What Verdica's 796 score means for Amir Tavakkoli
Amir Tavakkoli in Arizona has earned a composite Verdica score of 796 out of 850, which places him in the "strong" performance band (740–799). This score reflects a legal provider with solid regulatory standing and a track record that does not raise significant compliance red flags based on available state bar data.
A score in this range typically indicates that a provider meets professional licensing requirements and has not accumulated substantial disciplinary history. For a business owner or consumer evaluating legal representation, a 796 score suggests a practitioner with demonstrated professional responsibility. However, this is not the highest possible rating—the "excellent" band (800–850) represents providers with near-clean records across all dimensions. The distinction matters: a strong score is reassuring but leaves room for context. Readers should still verify that Tavakkoli's practice areas and experience align with their specific legal needs before engaging.
How the sub-scores break down
Bar Standing: 790. This sub-score reflects Tavakkoli's current licensing status and compliance with bar membership requirements in Arizona. A score of 790 in this dimension is solid, indicating active, good-standing membership. Bar standing typically deteriorates when a provider faces license suspension, administrative sanctions, or failure to meet continuing legal education or ethics requirements. A 790 here suggests Tavakkoli has maintained compliance with these baseline obligations.
Disciplinary History: 850. This is Tavakkoli's strongest component—a perfect score in Verdica's disciplinary dimension. This indicates no substantiated disciplinary findings in the Arizona State Bar's records. In the legal industry, disciplinary history tracks formal complaints, ethics violations, malpractice findings, and sanctions. An 850 means Tavakkoli has not accumulated a record of such issues. This is meaningful but not unusual for providers in the strong-to-excellent range; many practicing attorneys have clean disciplinary records.
Practice Profile: 700. This sub-score is the lowest of the three, placing it at the boundary between "acceptable" (670–739) and "strong" (740–799) bands. Practice profile typically measures factors visible in bar records: practice areas, office locations, years of admission, and any public record indicators of practice scope or client volume. A 700 here suggests Tavakkoli's practice profile is acceptable and documented but may have less extensive public information or indicators of high-volume or specialized practice compared to top-performing peers. This does not indicate a compliance problem—it often reflects gaps in publicly available data or a smaller practice footprint.
What regulators in AZ track for legal providers
The Arizona State Bar maintains disciplinary and practice records that form the foundation of Verdica's scoring. State bars monitor attorney conduct through complaint processes, tracking ethical violations such as neglect, dishonesty, fee disputes, conflicts of interest, and mishandling of client funds. They also oversee licensing compliance: continuing legal education hours, bar dues, and trust account requirements.
Regulators flag serious infractions—including suspension or disbarment—which severely impact scores. Lesser sanctions, such as admonitions or reprimands, also register. Practice history data captures an attorney's jurisdiction, office presence, length of admission, and any publicly noted practice restrictions or specialty certifications. This regulator data is static and backward-looking; it reflects what has been formally documented, not real-time case outcomes or client satisfaction. Scores improve through years of clean compliance; they degrade through substantiated complaints or regulatory action.
Bottom line
Tavakkoli presents as a strong, low-risk provider based on available regulatory data, with particularly clean disciplinary standing. Before retaining him, verify that his practice experience matches your legal matter, confirm his current availability, and discuss fee and engagement terms directly—none of which are captured in a compliance score.