What Verdica's 796 score means for Daniel An
Daniel An's composite score of 796 out of 850 places him in the "strong" band (740–799), indicating above-average compliance standing and professional conduct based on regulatory records. This score reflects a track record that meets or exceeds baseline professional standards in DC, with no significant red flags in the underlying data Verdica tracks.
A score in this range suggests the provider has maintained good bar standing and a disciplinary record without serious violations. However, it falls just short of the "excellent" threshold (800–850), which typically indicates unblemished or near-perfect regulatory histories. For someone evaluating legal services, a 796 score signals a reliable professional whose regulatory profile is solid—though not exceptional. The reader should interpret this as: Daniel An is a low-risk choice from a compliance perspective, with no apparent major regulatory concerns, but should still conduct customary due diligence before engaging.
How the sub-scores break down
Bar Standing (790 / 850): This reflects Daniel An's current licensing status and adherence to bar membership requirements in DC. A score of 790 indicates active, good standing with no apparent license suspension, revocation, or administrative lapses. In the legal industry, bar standing is the foundation of regulatory compliance. A score this high means the provider is authorized to practice and maintains the basic administrative compliance required to hold a law license.
Disciplinary History (850 / 850): This is a perfect score, indicating no record of formal disciplinary action in Verdica's indexed state bar data. Disciplinary records typically track complaints, sanctions, censures, suspensions, or other enforcement actions. A perfect disciplinary score means no such actions appear in the underlying regulator records available to Verdica. This is a strong indicator that the provider has not faced formal regulatory sanctions.
Practice Profile (700 / 850): This is the lowest sub-score and reflects observable characteristics of the provider's practice—likely including practice areas, client base, firm size, or other profile data derived from bar records. A score of 700 sits in the lower-acceptable range. This may indicate a less-established practice, narrower specialization, or limited public profile data available through regulatory filings. It does not suggest misconduct; rather, it reflects what regulators can observe about the scope or scale of the practice.
What regulators in DC track for legal providers
DC's bar disciplinary system, managed by the D.C. Bar and its Office of Disciplinary Counsel, monitors attorney conduct against the Rules of Professional Conduct. Key categories tracked include competence and diligence, conflicts of interest, misuse of client funds, dishonesty, violations of court orders, and failure to communicate with clients. These violations can result in private admonitions, public censures, suspensions, or disbarment, depending on severity.
Practice history data typically includes bar admission records, active license status, any history of license reinstatement, and aggregated practice information available through public bar records. Regulators also track continuing legal education compliance and any failure to pay bar dues or meet administrative requirements.
Scores move based on the presence or absence of disciplinary records, licensing status, and the completeness of observable practice information. A provider with no disciplinary record but limited public practice data (like a solo practitioner with minimal bar filing) may score lower on practice profile while maintaining high bar standing and disciplinary scores—exactly the pattern Daniel An shows.
Bottom line
Daniel An represents a low-risk compliance choice based on regulatory records, with strong bar standing and a clean disciplinary history. Before engaging, confirm current licensing status independently through the D.C. Bar website, verify practice areas match your needs, and request client references or case experience relevant to your matter.