How Attorneys Should Respond to Negative Online Reviews

The right way for an attorney to respond to a negative online review is to acknowledge it briefly, never disclose anything about the client or the matter, and move the conversation offline. That is the rule the American Bar Association laid out in Formal Opinion 496, issued January 13, 2021, and it has shaped how lawyers across the United States handle online criticism ever since.

Reviews live online forever. So does a careless reply. The pressure to defend yourself in public is real, especially when the post feels unfair, but the same words that protect your reputation in court can sink it on Google. Knowing the difference is part of the work.

Why a single review can move the needle

People do not hire lawyers the way they used to. They search a name, read what other people wrote, and decide in a few minutes whether to make the call. According to the 2024 Clio Legal Trends Report, online reviews and a firm's responsiveness to communication rank among the strongest factors clients weigh when choosing an attorney.

That makes one negative review a small marketing problem and a much bigger ethics problem at the same time. Replying poorly is worse than not replying at all. The American Bar Association went so far as to suggest, in many cases, that silence is the safer course.

The ethical line: ABA Model Rule 1.6 and Formal Opinion 496

The duty of confidentiality is the heart of the issue. ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(a) states that a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized, or one of the narrow exceptions in subsection (b) applies. The exception attorneys most often reach for is Rule 1.6(b)(5), the self-defense provision, which permits disclosure to establish a claim or defense in a controversy between the lawyer and the client.

ABA Formal Opinion 496 closed that door. The Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility concluded that a negative online review, on its own, is not a "controversy between the lawyer and the client" within the meaning of Rule 1.6(b)(5). Even if it were, a public response would not be reasonably necessary to establish a defense. In plain language: a Yelp review is not a lawsuit, and a comment thread is not a courtroom.

The opinion also warned that even an indirect denial can give the game away. A lawyer who writes "the events did not happen as described" may have just confirmed the client-attorney relationship, the existence of the matter, and the lawyer's involvement in it. That alone can breach Rule 1.6.

What you can say without violating confidentiality

Formal Opinion 496 offers a phrase lawyers can adapt without disclosing anything: "Professional obligations do not allow me to respond as I would wish." The Massachusetts Bar Counsel suggested a slightly warmer version in a 2018 advisory: an expression of regret that the reviewer feels this way, a note that the rules of professional conduct prevent public discussion of the engagement, and an offer to speak privately.

The structure matters more than the exact words. A safe response usually has four pieces: a calm acknowledgment, an explicit reference to the duty of confidentiality, an invitation to continue the conversation offline, and absolutely nothing about the case itself.

A simple framework for responding

Below is a side-by-side of what tends to work and what tends to backfire when a negative review lands on your profile.

When the reviewer was never your client

Sometimes the post comes from someone you turned away, someone the firm declined to represent, or a person you have never met. The confidentiality duty under Rule 1.6 only applies to information obtained during a lawyer-client relationship, so the analysis shifts.

You may state, factually, that the person was never represented by your firm, as long as they are not a prospective client entitled to the protections of Model Rule 1.18. You may also ask the platform — Google, Yelp, Avvo, or another host — to take the post down under its own policies. Many platforms will remove a review that violates their terms, particularly when the reviewer is impersonating a client or posting clearly false information.

State variations: where the rule bends

Most U.S. jurisdictions have adopted some version of ABA Model Rule 1.6, but the wording varies in ways that change what attorneys can say. A few examples:

The takeaway is to check your jurisdiction's version of Rule 1.6 and any state bar opinion before you publish a response. The cost of a thirty-minute review with your state bar's ethics hotline is far smaller than the cost of a disciplinary complaint.

Soliciting positive reviews without crossing the line

The best defense against the occasional bad review is a steady flow of honest good ones. The rules around how you ask for them changed in 2018, when the ABA amended Model Rule 7.2(b)(5) to allow nominal gifts as expressions of appreciation — provided the gift is not intended or reasonably expected to be compensation for the recommendation.

That permission is narrow. The comment to Rule 7.2 describes the gift as "a token item as might be given for holidays or other ordinary social hospitality." A coffee shop card after a closed matter is fine. A fifty-dollar incentive in exchange for a five-star review is not. Practical guardrails for a clean intake-to-review pipeline include:

1. Ask only at the natural end of the matter, never as a condition of service or fee
2. Send a neutral request that links to a review platform without scripting the language
3. Never offer cash, fee discounts, or anything tied to the content of the review
4. Confirm your specific state bar has not added stricter limits on review solicitation

Building a reputation that absorbs criticism

A practice with three reviews and one is bad looks fragile. A practice with sixty reviews and a few are bad looks human. Volume changes how a single negative review reads, both to potential clients and to search algorithms. The same logic that helps lawyers in civil litigation — building the strongest record over time, not winning every isolated point — applies to online reputation.

The other half is presence. Consistent, accurate listings on a verified Google Business Profile, an updated state bar page, and complete profiles on platforms such as Avvo, Justia, FindLaw, and AttorneyReview create the foundation. A claimed profile signals to search engines and to clients that you are paying attention. An ignored profile suggests the opposite.

What to do in the first 72 hours after a bad review

Time is the part lawyers underestimate. The hours after you read the review are when the most damaging replies get drafted. Slow it down. The ABA's guidance, simplified into a workflow, looks like this:

1. Read the review. Close the tab. Do not draft anything for at least one full day
2. Document the post — full screenshot, URL, date, the reviewer's display name
3. Determine whether the reviewer was a client, a prospective client under Rule 1.18, or neither
4. If the post violates the platform's policies, request removal in writing through the proper channel
5. If a public reply is appropriate, draft language that acknowledges nothing about the matter and references your confidentiality obligation
6. Have a colleague — ideally one not involved in the underlying matter — read the draft before posting
7. Save the final response and the review in a file dedicated to reputation incidents

If the review names allegations serious enough to feel like a real claim — a fee dispute escalating, a threat of disciplinary complaint, a malpractice accusation — the situation has stopped being a marketing problem and started being a legal one. That is the moment to call your professional liability carrier and your bar's ethics counsel, not to draft a public reply.

The long game

Reputation is not built in the comment box of a review platform. It is built in how you handle intake calls when you are tired, how you communicate fee structures before there is anything to argue about, and how you close a matter with a client whose expectations were never quite aligned with reality. Negative reviews shrink in importance when the rest of the practice is doing its job. Decide today whether your firm has a written protocol for review responses — if it does not, drafting one this week is a smaller project than it sounds, and the next bad review will be the moment you wish you had.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a lawyer sue a former client for defamation over a negative review?

Technically yes, but it is rarely advisable. Filing suit against a former client almost always draws far more attention to the original review (a phenomenon often called the Streisand effect) and may create disciplinary exposure of its own. Most ethics counsel recommend exhausting platform-removal options first.

Does Formal Opinion 496 apply in my state?

ABA opinions are persuasive, not binding. Each state bar interprets its own Rule 1.6, and most have aligned with the reasoning in Opinion 496. A handful — D.C. most notably — read the self-defense exception more broadly. Always check your state's published ethics opinions.

What if the review is completely fabricated?

If the reviewer was never a client and you can prove it without revealing confidential information, you may say so factually. You may also report the post to the platform, which will often remove fabricated reviews under its terms of service.

Can I ask my clients to remove their negative reviews?

You may communicate privately with a former client to discuss their concerns. You may not condition continued representation, fee adjustments, or any benefit on removal of the review. That can violate Rule 7.2 and, depending on the wording, could be construed as coercion.

Are there platforms where attorneys cannot respond at all?

Most major review platforms allow business owners, including law firms, to claim profiles and post replies. The platform rules are separate from the ethics rules, and the stricter of the two governs. If a platform allows responses but your state bar restricts them, follow the bar.

Is silence really an acceptable response?

Yes. Formal Opinion 496 explicitly suggests that lawyers consider not responding, since a public reply often draws more attention to the post and invites further criticism from an already unhappy reviewer.

How long should it take me to respond, if I do respond?

There is no fixed deadline. Most ethics consultants recommend at least 24 to 48 hours of cooling-off time before drafting anything. Quick replies tend to be emotional replies, and emotional replies are where confidentiality breaches happen.

Can my marketing agency reply on my behalf?

Only with extreme caution. The lawyer remains professionally responsible for any communication made in the firm's name. Any agency response should be reviewed by an attorney who understands the firm's confidentiality obligations before it is posted.

Do reviews on attorney-specific directories carry more weight than Yelp or Google?

For SEO purposes, Google reviews tend to carry the most visibility in local search. For trust signals to legal consumers, attorney-specific directories like AttorneyReview, Avvo, and Martindale-Hubbell often carry equal or greater weight, because the reviewers there are actively comparing lawyers rather than businesses in general.

What if I receive a complaint with a state bar after responding to a review?

Stop posting publicly about the matter immediately. Contact your malpractice carrier. Most insurers have ethics counsel available to firms responding to bar complaints, and the earlier you involve them, the better the response tends to be.

Disclaimer

Bruna Cairo is not a licensed attorney. This content is for general informational purposes only, is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

If you are an attorney looking to grow your practice and connect with potential clients actively comparing legal representation, list your practice on AttorneyReview.com and put your firm in front of consumers ready to make a decision.