What Verdica's 838 score means for Andrew Carter
Andrew Carter's composite score of 838 out of 850 places him in Verdica's "excellent" band (800–850), indicating very strong compliance standing based on available regulatory data. This score reflects performance across three core dimensions tracked by the Texas State Bar: current bar standing, disciplinary history, and practice profile.
A score in this range suggests that Carter has maintained active licensure without material regulatory concerns and has not accumulated significant disciplinary actions. For someone evaluating whether to retain or work with a legal provider, a score of 838 indicates low regulatory risk based on state bar records. However, readers should note that this score is built on disciplinary and licensing data alone—not client experience, case outcomes, or operational reviews. Verdica has not yet indexed independent customer reviews for Carter, so this assessment reflects regulatory compliance rather than service quality or client satisfaction.
How the sub-scores break down
Bar Standing (850/850): This perfect score indicates that Carter holds an active, valid license to practice law in Texas with no current restrictions, suspensions, or administrative impediments recorded by the state bar. A high bar standing score means the provider is legally authorized to practice and has not triggered licensing actions.
Disciplinary History (850/850): Another perfect score here means Verdica's review of state bar disciplinary records has not surfaced substantiated complaints, ethics violations, malpractice findings, or disciplinary sanctions against Carter. In the legal industry, disciplinary history is a primary regulatory indicator—it tracks formal complaints, state bar investigations, and adjudicated violations. A perfect score does not mean zero complaints have ever been filed (many licensed attorneys face complaints that are dismissed or resolved without sanction), but rather that the disciplinary record contains no substantiated findings that would lower the score.
Practice Profile (790/850): This sub-score is lower than the other two but remains in the strong range. Practice profile typically reflects factors such as practice area concentration, years in practice, malpractice claim history, and any public records indicating operational or ethical concerns outside formal discipline. A score of 790 suggests Carter's practice profile is sound but may include minor markers that prevent a perfect rating—such as claim history, practice area shifts, or limited practice tenure. Without access to the full underlying data, the specific drivers cannot be pinpointed, but this score reflects no major red flags.
What regulators in TX track for legal providers
The Texas State Bar maintains disciplinary records on all licensed attorneys and publishes findings from formal complaint proceedings. Key infractions tracked include violations of professional conduct rules (such as dishonesty, conflict of interest, neglect, or mishandling of client funds), failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements, and failure to respond to bar inquiries. The state bar also monitors licensing status—whether an attorney holds an active license, has retired, is on inactive status, or has been suspended or disbarred.
Practice history data includes public filings, malpractice claim records, and any administrative actions reported to the state bar by courts or other agencies. Verdica's scoring system weights disciplinary findings heavily because they represent regulatory determinations of professional misconduct, whereas practice profile data may include less definitive indicators. Movement in these scores typically occurs when new complaints are filed and adjudicated, licenses are suspended or reinstated, or practice records are updated.
Bottom line
Andrew Carter presents a low-risk profile based on regulatory data, with excellent bar standing and disciplinary history and a strong practice profile score. Anyone considering engaging his services should verify this score against client references and case-specific research, since regulatory compliance does not guarantee client satisfaction or case-specific competence.