What Verdica's 796 score means for Daniel Kim
Daniel Kim's composite score of 796 places him in the "strong" band (740–799), indicating reliable standing within Florida's legal profession. This score reflects a provider with no major red flags in regulatory records and a clean disciplinary history, but also suggests room for operational differentiation or specialization that distinguishes him in his practice area.
For a business owner or consumer evaluating legal services, a 796 score signals that Kim meets or exceeds baseline professional standards. The score is built from three dimensions: bar standing, disciplinary history, and practice profile. The absence of customer reviews means there is no independent feedback data yet indexed for this provider, so the score relies entirely on state-level regulatory records. This is a normal state for emerging or recently profiled providers and does not diminish the reliability of the regulatory assessment itself.
A reader considering Daniel Kim should interpret this score as "low compliance risk based on regulatory data," not as a comprehensive assessment of service quality or specialization fit. The strong band reflects consistency with state bar requirements and the absence of disciplinary action—a meaningful threshold that eliminates a large segment of higher-risk providers.
How the sub-scores break down
Bar Standing (790). This sub-score reflects Kim's current license status and standing with the Florida Bar. A score of 790 in this dimension indicates full, active membership in good standing. The bar standing measure typically accounts for whether a license is current, active, or subject to restrictions (such as probation, limited licenses, or inactive status). Kim's high score here confirms he is not operating under any known license encumbrances or restrictions.
Disciplinary History (850). This is Kim's highest sub-score and reflects the most favorable dimension of his regulatory profile. A perfect or near-perfect score in this category indicates either no recorded disciplinary complaints, or complaints that were resolved without sanctions. In the legal industry, disciplinary history is tracked by state bars through client complaints, bar counsel investigations, and adjudicated cases. The absence of significant marks here is a positive signal, though it does not guarantee zero complaints—only that no substantiated violations resulted in formal discipline.
Practice Profile (700). This sub-score is the lowest of the three and sits in the "acceptable" range. Practice profile typically reflects Verdica's assessment of a provider's verifiable practice activity, years in practice, practice areas, and organizational stability based on bar records. A score of 700 suggests Kim has sufficient practice visibility and history to verify, but may lack markers of extensive specialization, consistent high-volume practice, or standout credentials in a particular area. This is neither a weakness nor an advantage—it reflects a general practitioner or mid-career professional with standard practice depth.
What regulators in FL track for legal providers
The Florida Bar maintains disciplinary records on all licensed attorneys through its comprehensive complaint and adjudication process. These records capture allegations of misconduct ranging from ethics violations (conflict of interest, failure to communicate with clients), competence issues, and billing disputes to more serious infractions such as fraud, theft of client funds, or unauthorized practice.
Bar standing records reflect licensing status, including whether an attorney is active, inactive, retired, suspended, or subject to conditions like mandatory continuing education, practice restrictions, or probation. Practice history in bar records includes registration of practice areas, office locations, and disciplinary or grievance activity.
Verdica uses these official state bar sources to generate scores. Scores typically move downward when disciplinary cases are substantiated, when licenses are restricted or suspended, or when practice history shows instability or unresolved complaints. They move upward with clean records, active standing, and verifiable practice continuity.
Bottom line
Daniel Kim presents a low-risk regulatory profile based on Florida Bar records, with strong bar standing and a clean disciplinary history. Anyone considering his services should verify his specific practice areas and experience match their legal needs, since the practice profile score suggests he may not have standout specialization credentials. An independent customer review or reference check would add useful context beyond regulatory compliance.