What Verdica's 796 score means for James G. Perry
James G. Perry's composite score of 796 out of 850 places him in the "strong" performance band (740–799), indicating a legal provider with solid compliance credentials and minimal regulatory red flags. This score reflects data drawn from Florida state bar disciplinary records and practice history—the primary sources regulators use to assess attorney fitness and conduct.
A score in this band suggests that Perry meets professional standards and has not accumulated significant disciplinary marks. For someone evaluating whether to engage Perry's services, a 796 score indicates lower legal or compliance risk compared to providers scoring below 740, though it falls short of the "excellent" threshold (800–850) where regulatory oversight reveals virtually no concerns. The score should be understood as one data point in a broader due-diligence process, not a guarantee of service quality or outcome.
How the sub-scores break down
Bar Standing (790): This sub-score reflects Perry's current licensure status and active good standing with the Florida Bar. A score of 790 indicates that Perry holds a valid license to practice law in the state and has not been suspended or subject to disbarment actions. Licensing status is binary in nature—an attorney either stands in good order or does not—so a high score here means no active licensing impediments.
Disciplinary History (850): This is Perry's strongest sub-score and represents the highest possible rating. A perfect disciplinary score indicates an absence of substantiated complaints, ethics violations, or sanctions in the state bar's public records. The Florida Bar tracks and publishes disciplinary actions including admonitions, suspensions, and other penalties stemming from client complaints, trust account violations, misrepresentation, or failure to follow professional conduct rules. An 850 here means none of those issues appear in the indexed record.
Practice Profile (700): This sub-score of 700 sits at the threshold of the "acceptable" band (670–739) and reflects Perry's practice history and scope of work as documented in bar records. Practice profile metrics may include years of active practice, areas of focus, jurisdictional scope, and any public practice disclosures. A score of 700 suggests Perry's practice profile is on the lower end of acceptable—this may reflect a narrower practice scope, newer entry to practice, or limited transparency in publicly available practice data, rather than indicating misconduct.
What regulators in FL track for legal providers
The Florida Bar maintains public disciplinary records that form the backbone of Verdica's scoring. The state tracks multiple categories of attorney conduct:
Licensure and good standing: Whether an attorney is currently authorized to practice, has active malpractice insurance requirements, and maintains required continuing legal education credits.
Disciplinary history: Substantiated complaints filed by clients or other parties, leading to formal bar investigations. Outcomes range from no action to private admonitions, public reprimands, suspension, or disbarment. Common infraction categories include neglect of client matters, failure to communicate, misuse of client funds, dishonesty, and violations of professional conduct rules.
Practice transparency: Information attorneys are required to disclose, such as practice location, areas of practice, fee structures in some cases, and public malpractice history when applicable.
Scores rise when attorneys maintain clean disciplinary records and remain in good standing. Scores fall when complaints are substantiated, enforcement actions are taken, or licensing status becomes encumbered. The system is designed to flag providers with patterns of misconduct or fitness concerns that might affect client protection.
Bottom line
Perry's 796 score places him in the strong performance tier with clean disciplinary records and active bar standing—low regulatory risk signals. Before engaging his services, verify that his practice profile and experience align with your specific legal needs, and consider cross-checking client references or malpractice insurance history to supplement the compliance picture.