Ranking of law firms based on Google reviews
August 2026
27.08.2026
31.08.2026
Version 1.0
The strongest listing in the ranking by volume: 452 reviews at a 4.9 average. Owner replies appear on 280 of the 283 reviews the panel serves, which points to a process rather than ad-hoc reactions. Google only serves 283 of the 452 reviews in the panel, so the sample is smaller than the counter suggests, yet even within it missing replies are isolated cases. The listing operates inside the Hoża 59A ecosystem (Criminal Law in Poland, Lawyers in Poland), which gives it an edge on English-language queries. First place follows from the tie-breaking rule: same bracket and same rating as TEMIDA and GP Kancelaria, but considerably more reviews. Worth checking whether older unanswered reviews are sitting in the hidden part of the counter.
324 reviews and a 4.9 average make for a very consistent profile. Replies cover 240 of the 242 reviews visible in the panel, so practically every review is closed out by the firm. That is the best result among listings with over 300 reviews and proof that completeness is achievable at this scale. The website URL in the listing carries UTM parameters, indicating deliberate tracking of traffic from the profile. It trails KKZ on review count alone, at an identical reply bracket and rating. This is the closest operational benchmark for your own listing.
The listing name combines "Lawyer", "Attorney" and "Law Firm" — clearly built for visibility on foreign-language queries. 292 reviews, a 4.9 average, and replies on 289 of 290 reviews: the highest rate in the entire set. Notably, the panel served almost the full counter, making this methodologically the most reliable figure of the ten. The scale is smaller than the volume leaders', but the consistency is exemplary. Third place is purely a function of having the fewest reviews within its bracket. On reply discipline alone, it is the reference point for the whole field.
346 reviews, a 4.9 average, and replies on 211 of 296 reviews analysed. The gap is roughly 85 reviews with no response. This is the profile of a firm that replies regularly but without systematically closing every review. Moving up into the 100–91% bracket means clearing the backlog and adopting a simple rule: every new review gets a reply. It holds the 80–71% bracket alone, at a clear distance from the top three. A realistic candidate for promotion.
A personal-injury firm that Google returns on "Law Firm Poland" despite the distant subject matter - which itself says something about its local strength. 317 reviews, a 4.9 average, and replies on 178 of 267 reviews. Every third review goes unanswered. That is typical of the compensation sector: high case volume and client turnover make it hard to keep up with communication. It occupies the 70–61% bracket on its own. The biggest upside lies in older reviews that were never revisited.
Druga największa wizytówka w zestawieniu (701 opinii, średnia 4,9) i jedyna, w której panel Map wyświetlił dokładny komplet z licznika. Odpowiedzi ma 421 - najwyższy bezwzględny wolumen odpowiedzi w całej stawce, ale rozłożony na ogromną bazę. To pokazuje efekt skali: łatwiej utrzymać 99% przy 290 opiniach niż przy 700. Do wyższego przedziału zabrakło dosłownie kilku odpowiedzi. Przy tej skali drobna poprawa procesu daje skok w rankingu. Najlepszy dowód, że wysoki wolumen i ocena nie idą automatycznie w parze z komunikacją.
399 reviews and a 4.9 average make for a very strong reputation profile. Replies, however, cover only 96 of 370 reviews: three quarters of clients get no response at all. The contrast between rating and communication is the sharpest in the top eight here. A textbook case of a firm that earns excellent reviews organically but does not treat the listing as a communication channel. The upside is large and essentially free of cost. As it stands, the 30–21% bracket.
The largest review base in the set: 716 on the counter, with the panel serving 720 entries - the full set. A 4.9 average at that scale reflects years of work on divorce, family, inheritance and criminal cases. Replies, though, cover only 129 reviews - over 580 clients received no response. That is the lowest rate among firms with more than 500 reviews. The listing is strong on reach and weak on communication, and position 8 follows directly from that mismatch. At this volume, clearing the backlog calls for a planned campaign, not ad-hoc replying.
Also listed on Maps as Sieńko Pięta i Partnerzy; 372 reviews at a 4.9 average. Replies appear on just 34 of 360 reviews analysed - nine out of ten go unanswered. That is the second-worst result in the set and a signal that the listing is not being handled operationally. The reputation itself is very good, so the issue is not service quality but the absence of a process on the Google profile side. It lands in the 10–1% bracket despite the highest possible rating. It edges out last place solely on the higher average.
Closing the ranking: 313 reviews and a 4.8 average - the only listing in the field below 4.9. Replies cover 15 of 309 reviews analysed, so there is effectively no feedback loop on the profile. The panel served almost the full counter, so the result is not a sampling artefact. The combination of the lowest rating and the lowest reply rate is coherent: leaving critical reviews unanswered usually weighs on the average. It is also the firm with the greatest potential for quick improvement - every reply to a negative review works twice here. Currently last on both the bracket and the tie-breaking criterion.
Information
The ranking is for informational and comparative purposes only – it is based solely on public data from Google profiles (responses to reviews, average rating, number of reviews). It does not constitute legal advice, an assessment of effectiveness, or a recommendation for handling a specific case, and does not guarantee any outcome.
| Rank | Law Firm | Core Rating | Response | Experience |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Kopeć Zaborowski Adwokaci i Radcowie Prawni (KKZ) | 4.9/5.0 | 98,9 | 100-91% |
| #2 | Kancelaria Prawna TEMIDA – Adwokat Gdańsk | 4.9/5.0 | 99,2% | 100-91% |
| #3 | GP Kancelaria | 4.9/5.0 | 99,7% | 100-91% |
The ranking is for informational and comparative purposes only – it is based solely on public data from Google profiles (responses to reviews, average rating, number of reviews). It does not constitute legal advice, an assessment of effectiveness, or a recommendation for handling a specific case, and does not guarantee any outcome.
The ranking follows a methodology published before the data collection process began. Law firms are selected based on Google Maps results and formal eligibility criteria. Their position is determined by three factors: review response rate, average rating, and total number of reviews.
No. Law firms do not pay to be listed or to receive a higher position. The ranking is based entirely on the published methodology and publicly available Google data.
Review responses reflect how actively a law firm communicates with its clients. It is also a fair and accessible criterion, as every firm can respond to reviews regardless of its size or marketing budget.
A law firm may not have appeared in the Google Maps results used for the ranking or may not have met one of the eligibility requirements, such as having at least 10 reviews.
No. The ranking only compares measurable data from Google profiles. It does not evaluate legal knowledge, experience, case results, or the overall quality of legal services.
25 września, 2026 • Legal Trends
The minimum wage changes every year, and so do employers' obligations. We explain the 2027 monthly and hourly rates, how…
Read more →
17 września, 2026 • Legal Trends
Polish law gives parents several types of leave – maternity, paternity and parental – each with its own length, benefit…
Read more →
7 września, 2026 • Legal Trends
A road accident abroad is stressful, especially when you don't speak the language. This guide explains what to do right…
Read more →