Plumb
C

Lawyer ratings & legal marketing directory

Martindale-Hubbell

Internet Brands (MH Sub I, LLC); part of the Martindale-Avvo Legal Marketing Network

Ratings & rankings Free to read Visit Martindale-Hubbell ↗

A confidential peer-opinion lawyer rating, with prominence you can buy around it.

What it's really for A legal rating and marketing directory; the AV ratings are peer-based, the prominence around them is sold.

What our grade covers The grade on this page is about its 'AV' attorney peer-review ratings, not everything the site does.

Medium Scoring Confidence Mostly sourced, but a detail or two still needs a primary source, so the grade could shift slightly.

Follow the money

Rated lawyers and their firms are the paying customers: ratings are nominally free and separate from advertising, but the same company sells those lawyers paid profiles, SEO/PPC, and websites that buy higher visibility in the directory, so paying correlates with placement/prominence while the AV rating itself is not directly purchasable.

Source →
Operating since
1887 (139 years) · source
What it costs you
Free to read The reviews are free to read.
How they make money
It makes money by selling lawyers paid profiles, law-firm websites, SEO/PPC advertising, and lead generation across Martindale.com, Lawyers.com, and Nolo, not by charging for the peer ratings themselves.
What they do
It issues attorney "AV" Peer Review Ratings (Preeminent / Distinguished / Notable) based on confidential surveys of other lawyers and judges, and publishes lawyer profiles in an online legal directory.
What to watch for
The rating is a confidential peer-opinion survey, not a test of case outcomes or verified client results, and a lawyer's prominence in the directory can be bought through paid profiles and advertising even though the badge itself cannot.
Composite score
2.20 / 5.00 → grade C

How the grade was reached

Independence · 30% weight 2 / 5

Does the site take money from the very entities it ranks? Pay-for-placement, vendor-funded data, and affiliate commissions all pull this down. The less the ranking can be bought, the higher the score.

Evidence basis · 30% weight 2 / 5

What is the ranking actually built on? Hands-on testing scores highest, then verified first-hand reviews, then opinion or popularity surveys and self-reported figures, then pay-to-rank, which scores lowest.

Method transparency · 20% weight 3 / 5

Is the methodology published, specific, and reproducible? Can a reader see how a given rank was reached, or is it a black box?

Conflict disclosure · 10% weight 2 / 5

Are commercial relationships, sponsorships, and affiliate arrangements disclosed clearly and near the rankings themselves, rather than buried?

Manipulation resistance · 10% weight 2 / 5

How hard is it to game? Controls against fake reviews, solicited reviews, and vendor gaming raise this; an open box anyone can stuff lowers it.

Evidence

Compare with others

Others reviewing professional services (compare all →)

← Back to the Report Card