What Verdica's 796 score means for Keisha Montgomery Torres
Keisha Montgomery Torres holds a composite score of 796 out of 850, placing her in the "strong" band (740–799). This score reflects a legal provider with solid regulatory standing and a clean disciplinary record, but with some room for variance in practice profile metrics.
For a reader evaluating whether to engage this provider, a score in this range signals low compliance risk based on available state bar data. The score is built from three distinct dimensions of professional conduct and standing, each weighted to capture different aspects of legal practice quality and regulatory oversight. A 796 means Torres meets or exceeds baseline expectations across the board, with no major red flags in bar standing or disciplinary history. However, the practice profile component trails slightly behind the other two, suggesting either limited scope of practice data available to Verdica or variation in how practice activities are tracked or reported.
This is not an "excellent" score (800–850 range), which would indicate near-perfect alignment across all three dimensions. Nor is it merely "acceptable" (670–739). The "strong" classification reflects a provider in good standing with regulators and no active disciplinary concerns—a meaningful data point for compliance-conscious clients.
How the sub-scores break down
Bar Standing (790/850): This sub-score reflects Torres's current license status, compliance with bar membership requirements, and any administrative or procedural issues with her license. A score of 790 indicates she is in good standing with the Georgia State Bar. This is not a perfect score, which might suggest minor administrative notes or compliance items, but nothing that threatens her ability to practice law. Readers should interpret this as: licensing is active and in order.
Disciplinary History (850/850): This is a perfect score, meaning Verdica has identified no formal disciplinary actions, complaints sustained by the bar, sanctions, or ethics violations in the available state bar record. In the legal industry, a clean disciplinary history is the baseline expectation; a perfect score here means Torres has no public disciplinary record within Verdica's data sources.
Practice Profile (700/850): This sub-score is the lowest of the three and reflects the breadth, depth, and consistency of available practice history data—areas such as reported practice areas, years in practice, firm affiliations, or other indicators of active legal work. A 700 suggests either limited public practice data indexed for Torres, or variation in how her practice profile information is reported or available through state bar records. This does not indicate poor practice quality; rather, it reflects data availability or standardization.
What regulators in GA track for legal providers
The Georgia State Bar maintains disciplinary records and licensing databases that track attorney conduct, license status, and formal ethics complaints. These records capture violations such as misappropriation of client funds, failure to communicate with clients, unauthorized practice, fee disputes, and breaches of professional conduct rules. The bar also tracks continuing legal education compliance, malpractice insurance status (in some contexts), and license renewal deadlines.
Practice history data typically includes bar admission records, practice area registrations, firm associations, and self-reported practice information submitted during license renewal or bar directory updates. Verdica's scoring model uses these public records to assess compliance risk: disciplinary actions, license suspensions, or disbarments will significantly lower scores, while clean records and consistent practice data support higher scores.
Bottom line
Torres presents as a low-risk provider from a regulatory compliance standpoint, with a clean disciplinary record and current bar standing. Before engaging, verify her specific practice areas and experience align with your legal needs, and request references—her practice profile score suggests some data sparsity that independent vetting can clarify.