Martindale-Hubbell Ratings: AV, BV, and Peer Review

What Are Martindale-Hubbell Ratings?

Martindale-Hubbell ratings are professional evaluation systems that assess attorneys through confidential peer reviews and public client feedback. Peer Review Ratings assess legal ability and ethical reputation through evaluations from qualified attorneys and eligible judges, while Client Review Ratings reflect client experiences involving communication, responsiveness, service quality, and value. 

Martindale-Hubbell has used peer review for more than a century and later introduced client review awards as a separate measure of reported service experience. The two systems use different evaluators, criteria, and recognition levels, so client ratings do not determine an attorney’s peer distinction. Martindale-Hubbell also requires enough qualifying peer evaluations before assigning a formal peer recognition, while attorneys with insufficient responses may remain Peer Reviewed without receiving a distinction.

The table below compares Martindale-Hubbell’s Peer Review Ratings and Client Review Ratings.

Are Martindale-Hubbell Ratings Still Relevant for Lawyers Today?

Yes, Martindale-Hubbell ratings remain relevant for lawyers today. Law firms can use law firm reputation management services to coordinate directory profiles, monitor reviews, and maintain consistent professional information across the channels that prospective clients and referring attorneys use to evaluate lawyers.  According to research by Kevin Lane Keller titled Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity in 1993, Keller developed a framework connecting brand knowledge with consumer responses. This conceptual research explains branding; it does not quantify law-firm case growth.

AV Preeminent ratings communicate strong peer recognition for legal ability and ethical standards, while Client Review Ratings reflect reported experiences involving communication, responsiveness, service quality, and value. Martindale-Hubbell ratings now operate alongside Google reviews, Avvo profiles, attorney websites, bar records, and other sources that shape a lawyer’s public reputation.

What Is an AV Preeminent Rating?

An AV Preeminent rating is Martindale-Hubbell’s highest Peer Review Rating, recognizing attorneys whose peers evaluate their legal ability and ethical standards at the highest level of professional excellence.

AV Preeminent reflects peer assessments of legal knowledge, analytical capabilities, judgment, communication skills, and professional ethics.

Martindale-Hubbell describes the distinction as recognition from a substantial number of qualified peers who rate the attorney at the highest professional standard.

The designation represents peer recognition rather than a certification that an attorney will achieve a particular legal outcome.

An AV Preeminent attorney may use the designation in professional biographies and permitted advertising, subject to applicable bar rules and accurate representation of the current rating.

What Does AV Stand for in Martindale-Hubbell Ratings?

AV is the traditional Martindale-Hubbell designation associated with the highest combination of legal ability and ethical standing, now presented as AV Preeminent.

Historically, the rating system combined letter-based assessments of legal ability with an ethical standards designation.

Martindale-Hubbell’s modern public ratings emphasize AV Preeminent, Distinguished, and Notable rather than relying primarily on the original letter combinations.

The AV Preeminent designation identifies the highest peer-recognized professional standard under the current rating framework.

What Is a BV Rating in Martindale-Hubbell?

A BV rating is a historical Martindale-Hubbell peer rating designation associated with strong legal ability and ethical standing, now represented by the Distinguished rating in the modern recognition system.

Distinguished recognizes attorneys who have earned substantial peer respect for professional achievement and ethical standards.

The distinction sits below AV Preeminent in Martindale-Hubbell’s current peer rating hierarchy.

A Distinguished rating does not indicate that the attorney is unqualified or inexperienced. It signifies a different level of recognition under the rating system.

Attorneys should use the current rating title displayed on their Martindale-Hubbell profiles when describing professional recognition in marketing materials.

How Do AV and BV Ratings Differ?

AV and BV ratings differ because AV Preeminent represents the highest level of Martindale-Hubbell peer recognition, while BV is the historical designation associated with the current Distinguished rating. AV Preeminent identifies attorneys who receive top-level evaluations from qualified legal peers for professional ability and ethical standards. 

Distinguished recognizes high professional achievement and ethical reputation at a different level of peer recognition. The historical BV label and the current Distinguished designation refer to the same general rating tier rather than two separate modern awards.

The table below shows the primary differences between AV Preeminent and BV Distinguished.

What Is the Difference Between AV, BV, and Other Martindale Ratings?

AV, BV, and other Martindale ratings differ according to the level and status of peer recognition an attorney receives. AV Preeminent represents the highest peer distinction, Distinguished corresponds to the historical BV designation, and Notable recognizes attorneys who receive significant peer acknowledgment of ethical standards. 

Peer Reviewed indicates that an attorney has received peer feedback without reaching the qualifying threshold for a formal distinction. The absence of a formal award does not establish a lack of competence because an attorney may not have participated in the process or may not have received enough qualifying responses.

The table below compares the main Martindale-Hubbell peer review distinctions and statuses.

What Is the Role of Peer Review in Martindale Ratings?

Peer review evaluates an attorney’s professional ability and ethical reputation through confidential assessments completed by qualified members of the legal profession.

Martindale-Hubbell requests assessments from attorneys and eligible judges familiar with the lawyer’s professional work or reputation.

Its peer evaluation criteria address legal knowledge, analytical ability, judgment, communication, experience, and ethical standards.

The process uses confidential responses and minimum participation requirements before assigning an award.

Peer Review Ratings differ from client testimonials because the evaluators are legal professionals assessing another attorney’s professional reputation rather than clients describing the experience of receiving legal services.

How Does the Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Process Work?

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review process evaluates eligible attorneys through confidential assessments from qualified legal peers. The process identifies an eligible attorney, collects professional references, gathers confidential evaluations from qualified lawyers and eligible judges, reviews the responses, and assigns a recognition level when the required criteria are met. Martindale-Hubbell states that attorneys generally need at least 3 years of bar admission to qualify for Peer Review Ratings. A paid Martindale-Hubbell subscription is not required for an attorney to receive published peer reviews.

Listed below are the 5 stages of the Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating process.

• Attorney eligibility: The attorney must meet the applicable admission, professional experience, and profile requirements.
• Peer reference submission: The attorney provides qualifying professional references for Martindale-Hubbell to contact.
• Confidential peer evaluations: Qualified lawyers and eligible judges assess the attorney’s legal ability and ethical standards.
• Response assessment: Martindale-Hubbell reviews the submitted evaluations and determines whether the required threshold has been reached.
• Rating assignment: The attorney receives AV Preeminent, Distinguished, or Notable recognition when the applicable criteria are satisfied.

What Are Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings?

Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings are client-generated evaluations of attorneys and law firms based on a 1–5 rating scale. Clients assess communication ability, responsiveness, quality of service, and value for money based on their experience with legal services. Reviewers can also indicate whether they would recommend the attorney or firm and provide written feedback about their experience.  Responding to negative reviews requires a professional tone and careful handling of confidential information, even when a public rating appears unfair.

Client Review Ratings complement Peer Review Ratings by showing how clients evaluate service delivery rather than professional ability from a legal peer perspective. An attorney with strong peer recognition may therefore receive different client ratings when communication, responsiveness, or service expectations vary.

What Is a Martindale-Hubbell Client Champion Award?

A Martindale-Hubbell Client Champion award recognizes attorneys who meet defined client review and average rating thresholds. Martindale-Hubbell introduced the Client Champion program in 2017 and uses three award levels: Platinum, Gold, and Silver. Attorneys with at least one client review may also receive Client Reviewed status. 

Award eligibility depends on both review quantity and average score during the preceding 24 months, so review count alone does not determine qualification. Martindale-Hubbell periodically reassesses eligibility as older reviews fall outside the qualifying period.

The table below shows the Martindale-Hubbell Client Champion recognition levels and requirements.

How Do Peer Review Ratings Differ From Client Champion Awards?

Peer Review Ratings assess an attorney’s professional reputation among legal peers, while Client Champion awards measure client review performance. Peer Review Ratings evaluate professional ability and ethical standing through qualified attorneys and eligible judges, whereas Client Champion awards rely on client review volume and average scores. The two systems measure different dimensions of professional reputation, so recognition in one system does not determine recognition in the other.

Listed below are the 5 main differences between Peer Review Ratings and Client Champion awards.

• Reviewer type: Peer Review Ratings rely on qualified legal professionals, while Client Champion awards rely on clients.
• Primary focus: Peer Review Ratings assess professional ability and ethical reputation, while Client Champion awards assess reported client service experiences.
• Evaluation method: Peer Review Ratings use confidential professional evaluations, while Client Champion awards use published client ratings and review counts.
• Recognition criteria: Peer distinctions depend on peer assessment requirements, while Client Champion awards depend on minimum review totals and average rating thresholds.
• Award independence: AV Preeminent status does not automatically produce Platinum Client Champion recognition, and Platinum Client Champion status does not automatically qualify an attorney for AV Preeminent.

Is Martindale-Hubbell Worth It?

Yes, Martindale-Hubbell can be worth using for attorneys and law firms that value peer recognition, client review visibility, and an established legal directory presence. Its value depends on the firm’s practice area, referral network, prospective client behavior, professional positioning, and broader marketing strategy. 

Commercial litigation, appellate, corporate, and referral-oriented practices may gain value from peer recognition, while consumer-facing firms may place greater weight on Google reviews, local search visibility, and client feedback. Law firms should evaluate Martindale-Hubbell through profile accuracy, professional credentials, client reviews, referral value, and actual use by prospective clients rather than relying solely on a prestigious rating.

Can Martindale-Hubbell Ratings Improve Law Firm Credibility?

Yes, Martindale-Hubbell ratings can support law firm credibility through independent peer recognition and client feedback. A coordinated law firm SEO strategy connects directory recognition with accurate attorney information, practice-area visibility, and the firm’s wider digital presence. 

An AV Preeminent rating communicates a high level of professional peer recognition, while Client Review Ratings provide information about communication, responsiveness, and reported service experiences. The credibility value depends on accurate presentation of the designation and its relationship with attorney experience, bar records, client feedback, and other independent professional information. Martindale-Hubbell therefore forms one part of a law firm’s broader public reputation.

Can Lawyers Display Martindale-Hubbell Ratings in Advertising?

Yes, lawyers can display genuine Martindale-Hubbell ratings and awards in advertising when the presentation is accurate and complies with applicable attorney advertising rules. Law firms can use attorney advertising compliance services to review award claims, rating badges, testimonial language, disclaimers, and publication procedures before using them in marketing materials.  Attorney advertising compliance consulting addresses rating descriptions, comparisons, and disclosures so promotional language reflects the distinction actually awarded.

Attorneys should display only ratings they have actually received and use the correct designation associated with the recognition. Advertising should not imply that a Martindale-Hubbell rating guarantees legal outcomes or represents approval by a court or bar association. State-specific professional conduct rules may also regulate rating badges, testimonials, awards, and comparative claims, so the responsible attorney should review the rules governing each publication.

How Do Martindale-Hubbell Ratings Compare to Avvo Ratings?

Martindale-Hubbell ratings differ from Avvo ratings because Martindale-Hubbell emphasizes formal peer recognition and separate client reviews, while Avvo focuses on attorney profiles, ratings, public records, and client reviews within its own evaluation framework. Martindale-Hubbell uses AV Preeminent, Distinguished, and Notable distinctions for peer recognition and Client Champion awards for client feedback, while Avvo presents attorney profiles, public-facing reviews, and its own lawyer rating system.  According to a study by Michael Anderson and Jeremy Magruder titled Learning from the Crowd: Regression Discontinuity Estimates of the Effects of an Online Review Database in 2012, Anderson and Magruder examined how Yelp rating changes affected restaurant reservation availability. It supports the importance of visible reputation signals, without validating any attorney-rating system. Accurate credentials, consistent practice details, and correctly labeled rating information form part of legal directory optimization across attorney profiles.

Law firms comparing directory recognition should also review attorney advertising ethics and compliance rules before using ratings, awards, or third-party endorsements in promotional materials. Both platforms provide information that prospective clients can consider, but neither replaces an assessment of an attorney’s qualifications, relevant experience, professional standing, and suitability for a specific legal matter.

The table below compares Martindale-Hubbell and Avvo across their evaluation systems and reputation functions.