What Verdica's 796 score means for James Johnson
James Johnson's composite score of 796 out of 850 places him in the "strong" band (740–799), indicating a legal provider with solid compliance standing and professional credentials. This score reflects data drawn from California state bar disciplinary records and practice history, the primary regulatory sources that track attorney conduct and eligibility to practice law.
A score in this range suggests that Johnson has maintained bar standing without significant disciplinary action and demonstrates a practice profile consistent with active, regulated legal work. Readers should interpret this as a marker of professional reliability based on regulatory oversight rather than a guarantee of service quality or outcome. The score does not assess client satisfaction, case results, or specific practice areas—only compliance and regulatory standing.
For business owners or consumers evaluating legal providers, a 796 score indicates lower compliance risk compared to providers in elevated or high-risk bands. However, this is one data point among many that should inform a hiring decision. Johnson's score is below the "excellent" threshold (800–850), meaning there is room between his profile and the highest regulatory compliance tier.
How the sub-scores break down
Bar Standing (790/850): This sub-score reflects Johnson's current eligibility and status to practice law in California. A score of 790 is strong but not perfect, suggesting he holds active bar membership and has met licensing renewal requirements. Minor or resolved issues, administrative lapses, or other factors that do not rise to formal discipline can affect this score. In plain terms: Johnson is legally cleared to practice, but his profile does not represent an entirely unblemished regulatory history.
Disciplinary History (850/850): This is a perfect score, indicating no formal disciplinary findings on record with the California State Bar. A perfect score in this dimension means no public sanctions, suspensions, or recorded misconduct complaints that resulted in bar action. This is the strongest possible reading in this category and reflects clean regulatory standing on the disciplinary front.
Practice Profile (700/850): This sub-score is the lowest of the three and relates to factors such as practice scope, licensing status, continuing education compliance, and other operational markers tracked by state regulators. A score of 700 sits at the floor of the "acceptable" band (670–739) and suggests Johnson's practice profile, while compliant, may have fewer active indicators of engagement or may reflect a narrower or less diversified practice footprint compared to higher-scoring providers.
What regulators in CA track for legal providers
California's State Bar maintains disciplinary records documenting complaints, investigations, and sanctions against attorneys. Infractions that drive down scores include ethical violations (breach of fiduciary duty, conflicts of interest), competence failures, failure to communicate with clients, mishandling of trust accounts, and dishonesty. The bar also monitors licensing renewal, continuing legal education hours, and malpractice insurance status.
The bar's public records reflect both formal discipline (disbarment, suspension, probation) and lesser administrative actions. Practice history data captures whether an attorney is actively licensed, in good standing, or on voluntary inactive status. Regulators also track whether attorneys have been subject to court sanctions, trust account audits, or complaints—even if those complaints did not result in formal discipline.
Scores move based on the presence, severity, and recency of disciplinary findings. A clean disciplinary record boosts the disciplinary sub-score to perfect. Bar standing reflects current compliance with renewal and licensing requirements. Practice profile indicators include active status, continuing education compliance, and scope of practice.
Bottom line
James Johnson's 796 score indicates a legal provider with strong regulatory standing, especially given a perfect disciplinary history. Before engaging his services, cross-check his specific practice area, client references if available, fee structure, and any prior outcomes in your relevant legal matter—compliance score does not measure service quality or case results.