What Verdica's 796 score means for Deandra M Grant
Deandra M Grant's composite score of 796 out of 850 places her in the "strong" performance band (740–799). This score reflects consistent compliance across the dimensions Verdica tracks: bar standing, disciplinary history, and practice profile. A score in this range indicates that a legal provider has maintained good standing with their state regulator and does not present obvious red flags based on publicly available disciplinary or licensing data.
For a reader considering whether to engage with this provider, a 796 score suggests reasonable confidence in regulatory compliance. It is not a guarantee of quality work or outcome—Verdica's methodology focuses on backward-looking regulatory data, not customer satisfaction or case results—but it does indicate the provider has cleared basic professional hurdles. The score sits just below the "excellent" threshold (800–850), meaning there is room for improvement in one or more dimensions, but overall positioning is solid.
How the sub-scores break down
Bar Standing (790/850): This reflects Deandra M Grant's current license status and standing with the Delaware bar. A score of 790 is strong, indicating active, good standing without suspension, revocation, or reinstatement issues. In the legal industry, bar standing is foundational; anything below active, good standing typically triggers automatic risk escalation. A score in this range suggests the provider maintains the baseline credential required to practice.
Disciplinary History (850/850): This is a perfect score. It indicates no disciplinary actions, complaints upheld, or sanctions on record with the Delaware bar. A perfect disciplinary score is meaningful because it reflects the absence of substantiated conduct violations, fee disputes, trust account violations, or ethical breaches recorded by state regulators over the provider's history. This is a notable strength.
Practice Profile (700/850): This sub-score is the lowest of the three, though still in the acceptable-to-strong range. Practice profile typically reflects factors such as years in practice, areas of reported practice, and any licensing or practice restrictions. A score of 700 suggests the profile is stable but may indicate a shorter tenure, limited practice areas, or other structural factors that Verdica's model flags. This dimension is least directly tied to misconduct risk and more reflective of institutional maturity or scope.
What regulators in DE track for legal providers
Delaware's bar, like all state bars, maintains disciplinary records that form the backbone of Verdica's scoring. State bar systems track infractions ranging from trust account mismanagement and commingling of client funds (serious), to failure to communicate, conflicts of interest, unauthorized practice, and fee disputes. They also maintain records of licensing actions: suspensions, reinstatements, probation, and conditions on practice.
Bar regulators do not typically grade or measure service quality, speed, or customer satisfaction. Instead, they focus on professional conduct, financial integrity, and adherence to rules of professional conduct. Verdica's use of disciplinary and practice history data reflects this regulatory scope: it captures risk of past misconduct, not likelihood of good outcomes. A high score in these dimensions means the provider has not been formally sanctioned; it does not mean they have never made mistakes or had unhappy clients.
Practice history data (years licensed, area of law, geographic scope) helps contextualize bar standing and disciplinary records. A newer provider with limited history will typically score lower on practice profile than an established one, all else equal.
Bottom line
Deandra M Grant's score of 796 indicates strong regulatory compliance and a clean disciplinary record in Delaware. A prospective client or business partner should view this as a positive baseline signal. However, the "strong" band (not "excellent") and the lower practice profile sub-score suggest due diligence beyond Verdica's data would be prudent—such as reviewing specific case experience, references, or engagement terms before committing to representation.