For law firms & legal practices

A former opposing party
isn't a former client.

Legal practices see a specific pattern other sectors rarely do: a review from someone on the other side of a case — an opposing party, their family member, or a client who lost a matter — framed as a service review. We check for the actual ground (no attorney-client relationship existed, conflict of interest, confidential-matter exposure) rather than the outcome the reviewer didn't like.

Check a Google review ↗See what this covers ↓
Free first checkFrom €299 for caseworkNo outcome guarantee

Situations we actually see

What this looks like
for law firms & legal practices.

Every case still starts with the same policy check — these are the situations where law firms & legal practices most often have a real route worth checking.

Worth a free check

Situations like these.

  • ✓ A reviewer was never a client — they were the opposing party, a witness, or connected to one
  • ✓ The review discloses details of a matter that should be confidential, whether or not the reviewer was a client
  • ✓ A negative review appears to be timed to a case outcome rather than describing the working relationship itself
  • ✓ A review makes a specific, checkable factual claim about the firm's conduct that public records or files can address
Usually not a removal route

We do not file cases for these reasons.

  • — A real customer gives a low rating
  • — The review is unpleasant but expresses an opinion
  • — There is no policy ground or supporting context
  • — The objective is to hide genuine criticism

Law Firms & Legal Practices FAQ

Questions we hear
most often.

Can you remove a review from a client who lost their case?+

Losing a case isn't a ground on its own — a real client's honest account of the relationship, even an unhappy one, is exactly what Google review policy protects. We look for a specific breach: no relationship, confidentiality exposure, or a factual claim that's demonstrably false.

The review discloses details from the case file — is that automatically removable?+

It's a strong signal worth checking urgently, especially where the reviewer wasn't authorised to share that information. Confidentiality exposure is one of the clearer policy grounds we assess.

Do you need to see the case file to assess this?+

No — we need enough to establish whether a genuine attorney-client relationship existed and what's factually disputed, never privileged case content itself.

Start with the review itself

One review.
One honest assessment.

Use the free check to see whether a legitimate Google route may exist for your situation.

Check a Google review ↗