A 5-star Google rating is something most law firms would be happy to have. It suggests clients who leave reviews have had positive experiences, and it can strengthen a firm’s reputation when potential clients are deciding whom to contact.
But does a 5-star rating also mean a law firm is easy to find?
To explore that question, I analyzed 100 personal injury law firm listings appearing in Google Maps across five Colorado markets: Denver, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Boulder and Pueblo.
The results suggest a more complicated picture. Review volume was associated with stronger Maps visibility, but neither a high rating nor a large number of reviews guaranteed prominent placement.
A 5-star rating did not guarantee top visibility
Of the 100 listings analyzed, 41 had a perfect 5.0 rating. Yet 21 of those 41, or 51.2%, appeared outside the top 10 Maps results.
The pattern wasn’t limited to perfect ratings. Among the 73 listings rated 4.8 or higher, 46.6% appeared outside the top 10.
Across the sample, average star rating did not show a statistically significant association with Maps position.
That does not mean ratings are unimportant, nor does this analysis attempt to determine how Google weighs ratings in its local search systems. It simply means that, in this sample, a high average rating by itself was not a reliable indicator of where a firm appeared.
For law firm owners, that distinction matters. A strong rating can tell you something about the experiences clients chose to share. It doesn’t necessarily tell you whether potential clients can find the firm when searching for an attorney.
Review volume showed a clearer relationship
The number of reviews told a different story.
Among listings appearing in positions 1 through 5, the median review count was 127. For positions 6 through 10, it was 76. Among listings in positions 11 through 20, the median fell to 27.5.
In other words, the median review count among the top five listings was approximately 4.6 times that of listings appearing in positions 11 through 20.
Statistical analysis also showed a significant association between higher review volume and better Maps position.
Because review competition differs from city to city, I also measured each firm’s review strength against other listings in its own market. The pattern held. Firms appearing in the top 10 tended to have stronger review counts relative to their local competitors than firms appearing in positions 11 through 20.
To make sure firms with unusually high review counts weren’t skewing the results, I repeated the analysis without the highest 5% of review counts. The relationship remained statistically significant.
More reviews were not a guarantee either
The relationship between review volume and visibility shouldn’t be interpreted as a formula.
Of the 100 listings studied, 49 had more reviews than the median listing in their respective market. Seventeen of those 49, or 34.7%, still appeared outside the top 10.
So while firms with more reviews tended to appear higher in this sample, having more reviews than the median firm in the same market did not guarantee prominent placement.
This creates an important diagnostic question for law firm owners. If a firm already has a competitive review profile but still has weak local visibility, simply assuming it needs more reviews may overlook other issues.
Having great reviews doesn’t necessarily mean potential clients can find you.
The competitive standard changes by city
The data also showed why review counts are more useful when viewed in local context.
Among the 20 listings analyzed in each market, the median review counts were:
- Colorado Springs: 130
- Denver: 104.5
- Fort Collins: 79
- Boulder: 38
- Pueblo: 10
The median in Colorado Springs was 13 times the median in Pueblo.
That doesn’t mean a Colorado Springs law firm needs 130 reviews to compete, or that 10 reviews are sufficient in Pueblo. The analysis wasn’t designed to establish ranking thresholds.
Instead, it illustrates the problem with applying a single review benchmark to every law firm.
A firm with 80 reviews may have a very different competitive position depending on where it practices and which firms appear alongside it.
What should law firm owners look at?
For law firm owners evaluating local marketing performance, the findings suggest that reviews are most useful when viewed as part of a larger picture.
Start by asking how your review count compares with the firms actually appearing around you. Then look at where your firm appears for searches connected to the practice areas you want to grow.
It is also worth separating two questions that can easily get combined: “Do our clients rate us highly?” and “Can potential clients find us?”
If the firm has strong ratings and competitive review volume but still struggles to appear prominently, that is a signal to investigate other factors affecting local visibility rather than assuming another round of review collection will solve the problem.
Google Maps results can be influenced by factors beyond those measured in this analysis, and this study was not designed to identify which of those factors caused any particular firm’s position.
A 5-star rating is still worth earning. It reflects something important about the experiences clients chose to share.
But it doesn’t answer another important business question: Can potential clients find the firm when they’re looking for a lawyer?
For law firm owners trying to answer that question, reviews become more useful when viewed in context: how the firm compares with local competitors, where it actually appears in relevant searches and whether a strong review profile is accompanied by strong visibility.
Methodology: This analysis examined the first 20 Google Maps listings returned for “personal injury lawyer” across Denver, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Boulder and Pueblo in September 2026, for a total of 100 observations. Review counts, average ratings and Maps positions were recorded during a single collection window. Four listings did not have usable rating data. The primary analysis included all 100 observations. To make sure firms with unusually high review counts weren’t skewing the results, the analysis was repeated without the highest 5% of review counts. The overall relationship remained statistically significant. Results represent associations and should not be interpreted as evidence that reviews cause changes in Google Maps rankings. Local results can vary based on location, device, time and other factors.
Calvin Carter is the founder of RankCraftr, legal marketing software for law firms, and has more than a decade of experience in search marketing. His work focuses on connecting marketing performance with inquiries, consultations, and signed cases to help law firms better understand new-case acquisition.