Law firms posting nothing but perfect reviews on their websites risk breaching rules around misleading publicity, an access to justice charity has claimed. Blind Justice UK said its analysis of 50 firms showed that every single one of the 486 testimonials was for five stars.
The firms tested were from different locations and specialised in different practice areas, suggesting this is a trend prevalent throughout the profession. The research also found several duplicate entries within multiple firms’ testimonial pages, including identical text attributed to different reviewers and templated marketing copy presented as client testimonials.
Firms are hardly likely to post negative reviews on their own websites, but Blind Justice says that by presenting such a one-sided picture, they are potentially breaching Solicitors Regulation Authority requirements to ensure that any publicity is accurate and not misleading.
A spokesperson said: ‘Law firms across the UK appear to be systematically curating or selectively presenting online reviews, building large, uniformly positive review profiles on platforms they control while avoiding those they cannot. This is not merely a transparency failure; it risks constituting a breach of professional conduct obligations, consumer protection law, and the public trust that underpins the solicitor-client relationship.
‘Online reviews now play a central role in how consumers choose a solicitor, particularly for those with no prior experience of the legal system. That makes the accuracy of those representations, and the way they are presented, a matter of direct public interest.’
Blind Justice pointed out that the Competition and Markets Authority last month announced that five companies were under investigation for potentially misleading reviews. These were in the funeral, food delivery and car sales industries, but the CMA has shown in the past that it is willing to intervene in the legal sector if there is an issue identified.
While all of the 50 firms analysed had client testimonials on their websites, just 28% appeared on Google Reviews and 24% were on Yell – both sites where there is less control over what reviewers say about them.
More than three-quarters of all website testimonials analysed were attributed to ‘Anonymous’ or carried no reviewer name at all. Blind Justice said these unverifiable reviews represented the lowest standard of evidence a firm could present, being unable to be checked by consumers or regulators.
The charity added: ‘The SRA’s position appears to be that website testimonials are a matter for individual firm discretion, not a regulatory concern. This position is difficult to sustain.'
2 Readers' comments