What Verdica's 796 score means for Daniel An
Daniel An's composite score of 796 places him in the "strong" band (740–799), reflecting above-average compliance standing based on state bar data. This score sits 4 points below the "excellent" threshold of 800, indicating solid professional credentials with minimal red flags in the areas Verdica measures.
For a business owner or consumer evaluating a legal provider, a score in this range suggests a practitioner with a clean disciplinary record and established practice history, but not yet at the highest tier of measured compliance. The gap between 796 and the "excellent" band is small enough that it does not signal elevated risk; rather, it reflects the granular nature of Verdica's scoring. A reader should interpret this as: Daniel An meets professional standards and has no major compliance concerns flagged by Connecticut state bar records, but there may be minor factors that prevent a perfect score.
No independent customer reviews are currently indexed for this entity, so the score rests entirely on regulatory data. This means the evaluation is based on objective bar records rather than client experience.
How the sub-scores break down
Bar Standing (790/850): This reflects Daniel An's current licensure status and any formal standing issues with the Connecticut bar. A score of 790 is strong and indicates active, unrestricted licensure. In the legal profession, bar standing is binary in nature—a lawyer either holds a valid license or does not—so variation in this sub-score typically reflects any minor administrative matters, compliance gaps, or jurisdictional nuances rather than outright license suspension or revocation.
Disciplinary History (850/850): This is a perfect score, indicating no disciplinary infractions recorded in Connecticut state bar disciplinary records. This is the highest possible rating and suggests Daniel An has not faced formal complaints, sanctions, or ethical violations tracked by the state bar. A perfect score here is meaningful because it represents the absence of documented misconduct.
Practice Profile (700/850): This sub-score evaluates practice history, experience breadth, and professional activity as tracked by bar records. At 700, this score is in the acceptable-to-strong range but is the lowest of Daniel An's three sub-scores. In the legal industry, this dimension typically reflects factors such as years in practice, types of legal work performed, continuing education, or specialty certifications. A score of 700 suggests established practice activity without notable gaps, but may indicate a narrower scope compared to practitioners scoring higher in this category.
What regulators in CT track for legal providers
Connecticut's bar disciplinary records document formal complaints, investigations, and sanctions against licensed attorneys. Infractions tracked include violations of professional conduct rules—such as conflict-of-interest violations, fee disputes, mishandling of client funds, failure to communicate, or dishonesty. Serious violations can result in license suspension or disbarment; lesser infractions may lead to reprimands or fines.
Practice history data captures licensure longevity, active practice status, and jurisdictional compliance. Regulators monitor whether lawyers maintain continuing legal education requirements, keep current bar membership status, and operate within their authorized practice areas. Gaps in practice history—such as inactive licenses, lapsed certifications, or jurisdictional restrictions—can lower scores in this dimension.
Verdica uses these public regulatory sources to assess compliance risk. High scores indicate practitioners with clean disciplinary records and stable practice credentials. Low scores or downward movement can signal emerging compliance concerns that warrant closer review.
Bottom line
Daniel An's 796 score reflects a legal provider with strong bar standing and a clean disciplinary record, positioned as a reliable choice based on regulatory data. Before engaging his services, cross-check his specific practice areas against your legal needs and consider requesting references, as the composite score does not address client satisfaction or service quality.