What Verdica's 796 score means for Blake Cordova
Blake Cordova's composite score of 796 out of 850 places this Connecticut legal provider in the "strong" band (740–799). This score reflects a reliable compliance profile based on state bar records and practice history data.
A score in this range signals that regulators have not identified significant red flags in the provider's disciplinary record or licensing status. It also indicates that their documented practice profile aligns reasonably well with industry standards. Readers should understand this as a positive indicator—the provider has maintained good standing—but not the highest possible rating. There is room between 796 and the "excellent" threshold of 800–850, which typically represents providers with exceptionally clean records or longer tenure without any compliance events.
In practical terms: if you are evaluating Blake Cordova for a legal engagement, the "strong" rating means the underlying regulatory data does not present barriers to engagement. However, this score alone does not speak to responsiveness, cost, or fit for your specific legal needs.
How the sub-scores break down
Bar Standing (790 / 850): This sub-score measures whether the provider holds an active, unrestricted license in Connecticut and whether any licensing restrictions, suspensions, or conditions exist. A score of 790 indicates the provider's license is in good order. It is slightly below perfect, which could reflect minor licensing maintenance issues (such as a lapsed CLE credit that was remedied) or administrative notes in the bar file, but nothing that has resulted in suspension or restriction.
Disciplinary History (850 / 850): This is a perfect score, meaning Verdica's scan of Connecticut state bar disciplinary records found no record of complaints, sanctions, reprimands, or disbarment proceedings against Blake Cordova. In the legal profession, a clean disciplinary history is a baseline expectation; a perfect score here confirms the absence of formal regulatory action.
Practice Profile (700 / 850): This is the lowest of the three sub-scores, though still in the acceptable range. This sub-score is derived from documented practice history—such as years licensed, reported practice areas, client-matter types, and any public record indicators of scope or scale. A score of 700 may indicate that the provider's practice record is less extensively documented in public sources, or that the profile is newer to the available record. It does not suggest misconduct; rather, it reflects the data footprint available to regulators and indexing services.
What regulators in CT track for legal providers
Connecticut's state bar (the Connecticut Bar Association and the Statewide Grievance Committee system) maintains disciplinary records that capture formal complaints, ethics violations, negligence findings, fee disputes that escalate to adjudication, misappropriation of client funds, and violations of court orders. Licensing records track active status, CLE compliance, and any restrictions or conditions of practice.
Verdica aggregates these public regulatory records to compute scores. Infractions that move scores downward include active disciplinary sanctions, license suspensions, disbarment, ethics violations, and documented malpractice findings. Factors that support higher scores include unbroken licensing tenure, responsive compliance with bar rules, and absence of formal complaints in the public docket.
Practice history—years in practice, scope, and documented engagement patterns—also feeds the scoring, though public sources for this information are sometimes limited, which is why the Practice Profile sub-score may be lower even when Bar Standing and Disciplinary History are strong.
Bottom line
Blake Cordova is a strong candidate based on regulatory data: a clean disciplinary record and active license support confidence in basic compliance. Before engaging, you should verify that their practice area and experience align with your needs, and consider requesting references or case examples directly—areas where regulatory data does not speak.