Attorneys often showcase honors like a Super Lawyers selection, a Martindale-Hubbell rating, or a perfect Avvo score. At the same time, clients increasingly turn to online reviews on Google, Avvo, Yelp, and other platforms to judge a lawyer's reputation. That raises a question I think every lawyer, and every person hiring one, should ask: do traditional attorney rating systems really reflect a lawyer's quality and commitment, or do client reviews paint a more accurate picture of service and satisfaction?

In this article, I compare how traditional lawyer rating systems work, and the common criticisms of them, with client-driven reviews. I look at what happens when the two diverge, what the advertising rules in Texas and Alabama say about using these honors, and why I believe genuine commitment to clients and community is the truest measure of an attorney's value.

Traditional Attorney Rating Systems: Prestige and Peer Recognition

Traditional rating systems such as Super Lawyers, Martindale-Hubbell, the Avvo Rating, Best Lawyers, and others are built mostly on peer input, third-party research, and professional accomplishments rather than direct client feedback. Each aims to identify "top" lawyers, but each works a little differently.

Super Lawyers

Super Lawyers publishes annual lists of lawyers by state. According to Super Lawyers, five percent of the total lawyers in a state are selected for inclusion, and that the top 2.5 percent are named to its Rising Stars list. The company describes its method as a "patented multiphase selection process" that combines peer nominations, independent research, and peer evaluation, and it says it received a U.S. patent for that process in 2013. Super Lawyers also states that lawyers cannot buy their way onto the list, and it quotes a court's finding to that effect.

Criticism. The main criticism is not that selection is for sale, but that the process is peer-driven. Lawyers nominate and evaluate other lawyers, so the result measures reputation among colleagues. There is also a common perception of "pay-to-play," because honorees are offered paid profiles, plaques, and advertising after they are selected. Legal marketing writer Stefanie Marrone has explained that being selected does not require a purchase and that buying enhanced profiles or bios "falls into the area of advertising." The perception persists anyway. Just as important for clients: nothing in Super Lawyers' published description of its selection process says that client reviews, client satisfaction, or client complaints are part of the formula. A lawyer could be selected even if the lawyer's clients have had middling or poor experiences.

Martindale-Hubbell

Martindale-Hubbell says it has been evaluating attorneys for more than 130 years, dating back to the 1887 edition of its law directory. Its peer review ratings are based on evaluations by other members of the profession. Martindale describes its top rating, AV Preeminent, as "the highest peer rating standard," given to attorneys "ranked at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal expertise, communication skills, and ethical standards by their peers."

Historically, these ratings were a tool for lawyers to vet other lawyers for referrals or hiring, not a consumer score. As one legal marketing agency, Grow Law, puts it, "Peer review ratings were designed for lawyers, not clients."

Criticism. An AV rating carries weight among attorneys, but its meaning to clients can be limited. Many clients may not know what an "AV Preeminent" badge signifies, and it does not directly measure whether clients were happy. Martindale has added client-facing recognition: its Client Champion awards are based on the number of client reviews a lawyer has and the lawyer's average rating. The core AV rating, however, remains peer-driven. Even Grow Law, which helps lawyers market these ratings, acknowledges: "While a Martindale-Hubbell AV rating reflects your professional standing, it doesn't replace the need for positive client reviews." Peer esteem alone does not guarantee good client service.

The Avvo Rating

Avvo.com offers two different kinds of feedback: a consumer review platform and a separate numerical Avvo Rating. According to Avvo, the Avvo Rating ranges from 1.0 to 10.0, and its categories run from "Superb" (9.0 to 10.0) down to "Extreme Caution." Avvo says the rating draws on a lawyer's experience and background, recognition and contributions, and disciplinary history, using public records and information in the lawyer's profile.

Importantly, Avvo states that client reviews "are not a direct input into the numerical rating." An attorney can have a 10.0 Avvo Rating whether the client reviews on the same profile are glowing or poor. Avvo displays client feedback separately, as star ratings and written reviews.

Criticism. Because the Avvo Rating is formula-based, many lawyers question whether it measures skill or service. Avvo itself says that peer endorsements can influence the rating and that the rating can change when a lawyer updates the profile with new information. That means a diligent self-marketer may score higher than a lawyer who never touches an online profile, regardless of how either one treats clients. A number is a rough tool. It is not a complete picture of how a lawyer practices.

Other Awards and Directories

The legal industry offers many other rankings: Best Lawyers in America, Chambers and Partners, and a long list of "Top 100" and "Lawyer of Distinction" style honors, each with its own criteria. Most emphasize professional reputation, trial results, or leadership within the legal community, and most do not incorporate routine client feedback. With so many awards in circulation, even lawyers have trouble telling which ones mean something. A 2018 Forbes commentary on the proliferation of legal awards summed up the disconnect: "Legal providers are hearing 'Celebration' while for buyers it's 'I can't get no satisfaction.'" In my experience, plenty of lawyers are privately skeptical of honors that look good on a plaque but tell a client very little.

Common Criticisms of Traditional Rankings

Across these systems, a few themes come up again and again.

• No direct client input. Traditional ratings focus on peer opinion and credentials, not day-to-day client satisfaction. A lawyer can collect honors even if communication with clients is poor, because that is not what is being measured.
• Popularity and network bias. Awards based on peer nomination can favor lawyers who are well networked or who practice in large markets. A highly skilled small-town lawyer may be unknown to the peers who vote. A big-firm lawyer known to many may get votes on name recognition. For a client whose case is in a smaller community, a lawyer who knows the local courts and local practice may be a better fit than a lawyer with a big-city honor.
• The "pay-to-play" perception. Reputable ranking companies say you cannot pay to be selected, and Super Lawyers says so expressly. But many honors come with aggressive offers to buy advertising, profiles, or plaques, and many lawyers receive solicitations for "awards" from organizations they have never heard of. That breeds cynicism, fair or not, about whether some awards are more about selling vanity products than about merit.
• Limited consumer relevance. These accolades are insider-oriented. They measure how lawyers look to other lawyers, or how they score on professional milestones. That does not always translate into what everyday clients care about: empathy, responsiveness, clear explanations, and affordability. A lawyer can be a brilliant, widely honored scholar and still be hard to reach. A client who hires based only on a "Top 100" badge may be disappointed if calls go unreturned. And prestige often comes with higher fees, without any guarantee of a better experience.

In short, traditional rating systems signal prestige and peer-recognized skill, which can be one useful data point. But they usually leave out the client's perspective. That gap is a big reason client reviews have become so influential.

The Rise of Client Reviews: The Voice of the Client

In the age of Google and Yelp, client reviews have become a critical measure of attorney performance and client satisfaction. Unlike peer-based accolades, reviews come straight from the people who actually hired the lawyer, and they tend to speak to the things clients care about most. Did the attorney communicate well? Was I treated with respect? Were the fees explained? Did the outcome match what I was told to expect? How did the whole experience feel?

On Google Business listings, Avvo's review section, Yelp, Facebook, and similar platforms, clients can rate lawyers, usually on a five-star scale, and describe their experience. That feedback is influential. FindLaw's 2024 U.S. Consumer Legal Needs Survey reported that among respondents who contacted an attorney they learned about online, 82% relied on online reviews, and nearly 40% of those who used reviews called them their primary source of information when deciding which attorney to contact. Are past clients praising the lawyer or warning others away? That social proof, or that red flag, carries real weight.

Even people who come through a personal referral often look the lawyer up before they call. A friend's recommendation or a shiny award may put a lawyer on the shortlist, but a string of one-star reviews can take the lawyer right back off. Clients trust other clients.

What Client Reviews Reflect

Reviews generally reflect client-centered measures: responsiveness, communication, honesty, effort, and whether the client felt valued. Clients write about how quickly calls and emails were returned, whether things were explained clearly, whether the lawyer listened, how the result compared with expectations, and whether the cost felt fair. No third-party award measures those things directly.

There is evidence of a real gap here. In a 2025 Legal Client Experience Report, the legal technology company Case Status reported that 72% of attorneys described their firm as "caring," but only 40% of clients agreed. Reviews make those feelings visible. A client who felt ignored is likely to say so. A lawyer who goes the extra mile and communicates with compassion tends to collect positive reviews over time.

"Legal clients often consult reviews to understand your expertise and what it's like to work with you." (FindLaw, discussing its 2024 consumer survey)

That observation captures the difference. A peer award tells a prospective client that a lawyer looks accomplished on paper. Client reviews tell that person whether the lawyer calls back, is approachable, and fights for the people who hire them.

Reviews Are Continuous

Client reviews are also continually updated. An annual award is a snapshot. Reviews arrive all year and show a moving picture. A lawyer might earn a prestigious ranking one year, but if a dozen clients post poor reviews over the next twelve months, that real-time feedback may matter more in the court of public opinion. Lawyers ignore reviews at their peril, both for their reputation and for their own improvement.

Legal marketing firm Jaffe made this point in The National Law Review, noting that "rankings organizations are essentially completing client satisfaction surveys" and asking lawyers whether they are doing the same with their own clients: "Feedback is a good thing; it gives you the opportunity to improve your service and build deeper, long-lasting relationships with clients." Listening to clients, through reviews or direct surveys, is how a lawyer closes service gaps.

Review platforms have become a public forum for word-of-mouth. They shine a light on parts of lawyering that traditional metrics miss. A firm can display a trophy case of awards, but if its reviews are full of complaints about poor communication, prospective clients will notice. On the other hand, a solo or small firm with no awards to display can still build a strong local reputation for client service. Client satisfaction has become a key currency in the legal marketplace, and sometimes a more visible one than professional accolades.

Traditional Ratings vs. Client Reviews: Key Differences

Here is how the two approaches compare, point by point.

Source of input

Traditional ratings: Mostly peers and third-party evaluators. Super Lawyers uses peer nominations, research, and peer evaluation. Martindale's AV rating comes from peer review. The Avvo Rating is calculated from public records and profile information.

Client reviews: The people who hired the lawyer. Any client or former client can usually post a rating and a written review.

What is evaluated

Traditional ratings: Professional achievements, experience, and peer reputation, with emphasis on factors like years in practice, recognition, publications, leadership roles, and disciplinary history. Client satisfaction is not a stated part of these criteria. Avvo, for example, says client reviews are not a direct input into its numerical rating.

Client reviews: Service quality and satisfaction. Reviews typically cover communication, responsiveness, billing clarity, results compared with expectations, and how the client was treated. Only a client can speak to some of these things.

Selection and frequency

Traditional ratings: Periodic and selective. Many are updated annually or run on a nomination or review cycle, and only a small percentage of lawyers are listed. Super Lawyers publishes new lists each year. A lawyer can be named one year and seek the honor again the next.

Client reviews: Continuous. Clients can post at any time, and there is no selection process. A lawyer's average star rating changes as new reviews come in.

Transparency and detail

Traditional ratings: Usually a designation or score with little explanation to consumers. Someone sees "AV Preeminent," "10.0 Superb," or "Super Lawyers" without knowing why. Methods are often proprietary or not well understood by the public, so consumers have to trust the badge.

Client reviews: Narrative detail. Readers can see what each client said, good or bad, often in plain language: "she kept me informed at every step," or "my case dragged on and he never returned my calls." That texture is something a badge cannot provide.

Whose perspective

Traditional ratings: The legal community's view of the lawyer, an insider's perspective on esteem and professional standing.

Client reviews: The customer's view: whether the lawyer delivered on commitments, solved the problem, and provided good service. It is an outsider's perspective, from people outside the legal industry looking in.

Biases and limitations

Traditional ratings: Selection bias and a "halo effect." Many capable lawyers are simply unrated, especially newer lawyers and those who skip the awards scene. Peer-driven lists may tilt toward well-known firms and large markets. And some award companies earn revenue selling profiles or advertising to listed lawyers, which creates at least the perception of a conflict, even where selection is merit-based.

Client reviews: Subjectivity and variability. Very happy and very unhappy clients are the most likely to write. One angry review may not reflect most clients' experience. Fake or unfair reviews happen, although platforms try to police them. Clients also may not be able to judge technical legal skill; a lawyer can do everything right and still get a poor review because the result disappointed. In larger numbers, though, reviews tend to even out.

Effect on a lawyer's practice

Traditional ratings: A marketing tool and a credibility signal, displayed on websites, bios, and office walls. Some clients take comfort in an "award shelf." Savvy clients may be skeptical, and some may not know what an award signifies.

Client reviews: A major driver of trust and choice. Positive reviews work like word-of-mouth at scale, and a pattern of negative reviews can quickly turn prospective clients away.

The two systems serve different masters: one speaks to professional esteem, the other to client satisfaction. Ideally, an attorney is respected by peers and valued by clients. But what happens when the two conflict?

When Prestige and Client Satisfaction Diverge

It is not unusual for a lawyer's accolades and client feedback to point in different directions. Consider a few scenarios.

An honored lawyer with unhappy clients

Imagine a client who hires a lawyer partly because the lawyer's website displays a Super Lawyers or Rising Stars badge, and then has a poor experience, only to find other clients online saying the same thing. How can a listed lawyer leave clients dissatisfied? The answer lies in the criteria. Nothing in the published selection process measures client experience. The recognition came from peers and a professional record; the client saw the service. A lawyer can "make the list" and still drop the ball from the client's point of view. For a prospective client, a pattern of one-star reviews will likely outweigh a logo on a website.

A perfect 10 rating, imperfect service

Because the Avvo Rating is separate from client reviews, a lawyer can have a 10.0 "Superb" rating and lukewarm client reviews on the same profile. A lawyer can raise the score by completing the profile, adding accomplishments, and collecting peer endorsements, all things Avvo says can affect the rating. Meanwhile, if that lawyer is not responsive, clients may be leaving three-star reviews that say so. A prospective client who reads the reviews may find that the lawyer with the perfect score draws recurring complaints, while a lawyer with a lower score has reviews praising communication. The score is quantitative. The substance is qualitative. Do your own diligence: read the reviews, talk to the lawyer, and ask questions.

Big-case prestige vs. everyday client needs

Some lawyers build reputations on high-profile matters or deep technical skill and earn peer honors for it, while serving mainly corporate or high-net-worth clients. An individual who hires that lawyer for a smaller matter may end up feeling like an afterthought. Other lawyers pour effort into every client relationship but never appear on an awards list. What is "best" for a particular client may not be what the award-givers consider best. A lawyer with no title at all may be the right fit because of local knowledge, availability, or a personal approach. These divergences are especially common across geography and practice area: a small-town lawyer can have deep community trust and never appear in a ranking that tends to favor large urban firms.

Changes over time

Reputations change. Some lawyers rest on their laurels after winning honors, and their service slips while the honors are still cited. Others have a rough start, then seriously improve how they treat clients, but old reviews linger online even after peers begin to recognize them. Because traditional rankings are often annual, they may not reflect a recent decline, while reviews capture problems as soon as clients experience them. That timing gap can leave a lawyer "award-winning" on paper while collecting complaints in practice.

What the divergence means

When the signals conflict, I believe consumers are right to give client reviews more weight for a service profession like law. It is similar to choosing a doctor or a contractor: most people care more about what other patients or customers say than about academic honors. Awards may put a lawyer on someone's radar, but client feedback often decides whether the phone rings.

Lawyers who pay attention to this already know it. In announcing the 2025 Case Status report, which the company headlined with the finding that nearly 80% of law firm clients feel uncared for, Case Status CEO Andy Seavers said: "Attorneys want to provide great service, but without regular feedback, they're often unaware of how clients truly feel." A firm that never measures client satisfaction could be winning industry awards while quietly losing client trust. And dissatisfied clients do more than leave lukewarm reviews. They are less likely to come back or refer others.

The same report found that only 21% of clients felt reassured that their legal team cared about their experience. That is a large gap between how firms see themselves and how clients see them. For an individual lawyer, it means you could be collecting honors while many of your clients are unhappy, and eventually that shows up in reviews and word-of-mouth.

For anyone evaluating a lawyer, a sensible approach is to consider both: note the credentials and awards, and read the reviews. Many honors combined with a pattern of poor client feedback is a red flag. Strong reviews without familiar awards should not disqualify a lawyer; it may mean the lawyer focuses on clients rather than accolades, or is newer to practice and doing good work. Alignment is ideal. When you have to choose, consistent client praise is usually the better indicator of what your own experience will be.

Commitment to Clients and Community: The True Measure of Attorney Quality

I believe a lawyer's commitment to clients, and by extension to the community, is a more meaningful gauge of quality than a shelf full of awards. Prestige can matter. Character and client-centered conduct matter more. Here is why.

Client service is the real standard

Satisfied clients lead to repeat business and referrals, which are worth far more over time than an industry accolade. As Stefanie Marrone wrote in The National Law Review, "in legal services, the quality of work and client satisfaction often speak louder than paid advertisements." No matter how many badges a lawyer collects, it is the client thank-you notes and the referrals that reflect success in practice. A lawyer who is responsive, empathetic, and effective will build a reputation organically. Even some recognition programs now measure what clients think; Martindale's Client Champion awards, for example, are based on client reviews rather than peer ratings.

What really matters to clients

Many experienced lawyers will tell you that titles come second to client trust. They may be proud of an honor, but they know it is not what keeps clients coming through the door. Results and relationships do. If you are choosing a lawyer, look at the lawyer's track record, read what clients say, and ask questions directly. A good lawyer welcomes scrutiny of real-world performance, not just of a resume.

Community commitment and values

Beyond individual cases, lawyers who show commitment to their communities often earn deeper trust. Lawyers involved in pro bono work, community education, or local leadership are seen as more than legal technicians; they are seen as professionals who care. As a 2024 Lawyer Monthly article on community involvement put it, "Clients need to feel confident that their lawyer is not just focused on the case but also genuinely cares about them." When clients see a lawyer giving back, it signals integrity and dedication that no award fully captures. Some newer honors recognize pro bono service and community contribution, which is itself an acknowledgment that serving people is the heart of lawyering.

Trust vs. prestige: what the data suggests

Surveys keep finding gaps between what firms think impresses clients and what clients actually value. The 2018 Forbes commentary mentioned above discussed 2017 research by LexisNexis and Cambridge Judge Business School that found a persistent disconnect between law firms and their clients, summarized in part as "clients want solutions and law firms offer advice." The 2025 Case Status report points the same way: 72% of attorneys believed their firm was caring, but only 40% of clients agreed, and only 21% of clients felt reassured that their legal team cared about their experience.

The lesson is that client trust is earned by action, not accolades. A firm may believe its awards give it a stellar reputation, but if it is not checking in with clients, dissatisfaction can blindside it. Firms that invest in regular communication, ask for feedback, and make themselves easy to reach are building the loyalty that matters. Clients vote with their feet, and with their online ratings. They return to, and recommend, lawyers who treat them well, however decorated those lawyers are.

A shifting culture

I see the profession moving, slowly, toward a more client-centered culture. More conversations among lawyers now focus on client experience and emotional intelligence, and younger lawyers are encouraged to build their reputations through client relationships. All of this points to the same idea: a lawyer's true value is measured in the eyes of the people the lawyer serves. Awards are nice, but a lawyer's legacy lies in the clients and communities the lawyer helped. A cabinet full of plaques means little if clients do not feel cared for. On LinkedIn and elsewhere, many lawyers celebrate a client's kind words or a community win more than any industry honor, and I think they have it right.

A Note for Lawyers: What the Advertising Rules Say

If you display ratings, awards, or client reviews in your own marketing, the ethics rules apply. This is a short orientation, not a substitute for reading the rules yourself.

• Texas. Texas's lawyer advertising rules were rewritten effective July 1, 2021. Rule 7.01(a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct provides that "A lawyer shall not make or sponsor a false or misleading communication about the qualifications or services of a lawyer or law firm." The comments explain that a communication is misleading if it is substantially likely to create unjustified expectations about results (Comment 5), and that an unsubstantiated claim about a lawyer's services, or an unsubstantiated comparison with other lawyers' services, "may be misleading if presented with such specificity as to lead a reasonable person to conclude that the comparison or claim can be substantiated" (Comment 7). The former rule that separately barred most comparisons to other lawyers, old Rule 7.02(a)(4), was deleted in 2021. Current Rule 7.02 covers advertisements; among other things, it requires an advertisement to name the lawyer responsible for its content and limits statements that a lawyer has been certified or designated as possessing special competence. I did not find a provision in current Rules 7.01 or 7.02 that specifically addresses awards, ratings, or testimonials. Those communications are governed by the general rule that they must not be false or misleading.
• Alabama. Amendments to Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3, adopted by the Supreme Court of Alabama on May 13, 2025, took effect January 1, 2026. Amended Rule 7.1 prohibits false or misleading communications, including a communication that "compares the quality of the lawyer's services with the quality of other lawyers' services, except as provided in Rule 7.4." Amended Rule 7.2 now permits testimonials if the person giving the testimonial has "personal, real, and direct legal experience with the lawyer" and "a legitimate basis for what is said," and if any compensation or other thing of value given or promised for the testimonial is "disclosed plainly and prominently." The comment to Rule 7.2 adds that a recognition, award, or accolade "must be presented in a way that would not cause a prospective client to misunderstand the true, actual significance of the recognition."

In both states, the practical lesson is the same: be accurate, give context, and do not let a badge or a quote imply more than it actually means.

Conclusion

Comparing traditional attorney rating systems with client-driven reviews reveals a nuanced picture. Super Lawyers, Martindale's AV rating, and the Avvo Rating confer a kind of prestige. They can indicate peer respect, experience, and professional standing, and they serve as one proxy for quality within the legal community. But they often leave out what arguably matters most: how clients feel about the service they received. Client reviews fill that gap with a candid look at a lawyer's real-world performance and care.

When choosing a lawyer, or evaluating your own practice, neither should be ignored. The ideal lawyer is admired by peers and endorsed by clients. When the two disconnect, consumers are right to give more weight to the client's perspective.

For lawyers, the implication is clear. Focusing on client satisfaction, communication, and community trust is not just good ethics; it is good business. Inviting client feedback and truly listening can close the perception gap and raise the quality of service. Awards may follow from good work, but the loyalty and referrals earned from satisfied clients are the real cornerstone of a career. In a profession whose success depends on the people it serves, the true value of legal service is measured less by trophies on the shelf and more by the trust and gratitude of clients. That is the best rating a lawyer can hope for.

Key takeaways

• Super Lawyers, Martindale-Hubbell's AV rating, and the Avvo Rating rely mainly on peer input, research, or formulas. By their own published descriptions, client reviews are not part of Super Lawyers' selection process or a direct input into the Avvo Rating.
• Client reviews reflect what clients care about most: communication, responsiveness, respect, and clear expectations.
• FindLaw's 2024 consumer survey found that 82% of respondents who found a lawyer online relied on online reviews.
• When awards and reviews point in different directions, a pattern in client feedback is usually the better predictor of your own experience.
• Lawyers who use ratings or reviews in marketing must keep them accurate and not misleading. Texas relies on the general standard in Rule 7.01, and Alabama's amended Rules 7.1 and 7.2 (effective January 1, 2026) directly address comparisons, testimonials, and awards.
• Commitment to clients and community is the truest measure of a lawyer's value.

If you are a homeowner with questions about a Texas property insurance claim, contact The Claim Attorney for a free case review. Attorneys interested in co-counsel on Texas property insurance matters are welcome to reach out.

Sources

• Super Lawyers, Selection Process
• Stefanie M. Marrone, "Debunking the Myth: Why Law Firms Don't Need to Buy Super Lawyers Profiles," The National Law Review (Jan. 24, 2024)
• Martindale-Hubbell, AV Peer Review Ratings and Client Review Awards
• Grow Law, "Is Martindale-Hubbell AV Worth It?"
• Justia Onward, "Lawyer Ratings Explained" (Nov. 16, 2021)
• Avvo, "The Avvo Rating: What Lawyers Should Know"
• Forbes, "Too Many Legal Awards, Too Little Customer Satisfaction" (July 2, 2018)
• FindLaw, "Key Takeaways From the 2024 U.S. Consumer Legal Needs Survey" (Oct. 17, 2024)
• Case Status, "Nearly 80% of Law Firm Clients Feel Uncared For" (PR Newswire, June 17, 2025)
• Jaffe, "Getting the Most Out of Legal Rankings," The National Law Review (Dec. 8, 2020)
• Lawyer Monthly, "The Importance of Community Involvement for Law Firms" (Oct. 3, 2024)
• Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.01 and comments (Texas Center for Legal Ethics)
• Supreme Court of Texas, Misc. Docket No. 21-9061 (May 25, 2021), adopting amended Part VII effective July 1, 2021
• Texas Lawyers' Insurance Exchange, "Changes to Texas Lawyers Advertising and Solicitation Rules: The Highlights"
• Supreme Court of Alabama, Order of May 13, 2025, amending Rules 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3
• Alabama State Bar, "Your Guide to Alabama's Updated Lawyer Advertising Rules"

Related reading

• Why I Hate Attorneys!
• Bar Admission, Age Bias, and Access to Justice: Time to Rethink
• Ignored a Lawsuit? Texas Default Judgments and How to Respond

Originally published on LinkedIn on July 2, 2025. Reviewed and updated September 2026.

This article is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change, and results depend on the facts of each case and the language of each policy. Michael P. Bowman is licensed to practice law in Texas and Alabama only. Responsible attorney: Michael P. Bowman, Law Office of Michael P. Bowman PLLC, Austin, Texas.

Is it time to reexamine how bar admission authorities evaluate applicants, especially people who come to the law later in life? Could long character and fitness investigations, often triggered by routine background checks, be creating unintended barriers for older, nontraditional law graduates?

Many second-career law students graduate with a strong commitment to serving underserved communities through public interest and pro bono work. Yet some of them wait many months for approval to practice, while federal student loan payments generally come due about six months after graduation. Could that delay, combined with immediate financial pressure, be discouraging a group of applicants who are well positioned to expand access to justice?

And what about consistency? Aspiring attorneys are held to strict pre-licensure standards, sometimes over financial or personal issues that are decades old, while licensed attorneys accused of misconduct can usually keep practicing while a grievance is investigated. Does that raise concerns about a double standard?

These questions are not meant to assign blame to any person or agency. They are meant to start a conversation. If the profession is serious about inclusion, access, and public service, we should ask whether current bar admission practices line up with those values, or whether they unintentionally exclude some of the advocates our justice system needs most.

Law School Cost and Debt

The financial burden of law school is substantial. According to the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), the 2024 first-year law class anticipated graduating with an average of $76,300 in law school debt, and 17% of those students expected to owe $150,000 or more. The numbers were higher for some groups. LSAC reported that Black first-year students anticipated an average of $108,713 in law school debt, first-generation college graduates $84,796, and Pell Grant recipients $97,197.

Federal borrowing rules have also changed. Under the 2025 federal budget reconciliation law, the Graduate PLUS loan program is eliminated for new borrowers beginning July 1, 2026, and federal loans for professional students are capped at $50,000 per year and $200,000 in total, according to the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. Students who need more than that may have to turn to private loans.

Repayment arrives quickly. Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loans carry a six-month grace period after graduation, and Graduate PLUS loans have a six-month post-enrollment deferment that works much the same way. The clock does not wait for a law license.

Age and financial strain

Older law school applicants often face compounded challenges:

• Higher debt loads. Older students may already carry undergraduate debt or other financial obligations, increasing their overall burden.
• Shorter runways. Older graduates may need longer repayment periods, which can affect financial stability and retirement planning.
• Age bias in hiring. Despite legal protections, older graduates may encounter age bias when they look for legal jobs, which affects the return on their investment in a legal education.
• Family obligations. Older students are more likely to be supporting spouses, children, or even grandchildren.

These factors point to the need for policies that account for the financial and professional challenges older law students face.

Law School Applications and the Credential Assembly Service

To get into law school, most applicants go through LSAC. LSAC describes itself as "a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to advance law and justice by promoting access, equity, and fairness in law school admission, to broaden the pathway into legal education, and to support law schools, law students, and the legal education community." Its Credential Assembly Service (CAS) lets applicants send transcripts and recommendation letters to LSAC once. LSAC combines those materials with LSAT scores and writing samples into a report that goes to the law schools the applicant chooses. According to LSAC, nearly all ABA-approved law schools require JD applicants to use CAS.

Many law schools ask character and fitness questions on their applications, and many note that their standards may differ from those of bar examiners. In my view, that disclaimer can give students a false sense of security, leading them to believe that minor past issues do not matter. In reality, a discrepancy between what a student told a law school and what the student later tells the bar can have serious consequences years later. That raises hard questions. Are law schools doing enough to prepare students for the full scope of bar admission requirements? Are they giving students the guidance they need before those students take on years of tuition?

The mismatch matters because bar examiners can and do look at what applicants said earlier. The National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), which provides character and fitness services to bar admission authorities, advises applicants to gather documents such as prior character and fitness applications and their college and law school admission applications before they start. NCBE also notes that the burden of proving character and fitness "typically rests with the applicant, not with the jurisdiction." An inconsistency, intentional or accidental, about a prior arrest, an academic sanction, or a disciplinary issue can lead to further investigation, a hearing, and in some cases denial of a license. Lack of candor is widely treated as a serious concern in its own right, and an omission made on unclear guidance years earlier can later look like dishonesty. For students who have invested three years and tens of thousands of dollars, delays or denials can be devastating. Without clear guidance during the law school admissions process, students with complicated life histories may unknowingly put their future licenses at risk.

The Character and Fitness Review

One of the most consequential, and most misunderstood, steps toward becoming a lawyer is the character and fitness review. NCBE calls the demonstration of character and fitness "among the essential elements required for bar admission." Unlike law school admissions, which rely largely on self-reported disclosures, the character and fitness process is an investigation into an applicant's personal, financial, and professional history.

What the review covers

Applicants are generally asked to provide a detailed history that can include:

• Criminal history, which may include arrests and, in some cases, juvenile matters
• Academic and disciplinary records from schools attended
• Financial responsibility, such as delinquent debts, bankruptcies, or tax liens
• In some jurisdictions, certain mental health or substance use history, where relevant to fitness
• Employment history and references
• Any prior professional discipline or ethical violations

The application may be followed by requests for more documents, interviews, and sometimes a formal hearing. NCBE cautions that the application "may only be the first step" and that further investigation may arise from an applicant's answers.

How Texas does it

Texas starts early. Students who begin law school at an ABA-approved Texas law school and plan to seek a Texas license must file a Declaration of Intention to Study Law with the Texas Board of Law Examiners during their first semester, and the Board investigates the declarant's character and fitness. The Board tells declarants that its investigation "requires up to 270 days (9 months)" and that they will receive status letters at least every 60 days. When significant concerns are identified, staff may issue an adverse preliminary determination.

Texas also has a middle path between full licensure and denial. Under guidelines the Board adopted in June 2024, the Board may recommend a probationary license "with conditions designed to protect the public from potential harm that the probationary licensee might cause." For applicants found to have a current substance use disorder or chemical dependency, a two-year probationary license is required by Section 82.038 of the Texas Government Code.

Why the process matters

The rationale for character and fitness review is straightforward: lawyers hold a position of public trust. They owe fiduciary duties to clients, ethical duties to courts, and a responsibility to uphold justice and fairness. Bar examiners want to see:

• Honesty and integrity
• Financial responsibility
• Stability and reliability
• Respect for the law and for professional conduct standards

The reality of delays and denials

The purpose of character and fitness review is sound, but from the applicant's side the process can feel prolonged, opaque, and punitive. Some applicants wait many months for a decision, and in the meantime they cannot practice law, which creates real financial and emotional strain.

It can also feel as though applicants who disclose old or minor issues honestly draw more scrutiny than they should. In some cases, delays seem to come less from recent or relevant conduct than from the sheer volume of information reviewed and the cautious nature of the process.

Age and life experience: a disparate impact

Older applicants, and anyone with a complicated life history, can find themselves at a disadvantage. A longer life often means:

• More events to disclose
• Greater financial responsibilities
• Past incidents that no longer reflect who the person is today
• Difficulty locating records that predate modern recordkeeping
• Honest memory gaps about events that happened decades earlier

In my view, the process too often fails to account for growth, rehabilitation, and context, and can operate like a one-size-fits-all standard. That risks excluding people who could contribute a great deal to public service and pro bono work.

The double standard in practice

Perhaps most troubling to me is the contrast between the intense scrutiny before licensure and the treatment of lawyers who are already licensed. An applicant must prove good character before being admitted. A licensed lawyer accused of misconduct, by contrast, generally keeps practicing while a grievance works its way through the disciplinary system, sometimes for a long time.

Due process for licensed lawyers is important. But the contrast raises fair questions about whether the admissions system is calibrated to protect the public or whether it functions, in part, as a gatekeeping mechanism that falls hardest on certain groups.

The Impact on Nontraditional and Older Applicants

Character and fitness review is meant to uphold professional standards, but it can create significant hurdles for nontraditional and older graduates. These graduates often bring life experience, maturity, and a deep commitment to public service, qualities the profession needs. Their path to a license can still be harder than it should be.

Complex life histories mean more scrutiny

Older applicants naturally have longer and more complex histories. That means:

• More past events to disclose, from prior jobs to financial matters, legal incidents, and academic records.
• Greater financial obligations, including mortgages, family responsibilities, and accumulated debt.
• More minor incidents on the record, many of which may be flagged for review even if they were resolved long ago.

An exhaustive process that does not put these histories in context risks treating a mistake made at twenty the same as a current risk.

Financial pressure compounds the burden

Nontraditional students often graduate with substantial law school debt on top of prior obligations. Federal loan payments generally come due about six months after graduation, whether or not the graduate has a license. People who went to law school to serve others are suddenly facing a bill and must find work right away.

A long wait for admission can mean months without legal income, which may force graduates to:

• Postpone or abandon public interest or pro bono work, which typically pays less
• Rely on savings or take jobs unrelated to law
• Endure serious financial and emotional stress during an already difficult transition
• Give up legal jobs that were contingent on bar admission

The effect on diversity and access to justice

These barriers reach beyond individual applicants. By discouraging nontraditional entrants, the profession risks:

• Losing mature, dedicated advocates who understand community needs
• Limiting the growth of a legal workforce that reflects the public it serves
• Reducing access to legal services in underserved areas, where many older graduates hope to work

A more inclusive and nuanced review

A more equitable character and fitness process would:

• Recognize growth, rehabilitation, and change over time
• Apply standards with flexibility and attention to context
• Give clear, timely guidance to applicants with complicated backgrounds

Reforms like these would improve fairness and bring more lawyers with varied perspectives and life experience into the profession, which is vital to justice for all.

A hypothetical illustration

Consider a hypothetical applicant I will call Jane. She is a 45-year-old career changer who graduated with honors and wants to do public service work. Her record is clean apart from a minor misdemeanor from her early twenties, which she fully disclosed. Suppose her application is delayed for more than a year by follow-up inquiries. During that time she cannot practice law, her student loan payments begin, and financial pressure pushes her into a well-paying nonlegal job. Jane may land on her feet. But the people she planned to serve may go without a lawyer. Jane is not a real person, but the scenario reflects the kind of risk I am describing.

Bar Background Checks Compared With Other Fields

Bar admission is one of the more demanding licensing processes in any profession. It helps to compare it with background investigations in other fields that also demand trust and ethical conduct.

Law enforcement and national security

Police officers and FBI agents undergo extensive vetting because of their access to sensitive information and their public safety responsibilities.

• A local police department. One large municipal police department, for example, says its application process "typically takes three to four months to complete" and that its background investigation "typically takes 4-8 weeks." That process includes a polygraph, a psychological assessment, interviews, and checks of credit history, driving record, employment, education, and contacts with neighbors and references.
• The FBI. The FBI says its hiring process can take up to a year and includes a background investigation, with a polygraph, to obtain a Top Secret security clearance. Applicants receive a final job offer only after completing the background investigation.

In other words, even some of the most sensitive positions in government are vetted, from application to final offer, on timelines comparable to or shorter than what some bar applicants experience.

Accounting and other trust-based professions

Accountants are also trusted with other people's money. Background screenings for accounting roles commonly include criminal record searches, identity verification, license verification, employment and education verification, and credit history, according to one background screening provider. CPA licensing requirements and timelines vary by state, so I do not offer a single comparison figure here.

Bar admission character and fitness

• Timeline. In Texas, the Board of Law Examiners tells law students that its investigation of a Declaration can take up to 270 days, and matters that raise significant concerns can take longer if they lead to further inquiry or a hearing.
• Scope. The review can reach an applicant's entire personal, financial, academic, and legal history, including what the applicant told law schools, and may involve interviews and formal hearings.
• Impact. Bar applicants cannot practice law until they are licensed, which means lost income and delayed careers. For older and nontraditional candidates, the delay can be financially and emotionally devastating.
• Options. Probationary or conditional licensing can soften the all-or-nothing effect. Texas has a probationary license. I believe it deserves to be used thoughtfully, and I would like to see more jurisdictions offer similar paths.

Why the comparison matters

Every one of these fields takes vetting seriously. The question is whether the bar's approach:

• Properly balances public protection with fairness and access
• Adequately considers rehabilitation and context in an applicant's history
• Supports the profession's own diversity and inclusion goals by removing unnecessary barriers

The Irony of Justice Denied

We talk often about access to justice and the many Americans who go without representation in civil, family, housing, and immigration matters. We invest in pro bono clinics, support legal aid organizations, and lament overwhelmed courts. Meanwhile, a quick look at Facebook shows people every day asking for lawyers who accept payment plans or work pro bono.

Yet the profession is largely quiet about how admission processes treat applicants with past convictions, financial hardship, or other life experiences that are more common in low-income communities and communities of color. Those are often the same communities that most need lawyers, and they may be losing lawyers who understand their struggles firsthand.

What background checks can reach

Character and fitness review is not only about criminal convictions. Depending on the jurisdiction, it can reach bankruptcies, gaps in employment, juvenile matters, some mental health or substance use history, and even social media conduct. For some applicants, it becomes a re-litigation of past trauma.

Is a nonviolent drug conviction from a decade ago more telling than 1,000 hours of clinic work helping tenants facing eviction? Does a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filed during a medical crisis say more than a lifetime commitment to public interest law? Does filing taxes late really predict how a lawyer will handle client funds?

The system should remember that redemption is real, and that lived experience is often a lawyer's greatest strength.

Who bears the burden

Advocates for reform have raised concerns that background checks and subjective character evaluations fall hardest on:

• Black and Hispanic applicants, given disparities in policing and prosecution
• Formerly incarcerated people, including those who earned legal training through prison education programs
• First-generation students who have navigated poverty and instability
• People with mental health histories, even after successful treatment
• Older people, who have simply had more time to accumulate divorces, lawsuits, and traffic tickets

Meanwhile, a younger applicant from a comfortable background may have no work history, few financial obligations, and little in life that has tested his or her mettle, and therefore little to disclose.

Reform Is Possible, and Necessary

If bar authorities and law schools are going to practice what they preach about pro bono work and access to justice, we need an admissions process that still protects the public but does not punish poverty, marginalization, age, or redemption. Reforms to consider:

1. Time-limited review windows. Focus on recent conduct, not teenage mistakes.
2. Weight for achievement. Treat academic and professional accomplishment as evidence of growth.
3. Less emphasis on irrelevant financial history. Debt alone should not call integrity into question.
4. Bias training and transparency for the people who make character and fitness decisions.
5. Expedited review and support for applicants with nonviolent or juvenile offenses.
6. Earlier, clearer screening. Help students learn before they take on six figures of debt whether their history could keep them from being licensed. Texas's Declaration of Intention process already moves the review into the first year of law school; the key is making sure students understand it and get timely answers.
7. Thoughtful use of conditional or probationary licensing, so that public protection does not have to mean an all-or-nothing delay.

Let Lived Experience Serve the Law

If we want a legal system that serves everyone, we need a legal profession that represents everyone. In my view, the character and fitness process, as it often operates today, can work against that goal and perpetuate the very inequality many of us went to law school to fight.

It is time to open the gates wider. Not to lower the bar, but to broaden the path.

Key takeaways

• LSAC reports that the 2024 first-year law class anticipated an average of $76,300 in law school debt, with 17% expecting to owe $150,000 or more.
• Federal loan payments generally begin about six months after graduation, and new federal borrowing limits for professional students took effect July 1, 2026.
• Character and fitness review protects the public, but long investigations can hit older and nontraditional graduates especially hard.
• Texas begins its review during the first semester of law school, tells declarants the investigation can take up to 270 days, and can recommend probationary licenses with conditions.
• Reforms such as time-limited review windows, clearer early guidance, and thoughtful use of probationary licensing could protect the public without shutting out people who want to serve.

If you are a lawyer or law student who wants to talk about these issues, I welcome the conversation. If you are a Texas homeowner with questions about a property insurance claim, contact The Claim Attorney for a free case review.

Sources

• LSAC, "The 2024 1L Class and How They Paid for Their First Year of Law School" (May 28, 2025)
• NASFAA, summary of federal student aid changes in the 2025 reconciliation law
• AAMC, "Postponing Loan Repayment: Grace, Deferment, and Forbearance"
• LSAC, About LSAC
• NCBE, Character and Fitness
• The Bar Examiner, "FAQs About Bar Admissions: NCBE's Character and Fitness Investigations" (Fall 2023)
• Texas Board of Law Examiners, Declaration of Intention to Study Law
• Texas Board of Law Examiners, Declarant Steps to Admission
• Texas Board of Law Examiners, Guidelines for Determining Character and Fitness and Overseeing Probationary License Holders
• Tex. Gov't Code § 82.038
• Municipal police department hiring process (example)
• FBI Jobs, Background Investigation Procedures and Eligibility
• iprospectcheck, CPA Background Check

Related reading

• Why I Hate Attorneys!
• Attorney Ratings vs. Client Reviews: What Really Measures a Lawyer
• A Fictional Texas Trial: Can an Insurer Aid Unlicensed Adjusting?

Originally published on LinkedIn on June 10, 2025. Reviewed and updated September 2026.

This article is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change, and results depend on the facts of each case and the language of each policy. Michael P. Bowman is licensed to practice law in Texas and Alabama only. Responsible attorney: Michael P. Bowman, Law Office of Michael P. Bowman PLLC, Austin, Texas.

Or: why so many working people don't trust lawyers, and why the profession needs to earn that trust back.

I was lucky to grow up in the working class. My parents were good, honest people who would have done anything for me, but they could not afford to send me to college, let alone law school. Like most Americans, I found that higher education was out of reach without sacrifice, loans, and relentless work. As a police officer and a single father of two, I qualified for food stamps. I used credit cards to get by. I looked forward to tax refunds so I could get caught up.

I clawed my way into this profession. Along the way, I have had the honor of working with some truly brilliant, compassionate attorneys. But I also understand exactly why so many people say they hate attorneys.

It's the same reason I sometimes do.

The Problem Isn't the Law. It's the Culture.

The legal profession was supposed to be noble. A calling. A way to protect people, fight injustice, and serve the voiceless.

Somewhere along the line, too much of it became arrogant.

Too many attorneys stopped listening and started lecturing. They stopped serving and started gatekeeping. They built walls out of jargon, policies, and power structures, and stood behind them with a sense of superiority.

Clients feel it. Regular people feel it. And honestly, I think many attorneys feel it too.

A Rant That Said Everything

Not long ago, I saw a post in a lawyers' Facebook group that captured the problem. The attorney was exasperated that clients kept calling and asking for a call back, even though the firm's engagement letter, which clients had to initial, said there would be no unscheduled phone calls.

And the comments? Many agreed.

Think about that. A group of professionals frustrated that the people who hired them were trying to reach them in a moment of need.

What other service business could get away with that? Can you imagine a nurse, a mechanic, or a firefighter saying, "Why do people keep trying to reach me when they need help?"

Boundaries matter, and no lawyer can be on the phone all day. But if that is the mindset, it is not just a boundary. It is a fortress, and it keeps out the very people lawyers are supposed to protect.

The Working Class Feels It Most

During law school, I worked as a public adjuster. That gave me a front-row seat to how some clients were treated by the attorneys handling their claims. I often heard from homeowners who felt ignored, dismissed, or devalued.

These were not corporate clients with in-house counsel and a budget for hourly billing. They were working people dealing with a damaged home, an insurance company, and a legal system they did not understand. They did not know the jargon. They did not know whether they were allowed to call. Many of them were afraid that asking a question would cost them money or make them look difficult.

"Are your clients crazy?"

It was not unusual for attorneys to ask me, "Are your clients crazy?" when I had no problems at all working with those same people. The disconnect was not about the clients. It was about the mindset.

One attorney told me, "They have my number. They've never called." But the client had told me they did not want to be a bother; they were waiting for the attorney to reach out.

Communication Failure Is Service Failure

That kind of standoff is a failure of service. In my view, returning calls within two business days is not enough. Checking in once a month is not enough. When someone's life is tied up in a legal process, that person should not have to chase scraps of attention from their own advocate.

This is not just bad manners. It is a matter of professional responsibility. Rule 1.03(a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct says: "A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." It is also a failure of leadership in the legal industry when the culture treats client contact as a nuisance.

What Real Communication Looks Like

I will never forget a homeowner I worked with as a public adjuster who told me she never had to call for updates, because she was always kept informed.

That stuck with me. It confirmed something I now tell anyone who will listen: ideally, a client should be calling because they need their advocate, or because they are returning your call, not because they are hunting for an update.

If clients have to chase you down for news, you have already let them down. In a time of need, silence does not feel like professionalism. It feels like abandonment.

The Fear of Reaching Out

I come from the kind of family that would hesitate before calling a lawyer. Not because they did not respect the profession, but because they assumed they could not afford it, would not be believed, or would not be helped. Too often, that fear was reasonable.

Too many attorneys treat clients like interruptions. Like annoyances. Like inferiors.

This is not about scheduling preferences. It is about attitude, and the contempt some lawyers seem to have for regular people: the ones without law degrees or six-figure retainers.

That attitude is elitist. And it is costing the profession its credibility with the very people who need it most.

Attorneys Are Just People

Here is the truth, and I include myself in it: attorneys are not special. We are not more important than a plumber, a teacher, a nurse, or a construction worker. We are people who learned a specific skill and earned a license to practice a profession. That does not entitle anyone to a sense of superiority.

Like any other service provider, a lawyer's value should come from how well the lawyer helps others. We should hold ourselves to the same core values we expect from anyone we hire: reliability, respect, responsiveness, and humility. If people would not tolerate a condescending, dismissive attitude from a contractor or a technician, why should they accept it from a lawyer? The title "Esquire" should not be permission to look down on anyone. It should be a reminder of the responsibility to serve.

What Clients Actually Value

I once ran an informal poll asking people what they valued most in their experience with a lawyer. The answers came from people across income levels and backgrounds. Not a single person mentioned "winning" or "results." Instead, they talked about:

• Clear, timely communication
• Feeling heard and respected
• Empathy and emotional support
• Knowing what was happening and what to expect

That says everything.

What clients crave isn't perfection. It's presence. They want to feel like someone is in their corner, guiding them through a process they don't understand. When lawyers deliver that, they become trusted professionals. When they don't, they become a symbol of everything broken in the justice system.

How to Fix It: Better Intake, Better Systems, Better Tech

It's easy to complain. But change requires more than calling out bad behavior. It requires building something better.

1. Rebuild Intake With Empathy

The client journey begins before the first meeting. If the intake process feels cold, dismissive, or overly transactional, trust is lost immediately.

• Whoever handles intake should listen, not filter. Intake should guide with care, not just check boxes.
• Don't let gatekeeping become the default posture. Intake should be a bridge, not a barrier.
• Use intake to identify matters that are not a good fit, including people who won't engage with the process in good faith.
• Set expectations early and repeat them often. I give my clients my cell phone number, and I make it clear they are always welcome to call. I also tell them when and how they can expect updates, so they know what to expect and how to get help efficiently.

2. Make Every Point of Contact a Point of Trust

The first voice a client hears sets the tone. In firms with staff, that person should be trained and supported, not overworked and reading a script. In a solo practice, it is the lawyer. Either way, the goal is the same: a culture of service.

• Learn the basics of emotional intelligence and client psychology.
• Have a clear protocol for urgent concerns so clients don't feel ignored.
• Remember that every call is someone's emergency, whether perceived or real.

3. Use Technology to Support, Not Replace, Connection

Too many lawyers use technology to hide. Autoresponders, no-reply emails, and rigid portals can feel like walls. Used right, technology can make clients feel more supported, not less.

• Client portals that show real-time case updates, timelines, and file status.
• Automated check-ins during long lulls ("Just a quick note: we're still waiting on the court date. You haven't been forgotten.").
• Scheduled callback systems so clients feel heard without disrupting the workday.

4. Don't Wait. Reach Out First.

One of the most powerful ways to build trust is also one of the simplest: call clients before they call you. Most clients only reach out because they feel forgotten. Silence is interpreted as neglect.

• Set calendar reminders to check in during slow phases of a case, even if there is no update.
• Build a communication cadence into the case flow, such as touching base with every active client every two weeks.
• Use technology to help automate this, but always include a human touch.

Clients should never wonder if they've been forgotten. A simple "Just checking in. No news yet, but your case is still on my radar" goes further than any polished demand letter. Boundaries are healthy. Compassion is healthier. Systems can do both. The answer isn't "be available 24/7." It's "build a practice that communicates with care."

The Business of Service

Here's another uncomfortable truth: many lawyers struggle with the business side of practice. Not because they aren't smart, and not because they don't work hard, but because too many define success by their own metrics (billable hours, courtroom wins, prestige among peers) instead of the measure that matters most in a service profession: client satisfaction.

Law school teaches case law, not customer service. It trains lawyers to be adversarial, analytical, and autonomous, but not necessarily empathetic, communicative, or client-focused. A thriving practice isn't built on verdicts alone. It's built on relationships and on the kind of trust that only comes when clients feel seen, heard, and cared for, even when the outcome isn't perfect.

Final Thought

So, do I really hate attorneys? No. I hate what happens when lawyers forget who they are supposed to serve. Lawyers are not above anyone. If anything, the profession should hold itself to higher standards of service, not lower ones. If we want to be respected, we should act with respect. If we want to be trusted, we should stop hiding behind policies and start showing humanity.

Clients don't distrust lawyers because they don't understand the law. Too often, they distrust lawyers because too many of us act like the law belongs to us.

That can change.

Key takeaways

• Distrust of lawyers is often about attitude and communication, not the law itself.
• Working-class clients feel it most. Many are afraid to call, afraid of the cost, and afraid of not being believed.
• Texas Rule 1.03 requires lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
• Clients should not have to chase their own lawyers for updates.
• Lawyers are service providers. Reliability, respect, responsiveness, and humility should be the baseline.

If you have questions about a Texas property insurance claim, contact The Claim Attorney for a free case review.

Sources

• Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.03 (Communication), Texas Center for Legal Ethics

Related reading

• Attorney Ratings vs. Client Reviews: What Really Measures a Lawyer
• Bar Admission, Age Bias, and Access to Justice: Time to Rethink
• Ignored a Lawsuit? Texas Default Judgments and How to Respond

Originally published on LinkedIn on May 30, 2025. Reviewed and updated September 2026.

This article is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change, and results depend on the facts of each case and the language of each policy. Michael P. Bowman is licensed to practice law in Texas and Alabama only. Responsible attorney: Michael P. Bowman, Law Office of Michael P. Bowman PLLC, Austin, Texas.

A note before you read: What follows is a fictional closing argument in an imaginary criminal case. “No Indemnity For You Insurance Company” is a made-up name. It does not refer to any real insurer, and nothing here describes a real case, a real prosecution, or a finding against any company or person. This is not a statement of how any court has ruled. I wrote it as a thought experiment to show how the party-liability rules in Chapter 7 of the Texas Penal Code might be argued alongside the public adjuster licensing law in Chapter 4102 of the Texas Insurance Code.

The real statutes quoted in the argument are summarized accurately below, with links in the Sources list. The facts, the parties, and the proceeding are invented.

The Fictional Proceeding: Closing Argument for the State

May it please the Court. Counsel. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,

Nobody is above the law. That includes the defendant.

This case is not complicated. It is not abstract. It is statutory.

The underlying offense is unlicensed public adjusting: acting on behalf of an insured in negotiating a property insurance claim, for compensation, without a license, in violation of Texas Insurance Code Chapter 4102. Chapter 4102 defines a public insurance adjuster to include a person who, for compensation, “acts on behalf of an insured in negotiating for or effecting the settlement of a claim” under a property insurance policy. It says a person may not act as a public insurance adjuster in Texas without a license, and it makes a violation of the chapter a Class B misdemeanor.

You have heard the definition. You have seen the conduct. The only real question left is responsibility.

And Texas law answers that question in Chapter 7 of the Penal Code.

The Defendant Cannot Claim It Was a Bystander

Penal Code § 7.01 abolishes the traditional distinctions between principals and accomplices.

It says plainly:

“A person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible, or by both.”

There are no sidelines in criminal participation. There is no “I was just there.” There is no “I didn’t start it.”

If you aid it with the intent to help it happen, you own it.

Section 7.02(a)(2) Makes This Even Clearer

A person is criminally responsible for another’s conduct if, acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he:

• solicits,
• encourages,
• directs,
• aids, or
• attempts to aid

the other person to commit the offense.

Now apply that to the conduct you heard about.

Negotiation requires a proposal. A counterproposal. A response. A revision.

It requires participation.

If a contractor sends a proposal and no one responds, the negotiation dies. If an adjuster responds, counters, revises, and continues the exchange, the negotiation lives.

The adjuster’s participation is not passive. It is the oxygen that allows the offense to breathe.

Without the adjuster’s counter, there is no negotiation. Without negotiation, there is no violation.

The State’s position is that when an adjuster knows the other side is unlicensed and responds, counters, and keeps the exchange going for the purpose of reaching a settlement through that person, the adjuster is doing what § 7.02(a)(2) describes: aiding and encouraging the very act the statute prohibits, with the intent that it be carried out. That intent is an element the State must prove. Knowledge alone is not enough.

The Defense Will Say, “We Couldn’t Commit the Offense Ourselves”

You may hear the argument:

“Chapter 4102 targets unlicensed public adjusters. We’re not public adjusters. We can’t commit that offense ourselves.”

Texas anticipated that defense.

Penal Code § 7.03 says that, in a prosecution where the actor’s responsibility is based on the conduct of another, it is no defense:

“that the actor belongs to a class of persons that by definition of the offense is legally incapable of committing the offense in an individual capacity.”

Read that again.

Even if the statute is aimed at one class of actor, another person who is a party to the offense under Chapter 7 can still be held criminally responsible.

You cannot stand behind statutory drafting and claim immunity while intentionally facilitating the prohibited conduct.

The Legislature closed that door.

The Defense Will Say the Company Is Not Responsible for Its Adjuster

Now consider the corporate structure.

Penal Code § 7.22(a) provides that when conduct constituting an offense is performed by an agent acting on behalf of a corporation or other business entity and within the scope of the agent’s office or employment, the entity is criminally responsible for certain categories of offenses. For an offense defined outside the Penal Code, like this one, that means an offense where a legislative purpose to impose criminal responsibility on business entities plainly appears, or a strict-liability offense where a legislative purpose not to impose that responsibility does not plainly appear.

The State must show the offense fits one of those categories. If it does, look at the evidence.

The adjuster was acting within the scope of employment.

The responses were sent in the company’s name.

The counterproposals were issued under corporate authority.

The negotiation, the reciprocal exchange, was conducted as corporate business.

In that situation, the company answers for its agent’s conduct. There is no insulation in delegation.

Here Is the Logic

The defense wants you to believe this offense was unilateral.

It was not.

The statute prohibits unlicensed negotiation on behalf of an insured.

Negotiation cannot occur alone.

If it occurred, it occurred because both sides engaged.

And if one side engaged with the intent to promote or assist that unlicensed negotiation, Chapter 7 assigns responsibility.

This is not about expanding the law. This is about applying it as written.

When you participate in conduct that completes an offense, with the intent to promote or assist it, you are a party to that offense.

When your agent does so within the scope of employment, and the offense is one the law allows to be charged against a business entity, the company answers for it.

Ladies and gentlemen, Texas law does not allow someone to intentionally help complete a prohibited act and then step back and say, “That wasn’t mine.”

If the unlawful negotiation occurred, it occurred through reciprocal participation. And reciprocal participation intended to aid the offense is responsibility under Chapter 7.

The statutes are clear. Apply them.

Thank you.

Stepping Out of the Courtroom

Again, this was a fictional argument. Whether a prosecutor would ever bring a case like this, and whether a court would accept the theory, are open questions. Party liability under § 7.02(a)(2) requires proof of intent to promote or assist the offense, and corporate liability under § 7.22 is limited to the categories the statute lists. Those are real hurdles.

The practical point for contractors is real, though. Texas requires a license to act on behalf of an insured in negotiating a property insurance claim for compensation, and the licensing statute carries criminal penalties. If you are a contractor, talk scope and pricing for your own work, but be careful about stepping into the role of negotiating the policyholder’s claim.

Key takeaways

• This article is a fictional, illustrative closing argument. The insurer named in it is made up, and no real company or case is described.
• Texas Insurance Code Chapter 4102 requires a license to act as a public insurance adjuster, and a violation of the chapter is a Class B misdemeanor.
• Under Penal Code § 7.02(a)(2), a person can be criminally responsible for another’s offense if, with intent to promote or assist it, the person solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid it.
• Penal Code § 7.03 says it is no defense that the actor belongs to a class of persons legally incapable of committing the offense individually.
• Penal Code § 7.22 makes business entities criminally responsible for their agents’ conduct only for the categories of offenses the statute lists.
• Contractors should avoid negotiating a policyholder’s insurance claim unless they hold the required license.

Sources

• Texas Insurance Code § 4102.001 (definitions)
• Texas Insurance Code § 4102.051 (license required)
• Texas Insurance Code § 4102.206 (criminal penalty)
• Texas Penal Code § 7.01
• Texas Penal Code § 7.02
• Texas Penal Code § 7.03
• Texas Penal Code § 7.22

If you are a contractor or public adjuster with questions about where the licensing lines fall on a Texas property insurance claim, or a policyholder with questions about your claim, contact The Claim Attorney for a free case review. Attorneys interested in co-counsel on Texas property insurance matters are welcome to reach out as well.

Related reading

• Texas Public Adjuster Licensing: Low Barrier, High Stakes
• What Contractors Can and Cannot Do in a Texas Insurance Claim
• Are Insurance Contingency Roofing Contracts Legal in Texas?

Originally published on LinkedIn on February 17, 2026. Reviewed and updated September 2026.

This article is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change, and results depend on the facts of each case and the language of each policy. Michael P. Bowman is licensed to practice law in Texas and Alabama only. Responsible attorney: Michael P. Bowman, Law Office of Michael P. Bowman PLLC, Austin, Texas.

It happens more often than most people think. Someone learns, sometimes long after the fact, that a lawsuit was filed against them and that the court has already signed a default judgment. Often they never meant to ignore anything. The papers went to an old address, were handed to the wrong person, or never arrived at all.

A default is serious, but it is not always the end of the road. This article explains, in plain English, how default judgments work in Texas state courts, the tools that may be available to undo one, and why the clock matters so much.

Understanding Default in a Texas Lawsuit

When you are served with a lawsuit in a Texas district or county court, the citation tells you to file a written answer “on or before 10:00 a.m. on the Monday next after the expiration of twenty days after the date of service” (Tex. R. Civ. P. 99(b)). Justice court cases follow different rules, and the answer there is generally due within 14 days after service (Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5).

If you miss that deadline, the plaintiff can ask the court for a default judgment. Under Tex. R. Civ. P. 239, once the answer is due, the plaintiff may take a judgment by default against a defendant who has not filed an answer, as long as the return of service has been on file with the clerk for the time the rules require. In practical terms, the court can sign a judgment against you without ever hearing your side. You lose.

Many people assume that once a default judgment is signed, the matter is over.

That assumption is often wrong.

While a default judgment is serious, it does not always end the case. Texas law provides several ways to challenge one, and which of them is still open depends mostly on how much time has passed and whether you were properly served.

When a Default Judgment May Be Set Aside

Motion for new trial (the first 30 days)

The fastest and most common route is a motion for new trial. It must be filed “prior to or within thirty days after the judgment or other order complained of is signed” (Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a)). A timely motion extends the trial court’s power over its judgment, but not indefinitely: if the court does not rule by written order within 75 days after the judgment was signed, the motion is overruled by operation of law (Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(c), (e)).

For a defendant who was served but did not answer, Texas courts apply the test from Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1939, opinion adopted). A default judgment should be set aside and a new trial granted when:

• the failure to answer was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference, but was due to a mistake or an accident;
• the motion sets up a meritorious defense; and
• the motion is filed at a time when granting it will cause no delay or otherwise work an injury to the plaintiff.

If you did not learn about the judgment in time

If neither you nor your lawyer received notice of the judgment or learned of it within 20 days after it was signed, the deadlines can start from the date you first received notice or actual knowledge, but never more than 90 days after the judgment was signed (Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a(4)). You must prove that date in the trial court on a sworn motion, with notice (Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a(5)).

Restricted appeal (up to six months)

If the 30-day window has closed, a restricted appeal may still be possible. The notice of appeal must be filed within six months after the judgment is signed (Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c), 30). The Supreme Court of Texas has held that the appealing party must show that (1) it filed the notice within six months after the judgment was signed, (2) it was a party to the lawsuit, (3) it did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment and did not timely file any postjudgment motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law, and (4) error is apparent on the face of the record. Ins. Co. of State of Pa. v. Lejeune, 297 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam).

Service problems matter here. Texas requires strict compliance with the rules for service of citation, and in Lejeune the court held that a return of citation missing the required notation of the hour the officer received the citation was error on the face of the record, which meant the default judgment could not stand.

Bill of review

After those deadlines pass, a separate equitable proceeding called a bill of review may be available. Ordinarily, the person bringing it must prove a meritorious defense that they were prevented from making by the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of the opposing party or by official mistake, unmixed with any fault or negligence of their own. Caldwell v. Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam). But when the defendant was never served, due process relieves them of having to show a meritorious defense. See id. (citing Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80 (1988)).

Why Timing and Service Matter So Much

Across all of these options, the same themes keep coming up:

• whether the failure to respond was a mistake or accident rather than intentional or consciously indifferent;
• whether you were properly served, and whether the service paperwork complies strictly with the rules;
• whether you acted promptly once you learned about the lawsuit or the judgment; and
• whether you have a meritorious defense to the claims (which may not be required if you were never served).

Time is critical. Each option has its own deadline, and each one that passes narrows what can be done. Courts generally prefer to decide cases on the merits, but they also expect people to act once they know there is a problem.

What a Careful Review Looks Like

When someone comes to a lawyer after a default, the first job is a careful review of the court file: the petition, the citation, the officer’s or process server’s return, the dates, and the judgment itself. Sometimes that review turns up defects in service that raise serious questions about whether the person ever had proper notice. Sometimes it shows that the failure to answer was an honest mistake that can be explained with evidence.

No lawyer can promise that a default judgment will be set aside. Each case turns on its own facts and on the court’s decision. What can be said is that a situation that first looks like a lost cause is sometimes still worth fighting, but only if someone acts before the remaining deadlines run out.

Key takeaways

• Failing to respond to a lawsuit can have severe consequences. In Texas district and county courts, the answer is due by 10:00 a.m. on the Monday after 20 days from service, and missing it can lead to a default judgment.
• A default judgment does not necessarily end all options. Depending on timing, a motion for new trial (30 days), a restricted appeal (six months), or a bill of review may be available.
• For a served defendant, the Craddock test asks whether the failure to answer was a mistake or accident, whether there is a meritorious defense, and whether a new trial would cause delay or harm to the plaintiff.
• Defective service can change the analysis, and a defendant who was never served does not have to prove a meritorious defense in a bill of review.
• Act fast. Every week that passes can close another door.

Final Thought

If you discover that a lawsuit was filed against you, or learn that a default judgment has already been signed, do not assume it is too late to act. Courts value diligence, fairness, and proper notice, but they also expect timely action once a problem is discovered.

“The law helps the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.”Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt

Sources

• Tex. R. Civ. P. 99 (as amended effective January 1, 2021)
• Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5
• Tex. R. Civ. P. 239
• Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b
• Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a
• Tex. R. App. P. 26.1
• Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. (1939)
• Ins. Co. of State of Pa. v. Lejeune (Tex. 2009)
• Caldwell v. Barnes (Tex. 2004)
• Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (1988)

If you have been sued in Texas or have just learned about a default judgment against you, talk to a lawyer right away. To discuss your situation, contact The Claim Attorney for a free case review.

Related reading

• Texas Property Insurance Claim and Lawsuit Deadlines Explained
• Why I Hate Attorneys!
• Attorney Ratings vs. Client Reviews: What Really Measures a Lawyer

Originally published on LinkedIn on February 7, 2026. Reviewed and updated September 2026.

This article is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change, and results depend on the facts of each case and the language of each policy. Michael P. Bowman is licensed to practice law in Texas and Alabama only. Responsible attorney: Michael P. Bowman, Law Office of Michael P. Bowman PLLC, Austin, Texas.