Purpose
SG Lawyer Reviews may allow users to submit reviews about lawyers and law firms.
User reviews can help readers understand client experiences. However, legal matters are sensitive, and reviews may involve confidential, disputed, or emotionally difficult circumstances.
This policy establishes the standards that apply to user-submitted reviews.
Who May Submit a Review
A reviewer should have a genuine and relevant experience with the lawyer or firm.
This may include:
- A current or former client
- A person who attended a consultation
- An authorised representative of a business client
- A person who directly participated in the engagement
Reviews based solely on rumours, unrelated disputes, political disagreement, online content, or another person’s experience may be rejected.
Reviewer Responsibilities
By submitting a review, the reviewer confirms that:
- The review reflects their honest experience.
- The material information is accurate to the best of their knowledge.
- They have not impersonated another person.
- They have disclosed any relevant conflict of interest.
- The review does not contain confidential or privileged information.
- The submission is not intended to threaten, extort, or improperly pressure anyone.
- They have the right to submit the content.
Evidence of Experience
We may request reasonable evidence that an interaction occurred.
This could include:
- An engagement letter
- An invoice
- A receipt
- An appointment confirmation
- An email exchange
- Other suitable documentation
Reviewers should redact information that is not necessary for verification.
Verification evidence will not ordinarily be published.
A “verified experience” label means that we received evidence of an interaction. It does not mean that we verified every statement in the review.
Prohibited Content
A review must not contain:
- Knowingly false information
- Fabricated experiences
- Threats or intimidation
- Hate speech
- Harassment
- Obscene content
- Personal attacks unrelated to the service
- Private addresses or identification numbers
- Confidential client information
- Legally privileged communications
- Unnecessary information about children
- Medical or financial information unrelated to the review
- Unsupported allegations of criminal or professional misconduct
- Content copied without permission
- Advertising or spam
- Links intended primarily for promotion
- Demands for money, refunds, or concessions
- Statements submitted in exchange for an undisclosed benefit
A review should focus on the reviewer’s own service experience.
Discussion of Case Outcomes
A reviewer may describe their overall experience, but should avoid presenting a disappointing legal outcome as proof of misconduct or incompetence.
A lawyer does not normally control:
- The evidence available
- The conduct of other parties
- Court or tribunal decisions
- Settlement decisions
- Procedural requirements
- The instructions given by the client
Reviews should focus where possible on matters such as communication, clarity, professionalism, billing, responsiveness, and the reviewer’s understanding of the service.
Confidentiality and Privilege
Reviewers must not publish confidential documents, privileged legal advice, settlement terms, private correspondence, or sensitive case details without a lawful basis.
We may redact or reject content to protect:
- Children
- Victims
- Witnesses
- Family members
- Employees
- Opposing parties
- Confidential business information
- Court-protected information
Reviews From Connected Persons
The following relationships must be disclosed:
- Employee or former employee
- Competitor
- Family member
- Friend
- Marketing agency
- Referrer
- Paid promoter
- Person associated with opposing parties
- Person involved in a dispute with the firm
We may reject reviews where a conflict makes the submission misleading or unsuitable.
Incentivised Reviews
Law firms must not submit or procure fake reviews.
A reviewer must disclose whether they received:
- Payment
- A discount
- A gift
- A free service
- Entry into a prize draw
- Any other benefit
Incentivised reviews may be labelled, rejected, or removed.
Moderation
User reviews may be checked before or after publication.
Moderation may include:
- Automated spam detection
- Identity checks
- Experience verification
- Factual clarification
- Removal of sensitive details
- Requests for supporting information
- Legal and editorial review
Publication does not mean that SG Lawyer Reviews endorses every statement.
Editing Reviews
We may edit a submission to:
- Correct obvious spelling errors
- Remove personal data
- Remove confidential information
- Shorten repetitive sections
- Remove irrelevant content
- Reduce legal or safety risks
- Improve readability
We will not knowingly change the reviewer’s overall meaning.
Law Firm Responses
A lawyer or firm may respond to a user review.
Responses must comply with the same standards and must not disclose confidential client information.
A firm’s professional obligations may prevent it from providing a detailed public response. Readers should not interpret a limited reply or absence of a reply as an admission.
Challenging a Review
A lawyer or firm may report a review by providing:
- The review URL
- The statements challenged
- The reason for the challenge
- Supporting evidence
- The requested action
We may temporarily restrict a review during investigation, but we are not required to remove it merely because it is disputed.
Removal
A review may be removed when:
- The reviewer cannot demonstrate a genuine interaction
- It violates this policy
- It contains materially false information
- It creates a serious privacy or confidentiality risk
- It is part of a manipulation campaign
- It is submitted from multiple accounts
- A competent authority requires removal
- Continued publication is no longer justified
Contact
User review enquiries: business@sglawyerreviews.com