Martindale-Hubbell vs Super Lawyers. The structural difference is peer-review survey versus editorial percentage cap.
Martindale-Hubbell rates through online peer-review surveys, producing the AV Preeminent, Distinguished, and Notable tiers, plus 2017's Client Champion award tiers based on review volume. Super Lawyers runs an editorial peer-nomination plus independent research process, capped at 5% of licensed attorneys per state (Super Lawyers) and 2.5% (Rising Stars). Martindale sits inside Internet Brands; Super Lawyers sits inside Thomson Reuters. The two surfaces feed entity-validation signals to our practice through different mechanisms and different ecosystems.
Martindale-Hubbell and Super Lawyers on the seven directory criteria that govern entity-validation signal in the top-tier attorney directories.
- Ownership and ecosystem Internet Brands vs Thomson Reuters
- Owned by Internet Brands (MH Sub I) under the Martindale-Avvo unit. Sits inside the syndicate with Avvo, Lawyers.com, Nolo, and FindLaw. Internal data propagation across the network.
- Top rating tier AV Preeminent
- AV Preeminent is the top peer-review tier (4.5-5.0 rating range), followed by Distinguished and Notable. Generated through secure online surveys assessing legal ability and ethical standards.
- Selection mechanic peer-review vs editorial
- Peer-review surveys distributed to other attorneys in the database. Online survey completion drives the rating. The rating method is algorithmic: the score computes from peer-survey responses against ethical-standards and legal-ability dimensions.
- Client-facing award tier 2017 Client Champion
- Client Champion (Platinum / Gold / Silver) awards introduced 2017. Calculated from review volume and average rating thresholds. Distinct from the peer-review rating tier and based on consumer sentiment rather than peer evaluation.
- Persistent identifier ISLN
- Assigns an ISLN (International Standard Lawyer Number) to attorneys in the database. ISLN functions as a persistent identifier alongside the state bar number, disambiguating attorney entities in semantic search.
- Knowledge Graph entity weight dual-network strategy
- High inside the Internet Brands syndicate. Citation consistency propagates across Avvo, Lawyers.com, Nolo, and FindLaw via the ISLN and bar-number anchors. Concentration risk if Internet Brands shifts policy.
- Pricing model subscription + ad
- Quote-on-request. Profile claim is free; paid-feature subscription (sponsored placement, enhanced profile components, contact-form routing) sits inside a paid tier. Combined Martindale-Avvo unit may quote consolidated packages.
- Ownership and ecosystem Internet Brands vs Thomson Reuters
- Owned by Thomson Reuters. Sits inside the Thomson Reuters legal-services portfolio alongside Westlaw. No data propagation with the Internet Brands syndicate.
- Top rating tier AV Preeminent
- Super Lawyers list is the top tier, capped at 5% of licensed attorneys per state per year. Rising Stars list (capped at 2.5%, attorneys under 40 or in practice under 10 years) feeds the Super Lawyers selection pipeline.
- Selection mechanic peer-review vs editorial
- Peer nominations from attorneys plus independent research by Thomson Reuters affiliated staff. Final selection is editorial within the percentage cap. The selection method is curated: research staff evaluate the nominee pool against published selection criteria.
- Client-facing award tier 2017 Client Champion
- Super Lawyers does not run a separate client-facing review tier. Reviews aggregate on the profile but do not produce a parallel award. The Super Lawyers / Rising Stars selection is the lone tier.
- Persistent identifier ISLN
- Does not assign a comparable proprietary identifier. State bar number is the consistency anchor on the Super Lawyers profile.
- Knowledge Graph entity weight dual-network strategy
- High inside the Thomson Reuters ecosystem and independent of the Internet Brands syndicate. Optimizing across both surfaces a firm against the consolidated syndicate concentration risk.
- Pricing model subscription + ad
- Quote-on-request. Profile claim follows the Super Lawyers selection (attorneys not selected cannot subscribe to a Super Lawyers profile). Selected attorneys can purchase enhanced profile features and Best Lawyers-style award marketing rights.
Last verified: 2026-05-28 against martindale.com and superlawyers.com public documentation. Ownership: Martindale-Hubbell under Internet Brands / MH Sub I (Martindale-Avvo unit). Super Lawyers under Thomson Reuters.
Claim and populate both. The dual-network approach hedges syndicate concentration.
Martindale-Hubbell and Super Lawyers sit in two distinct directory ecosystems. Martindale propagates citation data inside the Internet Brands (MH Sub I) syndicate across Avvo, Lawyers.com, Nolo, and FindLaw. Super Lawyers sits inside Thomson Reuters with no cross-syndicate data flow. Optimizing both surfaces the firm in both Knowledge Graph ecosystems and hedges against the concentration risk of Internet Brands policy shifts. The optimization work is structurally additive, not duplicative.
ISLN is the proprietary persistent identifier that only Martindale-Hubbell assigns. The ISLN disambiguates attorneys who share names across the legal-services Knowledge Graph and feeds entity resolution alongside the state bar number. Citation consistency across the Internet Brands syndicate depends on the ISLN anchor. Super Lawyers does not assign a comparable identifier; bar number is the consistency anchor on that surface.
The 2017 Client Champion award tier on Martindale-Hubbell measures consumer sentiment through review volume and average rating thresholds. The award is distinct from the peer-review AV Preeminent tier and can be earned without holding AV Preeminent status. Building Client Champion qualification through Rule 7.1-compliant review solicitation is structurally separate from building peer-survey weight for the AV Preeminent rating. Both tracks compound the firm's signal on the platform.
Super Lawyers' percentage caps (5% Super Lawyers, 2.5% Rising Stars) create real selection scarcity. Selection sits outside the firm's direct optimization control because the editorial process is curated. What the firm can influence is the peer-nomination footprint through the practice's actual peer network and the published selection criteria that Thomson Reuters affiliated research evaluates against. Atticus aligns nomination strategy with the firm's actual peer relationships rather than trying to game the editorial process.
From audit to annual cadence, across both top-tier directory surfaces.
-
Award and profile inventory
We pull the firm's current Martindale-Hubbell rating tier, ISLN status, Client Champion award if any, NAP propagation across the Internet Brands syndicate (Avvo, Lawyers.com, Nolo, FindLaw). Super Lawyers selection status per attorney, Rising Stars pipeline visibility, profile claim state. Output is the dual-network entity profile and the cross-platform consistency gap list.
-
Cross-network entity consistency
ISLN populated and rendered consistently across the Internet Brands syndicate nodes. Bar-number consistency anchored on the Super Lawyers profile. Martindale peer-review survey reciprocity engaged. Client Champion review velocity built through Rule 7.1-compliant solicitation. Super Lawyers nomination strategy aligned with the firm's actual peer network and the state's specific percentage cap.
-
Annual selection and ratings cycle
Annual review against Martindale rating-tier movement and Client Champion qualification thresholds. Annual review against Super Lawyers selection (typically July-December nomination window, January-March selection cycle). Profile updates synchronized across both networks at the same cadence so entity-resolution signals stay consistent for Google's Knowledge Graph parser.
Top-tier directory questions before the audit.
-
We are claimed on Avvo and Martindale. Is that the same surface now?
Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, Lawyers.com, Nolo, and FindLaw are owned by Internet Brands (MH Sub I). Citation inconsistency on one profile propagates across the syndicate. ISLN and state-bar-number consistency across every node is the entity-resolution prerequisite. Justia sits outside the syndicate with structural PageRank advantage from the free case law database. Super Lawyers is a separate peer-nomination network. We manage all four surfaces as a single citation profile.
-
Why is Justia worth optimizing if it is outside the Internet Brands syndicate?
Justia's free case law database gives the domain structural PageRank advantage independent of profile-claim mechanics. A complete Justia profile inherits some of that authority through the profile link. The profile is also independent: if Internet Brands shifts policy on Avvo profile visibility, Justia is unaffected. The combination of high domain authority plus independence makes Justia the highest-return single directory node for attorney SEO.
-
Should the firm site use LegalService or Person schema?
Both, nested. The LegalService type wraps the firm as the entity. Individual attorneys nest as Person nodes inside it. Google's parser reads practiceArea, serviceArea, and priceRange slots on the LegalService node to decide which queries the firm is relevant to, then reads the Person nodes inside to attribute individual attorney E-E-A-T signals (bar admissions, publications, alumni networks) to the firm cleanly without entity confusion.
-
We have five attorneys at one office. Can each attorney have a Google Business Profile?
No. Google's policy for legal services is one Google Business Profile per practicing office, not one per attorney. Florida Rule 4-7.12 reinforces the same constraint from the bar side: a bona-fide office is a physical location where the lawyer reasonably expects to furnish legal services on a regular basis. The compliant architecture is one GBP for the firm at the office address, with category specificity matching the firm's strongest practice area (Personal injury attorney, Criminal justice attorney, Family law attorney).
-
Should our GBP category be 'Law firm' or something more specific?
Category specificity drives Local Pack visibility. 'Law firm' is too generic and competes against every legal entity in the area. 'Personal injury attorney', 'Criminal justice attorney', or 'Family law attorney' surfaces the firm in the exact practice-area Local Pack the buyer is searching. The right category is the firm's revenue-bearing practice area, not the broadest possible label.
Two ecosystems, two selection mechanics, one citation profile that survives both. Get the audit.
We pull the firm's current Martindale-Hubbell and Super Lawyers profile state, ISLN propagation, AV Preeminent and Client Champion status, Super Lawyers selection or Rising Stars pipeline visibility, and cross-platform NAP consistency. The audit comes back with the dual-network optimization scope and the annual selection-cycle calendar.