How to Respond to Negative Reviews: Law Firm Guide

How to respond to negative reviews as a law firm comes down to one line written for lawyers in exactly this situation: ABA Formal Opinion 496 (January 13, 2021) says a negative online review alone does not permit disclosing client information in self-defense.

That line does most of the work on this page, because the replies that feel safest, correcting the record and explaining what really happened, are the ones that leak the most.

This page is the response playbook; the other half, keeping fresh reviews arriving, is the guide to how to get more Google reviews for law firms.

Why the reply is worth an hour of a partner's time

In BrightLocal's Local Consumer Review Survey 2026 (1,002 US adult consumers, published February 2026), 97% of consumers read reviews for local businesses, 41% always read them, and 74% said they only care about reviews from the last three months.

Those numbers cover local businesses generally, not law firms, and they cut both ways: a bad review inside the three-month window is heavy, an older one fades.

Google says local results are mainly based on relevance, distance and prominence, that prominence draws on signals like how many websites link to the business and how many reviews it has, and that no one can request or pay for a better local ranking.

The goal of a response is not to win the argument in public; it is to speak to the next reader who scrolls.

Can lawyers respond to online reviews?

ABA Formal Opinion 496, "Responding to Online Criticism" (January 13, 2021), takes the question head-on, and its answer is that responding is constrained rather than forbidden.

The constraint is confidentiality: the opinion says a negative online review alone does not permit disclosing client information in self-defense.

Scope matters here: the opinion is ABA guidance, the Model Rules behind it bind no one until a state adopts them, and the firm's own state rule controls what actually applies in your state.

The opinion also suggests considering not responding, and on the major platforms a reply is optional.

Lawyer review response confidentiality: the line that does the work

The confidentiality line leaves less room than the reply templates floating around assume.

Explaining what really happened in a matter usually means revealing who the client was, what the matter was about, or both, and the opinion says the review itself does not unlock any of that.

Even confirming that the reviewer was ever a client can disclose protected information, which is why the reply shapes the opinion names avoid the question entirely.

Details that feel harmless (a fee figure, an outcome, a date range) each narrow who the reviewer is.

What a reply can look like

The opinion names replies that do not depend on the file, and Google's own reply guidance lands in the same place.

Google's reply guidance, as of October 2026, adds the platform layer: replies are public, they must follow Google's content policies, and Google advises never sharing a reviewer's private information and moving complex issues to a call or email.

Google's generic tips also recommend addressing the reviewer by name and acknowledging mistakes, which is where a lawyer slows down: a warm acknowledgment can confirm the relationship.

Illustrative wording for the two shapes the opinion names:

• "We take feedback seriously. Professional considerations limit what we can say in a public reply, and we welcome the chance to discuss any concern directly."
• "Because of professional considerations, we're not able to respond in detail here. Our office can be reached directly."

Bad Avvo review response, and other directories

Nothing in ABA Formal Opinion 496 is Google-specific: the opinion is written about online criticism generally, so the same confidentiality line applies to a bad Avvo review, a comment on a legal directory listing, or a post anywhere else.

The removal lever is the same one the opinion names: lawyers may ask the site or search engine host to remove content, and a directory is a site to ask.

Whether any given directory profile earns its keep is a separate question, covered in is Avvo worth it for lawyers.

Removal requests: what changed on October 21, 2024

The FTC's Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (16 CFR Part 465) took effect October 21, 2024 and lets courts impose civil penalties for knowing violations, and the FTC's Q&A counts law firms as businesses under the rule.

Section 465.7 bars using unfounded legal threats, intimidation or knowingly false public accusations to stop or remove a review, which sits directly under the removal conversation a bad review starts.

The same section bars implying that displayed reviews are all or most reviews when negative ones were suppressed, and the FTC says withholding reviews on neutral grounds, like defamatory content, obscene content, confidential information or reviews believed fake, is not suppression.

The FTC's Endorsement Guides (16 CFR Part 255, revised 2023) add that advertisers should not procure, suppress, boost or edit reviews in ways that distort what consumers think; the Guides are interpretive guidance, not a rule with penalties of their own.

The process for the day a bad review lands

Decide the process before you need it.

One pass through that list takes minutes.

Don't overcorrect into suppression

The urge to bury a bad review creates its own exposure.

Google's Maps policy bans businesses from discouraging negative reviews or selectively soliciting positive ones, and the FTC has said that asking only the customers you expect to be happy is not specifically named in the reviews rule but could violate the FTC Act.

The steady fix is the one the review guide covers: ask every client, so the three-month window keeps filling with fresh material.

The longer arc around the profile is law firm reputation management, and republishing client praise on your own site is its own set of rules, covered in the lawyer testimonial rules.

Every rule described here has a state-specific version that controls in your state, so confirm your reply practice with your state bar's ethics counsel or an ethics lawyer before the next bad review arrives.

Frequently asked questions