Misleading five-star reviews: why law firms need to review their client testimonials

A page of five-star testimonials may look like good marketing, but increasingly it may also raise compliance and reputational questions

Research into 50 law firms by access to justice charity, Blind Justice UK, reported by The Law Society Gazette, has raised serious concerns about how some law firms present reviews and testimonials.

Blind Justice UK’s key findings

● Among the 486 testimonials analysed, every one was five-star.

● More than three quarters were either anonymous or carried no reviewer name.

● Only 28% of the firms appeared on Google Reviews and 26% on Yell, platforms where firms have less control over which reviews are displayed.

The weight of client reviews in the legal sector

Research on legal-services consumers has consistently shown that reputation and social proof influence how people choose a provider. A 2025 study by the Legal Services Consumer Panel showed that 44% of prospective clients shop around before choosing a provider while 86% rate reputation as one of the key deciding factors.

Client testimonials can therefore carry significant weight, particularly where prospective clients have no previous experience of instructing a solicitor and may be dealing with serious injury, bereavement, financial pressure or other difficult circumstances. For those clients, testimonials are a key part of the evidence they rely on when deciding who to trust.

A law firm’s website that shows only perfect feedback may create an impression of universal client satisfaction, particularly if it does not explain how reviews are collected, selected, moderated or verified. This is not simply a question of whether a review is fake. A testimonial can be genuine and still be presented in a way that gives consumers an unfairly distorted impression and undermines trust.

The regulatory risk around online reviews

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) requires publicity and promotional material about a firm’s practice to be accurate, transparent and not misleading.

Blind Justice UK has also argued that misleading five-star reviews raise issues around wider professional conduct duties, consumer protection law and the transparency that underpins solicitor-client relationships. The wider regulatory landscape is moving in the same direction. The UK’s ban on fake reviews came into force in April 2025 under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, giving the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) stronger powers to act against misleading review practices.

The CMA has already made clear that online reviews are a live consumer protection issue, launching 5 new consumer law investigations in March 2026.

The CMA’s chief executive stated: “we’ve given businesses the time to get things right. Now we’re deploying our new powers to tackle some of the most harmful practices head on.”

The CMA’s concerns in other sectors have included the suppression of negative reviews, inflated star ratings, undisclosed incentives for positive feedback, fake or non-genuine reviews, and misleading claims about how reviews are collected, checked or displayed.

Even where responsibility for website testimonials sits largely with individual firms, this should not be treated as a low-risk issue. As regulation of online reviews becomes more assertive, legal services are unlikely to be immune from this wider direction of travel.

Questions law firms should ask themselves when using their client reviews for marketing purposes

● Are these testimonials representative, or just the most favourable examples?

● Can the reviews be verified?

● Has the firm explained how reviews are collected and selected?

● Could the page give a misleading impression, even if each testimonial is genuine?

The answers may have implications for both regulatory risk and long-term reputation.

Reputation risk and public trust

Reputational risk is just as important. Law firms rely heavily on trust, and a page of perfect reviews with little supporting information may look incomplete or manipulated to a sceptical client, competitor, or regulator.

This speaks to the important distinction between owned reputation and earned reputation. Testimonials on a firm’s own website are controlled by the firm. Independent reviews, directory rankings, media coverage, and third-party recognition carry different weight because they are harder to curate.

A firm’s own website can still be a valuable place to display client feedback, but only if the process behind it is transparent and credible. Law firms should therefore treat reviews as a governance and compliance issue as much as it is a marketing asset.

Practical steps law firms can take to manage use of their client reviews

● Review current website testimonials to assess whether they give a fair and accurate impression;

● Check whether anonymous testimonials are appropriate and capable of verification;

● Keep records of consent, source, date and edits made to client feedback;

● Explain clearly how reviews are collected and selected;

● Consider whether website testimonials should sit alongside independent review sources;

● Assign responsibility for review governance to a named person or team.

A clear reviews policy should also set out whether incentives are ever offered, how reviews are moderated, how suspicious or unverifiable reviews are handled, and how the firm ensures ratings and testimonials are not presented in a misleading way.

The tide is turning on online reviews. Whatever firms may have thought in the past, online reviews should now be treated as consumer information, not simply marketing content. Law firms that continue to display only perfect website testimonials without context may face growing scepticism from prospective clients and increased scrutiny from regulators.

Genuine client feedback remains valuable, especially in areas of law where trust and reassurance are central to the client’s decision. But the credibility of that feedback depends on transparency. Firms should be able to explain how their feedback is gathered, what is being shown, and whether the page gives a fair overall impression to the public.