Uncategorized

Law Firm Reputation Management: 2026 Strategy

A lot of firms realize they have a reputation problem the same way they realize they have an intake problem. The phone slows down, consult quality gets uneven, and a name search starts showing things the partners haven't looked at in months. Usually, the instinct is to “get more reviews.” That helps, but it's only […]

Law Firm Reputation Management: 2026 Strategy
Platform What to review What usually goes wrong
Google Business Profile Reviews, recent photos, Q&A, categories, contact info Old office hours, no responses, weak profile detail
Avvo and legal directories Bio accuracy, awards, practice areas, client review visibility Incomplete profiles, outdated credentials
Social media Brand consistency, posting quality, comments, abandoned pages Dormant accounts that make the firm look inactive
Website Attorney bios, practice pages, testimonials, intake paths Thin content, old staff pages, unclear calls to action
Alert type Owner Response expectation
Positive review Marketing or client experience lead Publish a response using approved language
Neutral or service complaint Marketing plus office manager Review facts and decide whether outreach is needed
Serious accusation Managing attorney plus counsel Pause public response until facts are verified
Listing error or duplicate profile Marketing or operations Correct directly on platform
Media mention or social pile-on Leadership plus marketing Evaluate whether a statement is needed
Don't do this Why it hurts
Confirm someone was a client It can reveal confidential relationship information
Re-litigate the matter online It looks defensive and often escalates the dispute
Copy and paste a robotic reply to every review It signals indifference
Ignore neutral feedback Those reviews often carry useful signals for future clients
Let attorneys respond emotionally The risk is too high without a review process
Content type Reputation value Common mistake
Attorney bios High Writing them like resumes instead of trust-building pages
Practice area pages High Making them broad and interchangeable
FAQ content High Ignoring the concerns real clients ask during intake
News and commentary Medium Chasing trends with no clear relevance
Generic blog libraries Low to medium Publishing volume without quality or strategy
Situation Why escalation matters
False factual accusation It may raise defamation issues
Doctored or misleading visual content Evidence preservation and takedown strategy matter
Former employee allegations Employment and public messaging risk intersect
Coordinated anonymous attacks Platform reporting and legal options may need to work together
Media pressure with incomplete facts Public statements can create downstream exposure
Timeframe Primary focus Deliverables
Days 1 to 30 Baseline and cleanup Audit, profile corrections, response policy, monitoring setup
Days 31 to 60 Process build CRM triggers, review request templates, owner assignments, content priorities
Days 61 to 90 Refinement Response consistency, branded content updates, crisis protocol review

lemur

Enough reading

Let's build something inevitable.

If a dispatch struck a nerve, that's usually the start of a project. Tell us what's broken — we'll tell you honestly whether we can help.