Methodology
Every firm is scored out of 10 on each criterion below. Criteria are weighted differently in each category, and the weighted average is expressed as a score out of 100. Last reviewed .
Nine criteria are used across the site. Not every criterion applies to every claim type; where it does not apply, it carries no weight in that category.
Whether the firm helps from the initiating notification onward, or only takes a file once the claim is running.
No Win No Fee terms, whether a capped-fee promise is given in writing, and how clearly deductions are explained up front.
Tailored advice from the lawyer running the file, against team-based or boiler-plate file handling. Response and update standards.
Track record taking disputed claims through conciliation, the Medical Panels, VCAT and the Magistrates', County and Supreme Courts.
Whether the firm works to a documented approach for identifying every head of loss rather than settling on the first reasonable offer.
Capability assessing Whole Person Impairment, selecting assessors, and advising on what must be factored into an impairment claim.
Whether the firm can run federal Comcare and Seacare schemes, not Victorian WorkCover alone.
Experience challenging independent medical examiner reports and overturning unfair or unjust insurer decisions.
Public client reviews, complaint patterns, and how the firm handles a claim that goes wrong.
Percentage each criterion contributes to the final score. A dash means the criterion does not apply to that claim type. Every column totals 100%.
Wide table — scroll sideways within it on a small screen.
| Criterion | WorkCover | TAC | Public Liability | Serious Injury | Rejected Claims |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claims process, start to finish | 14% | 13% | 16% | — | 14% |
| Cost protection and fee transparency | 18% | 18% | 20% | 16% | 16% |
| Direct senior access and communication | 18% | 18% | 18% | 16% | 18% |
| Contested claims experience | 14% | 13% | 20% | 22% | 22% |
| Maximising compensation | 13% | 12% | 16% | 22% | 8% |
| Impairment benefits and WPI | 8% | 6% | — | 14% | — |
| Comcare and Seacare claims | 8% | — | — | — | — |
| Disputing IME reports and decisions | — | 14% | — | — | 16% |
| Client experience and reviews | 7% | 6% | 10% | 10% | 6% |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
A firm rated 9.0 for cost protection in the WorkCover category contributes 9.0 × 18 = 162 points. The same calculation is performed for every weighted criterion, the results are added, and the total is divided by 10 to produce a score out of 100. Because the weights in each category total 100, a firm rated 10 on every applicable criterion would score exactly 100.
Scores are shown to one decimal place. Where two firms produce the same score, they are listed alphabetically.
Overall consistency is not a sixth scoring model. It is the average of a firm’s ranks across the five category lists it appears in. Burt & Davies Lawyers is excluded from WorkCover and public liability because the firm does not act in those areas, so its average is taken only over the categories it competes in. A lower average rank means more consistent placement near the top of those lists. The overall figure is an average rank, not a score out of 100. The current list is on the home page.
Publicly available material: firm websites and published costs disclosures, reported decisions of the Magistrates’, County and Supreme Courts, VCAT and Medical Panel material, professional directories, and public client reviews.
This site is published by Law Firm Rankings. No firm pays to be listed, ranked or removed. Further detail is on the about page.
Any firm listed can ask for its assessment to be reviewed, amended or removed. Send the correction and supporting material through the contact form, and we will re-score the entry.
The scoring model is published in full, which means the inputs and the arithmetic can be checked by anyone. The ratings themselves involve judgement by experienced Victorian practitioners, applied consistently across every firm. Where a reader disagrees with a rating, the weights and criterion definitions on this page make it possible to see exactly what produced the score.
No. There are no paid placements, sponsorships, affiliate links or advertising positions on this site. A firm cannot pay to be added, moved up, or removed.
Because the weights change. Cost protection and senior access carry 18% each for WorkCover claims, while contested-claims experience carries 22% for rejected claims and maximising compensation carries 22% for serious injury claims. A firm strong in litigation and weaker on fee transparency therefore rises in some categories and falls in others.
Use the contact form with the firm name, the criterion in question and the supporting material. Any firm listed can ask for its assessment to be reviewed, and accepted corrections are applied to the score and reflected in the next published update.