eligibility gates passed. Strongest pillar: A; most headroom in pillar B (0/15).

LFL Verified 2026
3 points to Certified
65 needed · A+B+C floor met (63% of the A, B and C points assessed)
Most headroom: B1 Results published: +6 available · B2 Specificity: +5 available · D2 Search authority: +5 available
G1 Licensure7 of 8 named attorneys are currently registered and none carries an adverse status. 1 could not be told apart from namesakes in the register and are counted neither way
G2 DisciplineNone of the 7 named attorneys carries a disciplinary status on the public register: no disbarment, suspension or disciplinary resignation. Those statuses persist, so the check reaches back years, but it would not show a censure or a suspension since lifted.
G3 Entity & officeGREENSTEIN & PITTARI, LLP is an active domestic registered limited liability partnership registered since 2003-12-01, with 7 Google-verified locations
G5 WebsiteSite has served over HTTPS, a working phone number published, 8 named attorneys published.
G6 Footprint1,013 public client reviews and 23 years since the entity was formed in 2003
Professional Standing
20/25
A2 ExperienceRegistryMean 17.0 years since admission across 7 of 8 named attorneys (longest 32, shortest 1) · NYS Attorney Registration database9 / 10
A6 Roster verifiabilityRegistry7 of 8 named attorneys matched to the New York register; bar numbers published on the bios7.5 / 9
A5 AccountabilityObservedmember of New York State Trial Lawyers Association, New York State Bar Association, New York City Bar Association and 2 more · 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, which New York's advertising rules effectively require0 / 4
CClient Experience
16/20
C1 Authentic volumeObserved1,013 Google reviews · Google Business Profile via Places API. 7 listings, counts summed and rating weighted by count5 / 5
C2 Rating qualityObservedGoogle rating 4.9 over 1,013 reviews → Bayesian 4.89 (prior 4.83 weighted as 100 reviews, from 1410 scored firms) · single platform, Google only5 / 6
C3 Review recencyGoogle8 of 35 sampled reviews are from the last 12 months (newest 2026-08-13) · a sample of five per business listing, not every review2.5 / 5
C5 Complaint shareGoogle0 of 35 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 · 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 · 2026-09-16DR 27 → 47th pct of 79-firm cohort (median 27.5) 1/3 · 905 referring domains, 65th pct 1/2 · 494 organic keywords / 2,471 visits·mo, 62th pct 1/2 · brand demand 0/1 (pending)3 / 8
D3 Local presenceGoogle7 operational Google Business Profile listings · 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 · 2026-09-16content 2/2 · no JSON-LD detected 0/1 · cited in AI answers: 155 citations / 75 pages 1/1 · not assessed on any firm yet, so earned media leave the scale (1 pts)3 / 4
EAccess & Responsiveness
10/15
E1 Free consult & fee transparencyObservedFree consultation · Contingency · the fee percentage itself is not published3 / 6
E3 Languages & accessibilityObservedEnglish, Spanish · video consults2.5 / 4
E4 AvailabilityObserved24/7 case evaluation line · Video consultations · Hospital & home visits · Claim-tracking mobile app5 / 5
Next automated re-check: Nov 1, 2026 · Cohort: New York × Personal Injury (23 firms measured)How the score works →
Re-verification

Certification is a monthly event, not a plaque

Monthly · automated

Re-checked and republished

  • Licensure and disciplinary feeds
  • Review aggregation and authenticity
  • Website crawl and Core Web Vitals
  • GBP, local rankings, authority metrics
  • Scores republish on the 1st business day
Quarterly · human

Tested from the outside

  • AI-search visibility sampling
  • Citation and NAP audit
Annually · audited

Documentation reviewed

  • Outcomes evidence re-examined
  • Peer-recognition inputs refreshed
  • Firm re-attests results and insurance
Immediately · revoked

Badge removed within 30 days

  • Any public discipline or suspension
  • AG or FTC action
  • Verified fake reviews (12-month cooling period)
  • Deceptive website claims · loss of office
  • Revocations logged publicly on the profile
Data sources

Where every point comes from

Licensure & disciplineNYS Attorney Registration database, published as open data by the Unified Court System. Other states as we open them.
Entity & officeNY Department of State active corporations register · Google Business Profile verification
Court outcomesNot used for scoring. CourtListener gives us a queue of dockets to read where a firm is named alongside sanction language, which is editorial work rather than a sub-factor. Verified case results would need docket-by-docket reading, so pillar B scores what a firm publishes instead.
ReviewsGoogle Places API, summed across every business listing a firm operates and weighted by count. One platform so far, which we label on every profile.
Web performance & accessibilityPageSpeed Insights API, on mobile. Accessibility auditing is not yet running.
Search authorityAhrefs, cohort percentiles. A single provider, so the sub-factor says so.
Local presenceGoogle Business Profile completeness, read from the Places API: the categories a listing claims, its opening hours and its photos. Four things the sub-factor asks for have no source we can reach. The firm’s own description, the services list, the Q&A and recent posts are owner-side fields the API does not expose at any price, and we run no citation audit or local-pack rank tracking. The API does return Google’s editorial summary, which is a different thing written by Google about notable places and present for no firm in this directory. Those points leave the scale rather than being scored against a firm that could not have earned them.
Content & structured dataCustom crawler: JSON-LD parsing, byline and credential detection, freshness. Content depth and earned media are not yet assessed on any firm, so those points are out of the scale until they are. Unlike local-pack rank they are measurable, and they should come back.
AI-search visibilitySampled prompts across ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Google AI Overviews, quarterly
Independence & appeals

No firm can pay for a point

Certification, profiles and score breakdowns are free. Our revenue comes from optional annual listings and clearly labeled sponsored placements, none of which touch gates, sub-scores or tiers.

Can a firm pay to be certified or to rank higher?
No. Position in any ranked list comes from the Certification Score, and the score, the eligibility gates and the tier cannot be bought or edited, not even by a firm that manages its own profile. A firm may claim its profile at no cost to keep its information current and to submit case results with a docket for verification, and may buy optional tools. Sponsored placements are always labeled and never appear inside a ranked list.
Can a firm see and dispute its score?
Yes. Every sub-score and its evidence is visible to the firm. Corrections and new documentation can be submitted at any time; formal appeals are reviewed within 30 days by a licensed attorney on our editorial team.
Why include SEO and website signals in a trust score?
Because they are proxies for accountability and real demand. Firms that publish attorney names and bar numbers, state their fees, keep content current and earn links from courts, news outlets and local institutions are easier to verify and harder to fake. Paid ads are excluded, and the pillar is capped so it can never compensate for weak licensure, outcomes or reviews.
How are small-market firms treated fairly?
Percentile-based factors are computed within the firm's cohort, which is a state and practice area, so a regional firm can reach Elite without competing with national brands. A cohort needs enough firms for a percentile to mean anything, and until it has them those factors are left unscored on every profile in it rather than guessed from a handful of peers.
How often does the methodology change?
Changes are versioned and announced 60 days before taking effect; historical scores are preserved. This is version 2.0.
For law firms

See your score before anyone else does

Claim your profile to view your full breakdown, submit results for verification and get a concrete list of what would move you to the next tier.

Claim your firm profileDownload the methodology (PDF)
  • Free: certification cannot be purchased
  • Full sub-score visibility and evidence
  • 30-day appeals reviewed by an attorney
  • Monthly re-scoring as you improve