What Verdica's 796 score means for Daniel An
Daniel An's composite score of 796 out of 850 places him in the "strong" performance band (740–799), indicating above-average compliance standing and professional conduct. This score reflects reliable bar status and a clean disciplinary record, with some variance in documented practice profile metrics.
A score in this range suggests that a legal provider has maintained current licensure, avoided significant regulatory action, and operated within established professional norms. For someone evaluating Daniel An, a 796 signals lower compliance risk compared to providers scoring below 670, but it's worth noting this is not the highest possible band—there is measurable room between this score and the "excellent" threshold of 800–850.
The score is derived from state bar records and practice history, meaning it reflects regulatory facts rather than client satisfaction or subjective quality measures. No independent customer reviews are currently indexed for this entity, so the composite score represents compliance and regulatory standing alone.
How the sub-scores break down
Bar Standing (790 / 850): This sub-score evaluates whether a legal provider maintains active licensure and meets state bar membership requirements. A score of 790 indicates Daniel An is in good standing with the Georgia bar but may have minor flags or data gaps that prevent a perfect score. This is a strong indicator of continued right to practice.
Disciplinary History (850 / 850): A perfect score in this dimension means no substantiated disciplinary actions, complaints upheld, or sanctions recorded in Georgia bar records. This is the strongest of the three sub-scores and suggests a clean regulatory history with respect to professional conduct violations, ethics complaints, or licensing infractions. A perfect disciplinary score is a baseline expectation for any legal provider, and Daniel An meets it.
Practice Profile (700 / 850): This sub-score is the lowest of the three and reflects documented information about how Daniel An operates professionally—such as practice areas, client matter types, billing patterns, or operational disclosures visible in bar records. A score of 700 sits in the "acceptable" band and suggests either incomplete documentation, limited public profile data, or neutral indicators in areas that could strengthen professional standing. This doesn't indicate misconduct; it typically means less detailed or verifiable information is available in the regulatory record.
What regulators in GA track for legal providers
The Georgia State Bar maintains disciplinary records and practice history that form the backbone of Verdica's scoring. Regulators monitor several compliance dimensions:
Licensing and bar membership status: Active licensure in good standing, maintenance of continuing legal education requirements, and payment of bar fees.
Disciplinary actions: Complaints filed against a provider, investigations conducted, and sanctions imposed for ethics violations, professional misconduct, competence issues, or dishonest conduct. Verdica indexes substantiated actions only.
Practice disclosures: Information filed with the bar regarding practice areas, office locations, and other operational details that create a verifiable professional footprint.
Regulatory infractions: Actions such as trust account violations, failure to respond to bar inquiries, misrepresentation to clients or courts, conflicts of interest, or abandonment of client matters. These would lower scores significantly.
The absence of records does not always equal excellence—it can also reflect limited public documentation or newer practitioners. Conversely, a clean record over time is a meaningful signal.
Bottom line
Daniel An's score of 796 reflects a legally compliant provider with no disciplinary history and active bar standing, placing him in the strong performance category. Before engaging, verify his specific practice areas and experience match your needs, since the Practice Profile sub-score suggests limited public documentation in the regulatory record. Independent client references or direct consultation would add useful perspective beyond regulatory compliance.