Use a consistent invitation at an appropriate, attorney-approved stage of the client relationship. Keep participation optional, ask for honest feedback and avoid case details. Assign an owner for delivery and follow-up, with separate attorney review for sensitive situations and public responses.

A law firm can ask clients for Google reviews by using a consistent, attorney-approved invitation at an appropriate stage of the relationship. Ask for honest feedback, keep participation optional, avoid confidential or case-specific details, and apply the same eligibility rules regardless of whether the firm expects praise. One administrative owner should manage delivery and reminders, while sensitive situations and public responses go to a designated attorney.

Choose a suitable moment without choosing only happy clients

A small firm needs an intentional process because the person handling the legal work may not own the public profile. Agree on a workflow with the responsible attorney and administrative lead before making requests routine. A closing communication may be a useful point to consider, but it is not automatically appropriate for every matter or practice area.

Assess contact permissions, client sensitivity and applicable professional rules. Apply documented criteria consistently rather than using the outcome of a matter or an internal satisfaction score to select people likely to leave favorable reviews. Where a situation needs legal judgment, pause that invitation for the responsible attorney instead of improvising a message.

Make the request neutral and clearly optional

Google’s content policy prohibits incentives and selectively soliciting positive reviews. Do not offer a fee discount or gift for posting, changing or removing a review. The objective is feedback based on a genuine experience, not a favorable statement drafted by the firm.

Illustrative wording for attorney review: “If you would like to share feedback about your experience with [Firm], you can leave an honest Google review here: [link]. This is optional. Please avoid including confidential or case-specific information in a public post.” The firm should approve the wording and delivery method under the rules that apply to its practice.

Avoid asking clients to describe a settlement, identify an opposing party or mention a particular result. Do not hand them a finished testimonial to copy. A short invitation is easier to use consistently and leaves the reviewer free to decide whether and what to write.

Assign one owner and test the link

Name the person who sends the approved request, records delivery and handles communication preferences. Make the location and public profile explicit, particularly if the firm has multiple offices or an attorney maintains a separate profile. Check that the review link reaches the intended destination before including it in a template.

Google’s review-request guidance explains links and QR codes. For the firm, the operational choice is which approved touchpoint makes the invitation easiest to understand. Do not add requests to every message simply because the software can do so.

Limit reminders and keep service separate

Consider one optional reminder only if the firm’s approved process allows it, then stop. Decide the timing with the responsible team; there is no single interval suitable for all matters. Apply opt-outs and contact restrictions and avoid duplicate requests from different staff members.

Keep the invitation separate from collecting fees, releasing documents or providing help. A client should not feel that cooperation is needed to receive normal service. If someone asks a substantive legal question in response to the invitation, route it to the legal team rather than treating it as a review-management task.

Decide how the firm will handle incoming reviews

A request program needs a response process as well. Classify routine feedback separately from disputes, allegations, opposing-party comments and information that could reveal confidential matters. Give sensitive reviews to the designated attorney before anyone posts on the firm’s behalf.

The ABA discusses confidentiality risks in responding to negative online reviews. Its guidance is a reason to establish a review process, not a substitute for checking the rules in the firm’s jurisdiction. Do not assume that a reviewer has authorized disclosure of the firm’s version of events.

A compact checklist for the practice manager

  • Responsible attorney has approved eligibility, timing and wording.
  • Administrative owner knows which profile and channel to use.
  • Messages do not include confidential or case-specific details.
  • A delivered-request record prevents duplicate invitations.
  • Contact preferences and any reminder limit are applied.
  • Sensitive incoming reviews have a named escalation owner.
  • Monthly reporting distinguishes activity, public feedback and unresolved decisions.

Look for operational gaps before judging the program by its star rating. Were invitations delivered as agreed? Did a broken link affect an office? Are sensitive responses waiting for approval? Those questions are actionable. A handful of new reviews does not establish a reliable estimate of additional signed matters.

What to ask a managed-service provider

Ask who configures requests, who monitors reviews, who drafts routine responses and how attorney approvals are recorded. Confirm the supported platforms, included response volume, scope of listing maintenance and what happens when a complaint falls outside routine work. Keep access and ownership arrangements explicit.

RR’s law-firm reputation support separates the firm’s own reviews and listings from client search-reputation matters. The managed reviews and listings scope explains the recurring work. Begin with the public profile and current process, not client files or privileged documents.