How should a lawyer reply to a bad Google review without breaching confidentiality?
Briefly, without a single fact about the matter, or not at all: that is what ABA Formal Opinion 496 allows, and every reply is public text that anything reading the profile can repeat.
A lawyer answering a bad Google review is bound by confidentiality in a way almost no other business owner is: under ABA Formal Opinion 496, a negative review by itself does not open the door to discussing the client's matter. The replies that are allowed are short and contain nothing about the case. They also matter for AI visibility, because a reply sits on the profile as public text, and a reply that argues the facts puts the argument where anything summarizing the firm can find it.
What Opinion 496 actually says
ABA Formal Opinion 496 (January 13, 2021) starts from Model Rule 1.6(a), which bars revealing information relating to a representation. Its central sentence: "A negative online review, alone, does not meet the requirements of permissible disclosure in self-defense under Model Rule 1.6(b)(5)." It goes further: even if it did, a public online response revealing client information "would exceed any disclosure permitted under the Rule."
It then advises restraint: "lawyers should consider not responding to a negative post or review, because doing so may draw more attention to it and invite further response from an already unhappy critic."
The replies the opinion allows
- No reply. The opinion's own first suggestion.
- An invitation offline. Its example: "Please contact me by telephone so that we can discuss your concerns." It warns this only works if the lawyer actually intends to try to resolve the complaint.
- A statement that you cannot respond. The opinion permits indicating "that professional considerations preclude a response."
- A removal request to the host, provided the request itself reveals nothing confidential.
Where the poster is not and never was a client, the opinion says the lawyer may simply say so. It adds a caution: if the post comes from an opposing party or a client's relative and concerns a real representation, even "a general disclaimer that the events are not accurately portrayed" may reveal the lawyer's involvement. And a lawyer may answer a former client directly and privately, but "may not respond online."
What a reply does to the public record
Google counts reviews toward local prominence: its local ranking help page names "how many reviews you have" among the signals. Whether any AI assistant reads the text of owner replies is not documented anywhere we could find. Assume it might. A reply stating the client missed deadlines or ignored advice is a breach under the opinion, and also a sentence about a named client relationship that you have now published under your firm's name. The short replies above give a summarizer nothing to repeat except that the firm handled criticism calmly.
Removal is narrower than lawyers hope
Google's fake engagement policy covers reviews that are paid or incentivized, and content "based on a conflict of interest," which it says may include "current or former employment" or relationships with "industry competitors." A review from a former employee or a rival firm fits that description. A harsh but genuine review from a real client usually does not, however unfair it feels.
What to do when the review lands
- Wait a day. Nothing in the rules rewards speed.
- Check whether the poster was ever a client, and whether the review breaks a Google policy you can cite.
- If you reply, use one of the forms above, under 30 words, with no dates, outcomes or characterizations.
- If it is a former client, call or write privately, and consider speaking to ethics counsel first.
- Keep a copy of the review and anything you posted.
The other side of reviews, asking for them, is covered in asking clients for reviews. The wider guide is on the AI visibility for law firms hub.
Not legal or ethics advice. This describes how AI systems can read a law firm in public; your state bar's rules and your own ethics counsel decide what you may publish.
Questions
Can a lawyer respond to a negative online review from a client?
ABA Formal Opinion 496, issued January 13, 2021, says a negative online review alone does not meet the self defense exception to confidentiality in Model Rule 1.6(b)(5). A lawyer may reply without revealing anything about the matter, for example by inviting the person to call, or by stating that professional considerations preclude a response. The opinion suggests considering not responding at all.
Can a lawyer ask Google to remove a negative review?
ABA Formal Opinion 496 says a lawyer may ask the website or search engine host to remove a negative post, as long as the request itself does not disclose confidential client information. Google removes reviews that break its own policies, such as fake engagement or reviews based on a conflict of interest, not reviews that are merely unfair.
More questions from law firms
This page is part of AI visibility for law firms, the AIOInsights guide to how AI systems find, read and describe this kind of practice.
- Which legal directories do AI answers cite when they recommend a lawyer?
- Should AI describe your firm, your attorneys, or both?
- How can AI confirm a lawyer is licensed, and what should the bio publish?
- What happens to AI answers about a firm when an attorney leaves or becomes of counsel?
- Can a law firm say "specialist" or "expert" in content AI will quote?
- Can AI-readable case results and testimonials comply with bar rules?
- May a firm ask clients for reviews, and where does the ask cross a line?
- How should a multi-office, multi-state law firm set up Business Profiles and categories?
- What does a practice area page need to answer "do I need a lawyer for X"?
- How should fees and costs be written so an AI summary does not mislead?
- Where AIO falls short for law firms