Avvo review removal: what lawyers can dispute

Avvo review removal is possible only on narrow grounds. A lawyer can ask Avvo to remove a review that breaks its Community Guidelines, for example one written by someone who was never a client, but cannot delete a review for being negative, cannot edit the Avvo Rating, and cannot have the profile deleted. The same pattern holds across the other legal directories: each lets the lawyer claim the profile, answer, flag or opt out in different ways, and none treats "I disagree" as a ground for removal.

The second layer separates this from other review problems. A lawyer who answers a client review is bound by confidentiality rules where they are licensed, and in most opinions we could read those rules allow far less than the platform does. It is information, not legal advice: your own bar's ethics guidance decides what you may say.

Policies are described as of the pages read for this guide and change without notice, so check the cited page before you file. Where a rule or page could not be read, the text says so.

14 daysFindLaw holds a new review before it publishes unless the attorney acts first

7 + 7 daysJustia gives the reviewer, then the lawyer, a week each on a flagged review

Hide, not deletewhat Martindale-Hubbell offers for ratings and reviews

Figures come from the FindLaw ratings and reviews FAQ, the Justia client reviews policy and the Martindale-Hubbell consumer guide, read for this guide.

Avvo review removal: what a lawyer can dispute, and what stays

A lawyer can dispute an Avvo review only on the ground that it does not meet Avvo's Community Guidelines. Avvo's support page on negative reviews tells lawyers to check the review against those guidelines and, if it fails, to contact Customer Care to dispute it for possible removal. The same page says moderation is the same whether or not the lawyer advertises with Avvo, and a separate page says attorneys cannot pay to improve or remove reviews.

Related readApple Maps and Bing Places Review Management

The guidelines name the grounds. A review must come from personal experience with a lawyer the reviewer hired or consulted outside Avvo. Reviews that appear to be about a lawyer the reviewer never consulted are not posted, which Avvo says includes opposing counsel and the lawyer acting for a spouse or family member. Accusations of criminal activity against an attorney are not posted. Avvo also excludes hearsay, personal information such as addresses and phone numbers, abusive content such as threats and harassment, and content generated by automated tools. Reviews are generally not allowed where the payor and the client have conflicting interests or the attorney acts as a neutral, as in probate, mediation, arbitration and guardianship.

Three limits shape every Avvo dispute.

• Avvo does not judge the facts. Its page on real contacts says it does not investigate or decide factual disputes between clients and attorneys. A real client who says you were slow or wrong is within the guidelines even if you disagree.
• You will not be told who wrote it. Avvo does not share reviewer identity, even with the attorney. Frame the dispute around what your files show, such as "this person never engaged us".
• The guidelines do not address confidentiality in reviews. The version read has no ground for a reviewer disclosing case facts. If a review exposes personal information, cite that ground.

Sources differ on the mechanics. Avvo's support page describes contacting Customer Care. A 2024 article from the Illinois Commission on Professionalism describes a flag that hides the review while Avvo asks the reviewer to confirm they were a real or potential client; a confirmed review returns, with any edits. We could not confirm that sequence on an Avvo page, so do not plan around the hiding step.

A negative review from a genuine client stays, even a harsh one within the rules. Avvo's page says one negative review does not define a profile and suggests asking satisfied clients for genuine reviews over time.

The Avvo Rating and peer endorsements are not reviews

The Avvo Rating is a 1 to 10 score calculated from a lawyer's background, and it cannot be disputed the way a review is. Avvo's pages say it draws on experience, credentials, recognition such as awards, publications and peer endorsements, and disciplinary history. Client reviews never affect it, and Avvo does not publish the weights.

Related readRemove eBay Feedback: What Qualifies and How

Peer endorsements are one factor among many. The pages read give no process for contesting or removing an endorsement.

On disputes, Avvo's rating page says it does not adjust ratings on request and that a lawyer who finds an error should update the profile or work with the relevant bar or agency to correct the public record. A separate page says Avvo does not adjust ratings or remove attorney profiles. What it does allow is narrow: a lawyer with no disciplinary history who is not seeking legal clients through Avvo can ask to have the numerical rating hidden. If Avvo approves, the profile is left out of practice-area search results, but the licensing details and the client reviews stay visible.

Courts have not given lawyers a legal lever either. In a 2018 decision, Davis v. Avvo, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 3d 534, a federal court in New York dismissed a lawyer's false advertising claim over Avvo's ratings and held that the ratings are protected opinion, because the system is subjective and a reasonable consumer reads a rating as Avvo's own evaluation. That is one district court's ruling, not a rule for every court.

Claiming a profile gives control of the facts, not of the reviews

Claiming an Avvo profile is free and lets a lawyer correct the facts the rating is built from. Avvo says it fills in basic details for about 97 percent of US attorneys from public data: state bar and licensing agencies, court records, lawyers' own websites and professional association sites. It also says it does not control those sources, so an error that started at a bar record has to be fixed at the bar.

Related readAirbnb review removal: what qualifies and how

Claiming means finding the profile by name, choosing a method (LinkedIn, Facebook, email or phone) and confirming. A claimed profile can be edited and items deleted; for an unclaimed one, Customer Care can make edits by email. Nothing on the Avvo pages read suggests claiming gives control over reviews.

The adoption risk in claiming

Claiming can carry a conduct risk unrelated to Avvo's rules. In October 2009 the South Carolina Bar's ethics advisory committee, as reported by the ABA Journal, said a lawyer who claims a listing and updates it beyond directory corrections takes responsibility for its content, including what others posted, and treated client testimonials as barred there. Avvo's general counsel was quoted calling the opinion largely a nonissue because it was not binding. We read the news report, not the opinion, and it is old, so treat it as a prompt, not current law. Before claiming a profile, check how your bar treats directory listings, ratings and testimonials.

ABA Model Rule 7.1 bars a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. How it applies to ratings and reviews you display varies by state, and the rule's comments could not be read for this guide.

Justia, FindLaw and Martindale-Hubbell each run a different dispute mechanism

The other directories give the lawyer different levers, so a plan built around Avvo's process does not transfer. The table compares them on what the pages say.

Justia

Justia's client reviews policy says a review must be based on an attorney-client relationship and that Justia may ask for proof such as an engagement letter. Non-client and fake reviews are prohibited, friends and family should not leave client reviews unless they received legal services, and content protected by privilege or sealed by court order is barred. Lawyers cannot remove a review on their own. A review is published even if the lawyer responds, unless the lawyer flags it.

Related readRemove BBB complaint: what BBB will and will not do

The flag is the distinctive lever. A flagged review is held. The reviewer has seven days to verify; if they do not, the review is permanently unpublished. If they do, the lawyer has seven days to add information, and the review is unpublished if that information shows it should not be published. If the lawyer adds nothing, it is published. Justia may require a retainer agreement or similar proof to keep a disputed review up. A lawyer can also opt out of client reviews at any time and still receive peer reviews.

FindLaw

FindLaw's ratings and reviews FAQ describes a review that is verified by the reviewer's email and then held for 14 days, publishing automatically unless the attorney acts first. In that window the attorney can verify that the reviewer was a client or consultation contact, contact the reviewer, report the review, or publish it at once. A reply, once made, is posted on FindLaw beside the review. After publication, the report button covers grounds such as profanity, spam and references to unrelated businesses; a negative review alone is not grounds for removal. A verified review can be disputed, and FindLaw's review team gathers information from both sides and decides. Switching ratings and reviews off removes all reviews from the profile. Attorneys cannot reject reviews, edit them or pay to suppress them.

Martindale-Hubbell and Lawyers.com

Martindale-Hubbell separates peer review ratings, given anonymously by other lawyers on five criteria once a confidential minimum of responses is met, from client reviews by people who hired or consulted the lawyer. Its consumer guide says lawyers may place a one-time comment beside any feedback and may stop the display of reviews by written request or phone, after which a notice says the lawyer chose not to display them. The page gives no procedure for disputing an individual rating or review.

Related readHealthgrades review removal: what the policies allow

The guide also says each lawyer is wholly responsible for making sure any use of the ratings complies with the ethics rules that apply. We could not read a Lawyers.com-specific review policy, so none is described.

Super Lawyers and other selection-based lists

Super Lawyers is a selection list, not a review platform. Its page describes peer nominations, research on indicators of peer recognition, a peer panel and final selection by firm size, and cites a special master's opinion that a lawyer cannot buy a place on the list. It names no opt-out or dispute process; the only lever is accuracy, since the company says it contacts each lawyer to confirm published information.

What the confidentiality rules let a lawyer say in reply

In most jurisdictions we could read, a lawyer may not reveal client information in a public reply to a negative review, and a lawyer should seriously consider not replying at all. ABA Formal Opinion 496 (a copy hosted by the Colorado Bar Association), dated January 13, 2021, is the national reference point. It is an advisory opinion of the American Bar Association, not a binding rule, because each state adopts and interprets its own rules.

Opinion 496 reasons from ABA Model Rule 1.6. The ABA page carrying the model rule could not be read, so this is the opinion's own account. Rule 1.6(a) bars revealing information relating to the representation, including information that could reasonably lead to discovery of confidential information, even if it is publicly available. The self-defense exception in Rule 1.6(b)(5) covers a controversy between the lawyer and the client, and the opinion concludes a negative review is not one, and that a public response would not be reasonably necessary even if it were.

Related readZillow agent review removal: what agents can do

What the opinion allows is short. A lawyer may invite the reviewer to contact them privately, may say that professional obligations prevent a fuller response, and may ask the website or search engine to remove a post. In that request the lawyer may say the post is inaccurate or that the poster was never a client, but may disclose no client information.

State opinions we could read

• Michigan (R-26, February 25, 2022). The exception for defending against an accusation of wrongful conduct usually does not apply to negative reviews, because a legal claim or disciplinary charge should ordinarily be the predicate.
• Texas (Opinion 662, August 2016). A lawyer may not publish a response to a former client's review that reveals confidential information; Rule 1.05(c)(5) is read as covering formal actions, proceedings or charges.
• North Carolina (2020 Formal Ethics Opinion 1, adopted July 16, 2021). A restrained reply is allowed, but no confidential information without consent or an exception. A lawyer may say they never represented a non-client reviewer, but for a declined prospective client may neither confirm nor deny the representation.
• New York (State Bar Opinion 1032, October 30, 2014). No confidential information solely to answer a former client's criticism on a review site; the self-defense exception needs an accusation of wrongful conduct, which the committee reads as more than casual venting, and it did not decide whether a material threat would do. This is the committee's 2014 reading of the rules then in force; the current New York rules text could not be read, so check it.
• Colorado (Formal Opinion 135, March 18, 2019). No outright bar on responding, but Colorado authority does not clearly settle whether criticism creates a controversy; a general response with no client details is suggested.
• Arizona (Ethics Opinion 19-10, December 6, 2022). A minority position. As reproduced on a third-party site, disclosure is allowed only as reasonably necessary to answer a serious, specific, facially credible accusation, after lesser options such as a removal request, and not responding is usually best. The bar's own page could not be read.
• Illinois (reprimand, reported January 2014). The ABA Journal reported a stipulated reprimand of a Chicago lawyer who answered a former client's Avvo review with case details that exceeded what was necessary. It is one disciplinary outcome, not a general rule.
• England and Wales (SRA Code of Conduct, paragraph 6.3). A solicitor must keep the affairs of current and former clients confidential unless disclosure is required or permitted by law or the client consents. We did not read any SRA guidance specific to online reviews.

Most of these treat a public review as not creating the controversy the exception needs, and a minority allow narrow disclosure. Apart from Arizona's narrow case, none let a lawyer use confidential facts in public without consent or a recognized exception. If you practice somewhere not listed, we have not read your rule.

Asking for removal without breaching the rules

You can ask a directory to take a review down without revealing anything, and Opinion 496 says so: the request may not disclose client information unless the client consents, but it may say the post is inaccurate or that the reviewer was never a client. For a lawyer this shapes how the dispute is written.

Write the request on the platform's ground, not on the facts of the matter. On Avvo, say the review fails the personal experience requirement. On Justia, say you cannot verify an attorney-client relationship and flag it so the reviewer must provide proof. On FindLaw, use the 14-day window. None needs a description of the representation, and a request that must describe the case to be understood is usually one the rules do not let you send.

Contacting the reviewer is also limited. North Carolina's opinion allows asking a reviewer to discuss concerns, but allows nothing of value in exchange for changing or removing a review, though removal may be a term in resolving a legitimate legal claim such as defamation. It also held that an engagement clause pre-authorizing disclosure if the client posts criticism does not support informed consent.

Related readRemove Amazon seller feedback: what qualifies

What cannot be removed from a lawyer directory

• A genuine client's negative review. FindLaw says a negative review alone is not grounds for removal, and Avvo's grounds do not include disagreement.
• The Avvo Rating and Avvo's profile. Avvo says it does not adjust ratings on request and does not remove attorney profiles. A hide request for the number is the limited alternative.
• Public record data. Disciplinary history and licensing details come from bars and courts. Correction happens at the source.
• A selection or peer rating you disagree with. The Super Lawyers and Martindale-Hubbell pages read describe no way to contest one; Martindale-Hubbell's stated route is hiding.

A court route against a reviewer has legal tests these sources did not cover. Avvo's page says subpoenas for reviewer information are handled under its parent company's terms and are subject to judicial review and First Amendment standards.

The order of work, with a realistic timeline

1. Check your own records firstLook for an engagement letter, intake form or consultation record before writing anything, and copy no client detail into a draft you may post.
2. Match the review to a platform groundCompare it with the Avvo guidelines, the Justia policy or the FindLaw report grounds. If it fits none, skip the dispute.
3. Use the holding windowsOn Justia and FindLaw, act before publication: a flagged Justia review is held, and a FindLaw review auto-publishes after 14 days.
4. File the dispute on the ground onlySay "no client relationship found" or name the guideline, with no description of the matter. Keep a dated copy.
5. Decide whether to reply at allIf you reply, use a generic note that invites a private conversation and confirms nothing. Have another lawyer read it first.
6. Fix what you controlClaim or correct the profile, fix public record errors at the bar or court, and ask satisfied clients for reviews within your bar's rules.
7. Recheck on a scheduleLook again after each platform's stated window and record the outcome. If a refusal looks wrong, ask for reasons in writing.

The timeline below follows the policies for a review from a non-client. Avvo states no timeline, so none is given.

Next step: pick the platform ground before you write anything

Questions people ask

Can a lawyer delete an Avvo profile?

Not on the pages we read. Avvo says it does not remove attorney profiles. A lawyer with no disciplinary history who is not seeking clients through Avvo can ask to hide the numerical rating, but the profile, licensing details and client reviews stay visible. Avvo's article on deleting a profile could not be fetched.

Can I find out who wrote an Avvo review?

Avvo says no. It does not share reviewer identity or contact information, even with the attorney being reviewed. Outside a formal legal process it will not disclose them. Justia works the other way: it gives the lawyer the reviewer's name and email, though the display name can be shortened.

Is it ethical to ask a client to take a review down?

Often yes, if it is a polite request that discloses nothing. North Carolina's opinion allows asking a reviewer to discuss concerns, but forbids offering anything of value in exchange for a changed or removed review. ABA Opinion 496 allows asking a site to remove a post. Rules differ by state, so check yours.

Can I reply to an Avvo review with the facts of the case?

In most jurisdictions we read, no. Opinion 496 and the Michigan, Texas, North Carolina and New York opinions say a negative review does not let a lawyer reveal client information. Arizona's opinion takes a narrower, minority view. A short generic reply, or none, is safer.