How a Law Firm Should Handle a Bad Google Review Left by the Opposing Party in a Dispute

14 September 2026·5 min read

Quick answer: If the opposing party in a matter leaves your firm a one-star Google review, don't respond with case details or get defensive in the comments — reply briefly and professionally without confirming or denying anything about the matter, then use Google's review-reporting process, since a review from someone who was never actually your client may qualify for removal (though removal isn't guaranteed). Keep a record of everything, calmly, in the file. 🤍

This one lands in most firms' inboxes eventually 💖 — a family law matter finishes, and a few weeks later a one-star review appears from a name you recognise: the ex-partner, their new spouse, a sibling, someone who was never your client and has no real insight into what happened in the file, venting in public because they're angry at the outcome. It stings, and the instinct to set the record straight in the replies is strong. Resist it — engaging on the details can breach your confidentiality obligations to your actual client, and it usually makes things worse, not better.

What most firms get wrong: silence, or a defensive reply

Ignoring it for months lets it sit as the first thing prospective clients see when they check your reviews. But the opposite mistake is worse: replying with specifics to "correct the record" — confirming a matter existed, revealing who you acted for, or disputing details of a case in public. That's a confidentiality problem regardless of who's technically in the right, and a public back-and-forth just extends the review's visibility and makes the firm look rattled.

Non-Retaliatory Response Script & Review Flagging Checklist

Don't reply immediately. Get a second set of eyes — a partner or practice manager — on any response to a sensitive review before it goes live.
Use a generic, non-committal reply: "Thank you for sharing your feedback. Client confidentiality prevents us from discussing or confirming any matter details publicly. If you'd like to discuss this directly, please contact our office."
Log it internally — screenshot the review, note the date, and record it in a file note if it relates to an active or closed matter.
Check whether the reviewer was ever an actual client. If not, flag the review to Google, selecting the closest matching reason (e.g. "conflict of interest" or "not based on a genuine experience with the business") and briefly explaining the reviewer had no client relationship with the firm.
If it goes beyond a vague complaint — naming individuals, making specific false claims — treat it separately from routine review management and get proper advice rather than trying to resolve it through the Google reply box.

A family law firm: received a one-star review from the new spouse of an ex-partner, calling the firm "biased." They didn't engage with the content, used the generic reply script, logged it internally, and flagged it to Google noting the reviewer was never a client. The review stayed up — Google keeps a lot of them up — but the firm kept collecting genuine reviews from actual clients, so it stopped being the first or most prominent thing people saw.

A litigation/commercial dispute practice: this one's the cautionary example. After a judgment, an opposing director left a scathing review, and the managing partner insisted on replying in detail to defend the firm's conduct. That reply confirmed the matter existed, arguably identified who they'd acted for, and invited several more rounds of back-and-forth in the comments — none of which changed the outcome or the review. The firm eventually deleted its own reply and switched to the generic script.

A debt recovery practice: reviews from debtors are close to an occupational hazard for this kind of work. Rather than fighting every single one, the firm has a standing, pre-agreed response and a monthly reminder to keep asking genuine clients (creditors) for reviews — so the ratio of real client reviews to unrelated debtor complaints stays healthy over time, instead of trying to win each individual argument.

How to actually flag a review on Google

In your Business Profile, find the review under "Reviews," select the flag or "report review" option, and choose the reason closest to your situation.
Where the reviewer clearly has no client relationship with the firm, note that briefly and factually in the report.
Understand that removal isn't guaranteed and can take time — in the meantime, still post the neutral public reply so the profile doesn't look abandoned.
Keep building your genuine review base in parallel — it's usually more effective long-term than fighting to remove every negative one.

Please note: general information, not legal advice — check current professional conduct and confidentiality obligations before responding publicly to any review, and get specific advice if a review raises a genuine legal issue.

💡 Never confirm, deny, or discuss matter specifics in a public reply — even to correct something that feels unfair. Confidentiality obligations don't have an exception for "but they got it wrong."

Replying with case-specific details to "correct the record"
Getting into a public back-and-forth in the comments
Ignoring the review for months and letting it sit as the most visible one
Assuming any bad review can simply be removed by reporting it
Not logging the review and your response internally for your own records

Frequently asked questions

Can we get it removed?

Sometimes, but not guaranteed. Google will only remove reviews that violate its own policies — and a reviewer who was genuinely never a client can be a legitimate basis to flag one. But there's no fast lane, and plenty of firms report reviews that simply stay up. Plan to out-influence it with genuine reviews as well as trying to remove it, not instead of trying.

Should we ask our actual client to leave a review to balance it out?

Be careful — asking a client to counter a specific negative review can look coordinated and can backfire. Better to keep a steady, ongoing review-generation habit that's separate from any single incident, especially in family law matters where soliciting a review tied to an emotionally charged event can raise its own concerns.

Is it defamation — can we sue?

That's genuinely a question for specific legal advice, not a blog post. The tests and thresholds vary and shouldn't be self-assessed from general content like this.

What if the review reveals actual confidential matter details?

Escalate internally straight away — this may itself raise a separate issue involving the reviewer, and it needs proper advice rather than a quiet hope that nobody notices.

Keep reading 🤍

Written by

Kate, founder of Chronically Online

I help Gold Coast and Brisbane businesses grow with branding, websites and marketing that actually works.

Work with me ✦