About this site
Rideshare Accident Attorney is an independent directory of lawyers who handle Uber and Lyft accident cases. We research firms market by market, publish what we find, and show where each fact came from.
What we do
Rideshare cases are their own thing. Which insurance applies depends on what the driver was doing at the moment of the crash — waiting for a request, heading to a pickup, carrying a passenger — and the policy limits change at each step. Not every personal injury firm works these cases often.
So we look at one market at a time, find the firms handling rideshare claims there, and put them side by side: where they are, what they focus on, what clients say, what the firm says about itself. Then you call whoever you want.
How we're funded
No attorney pays to be listed. There are no sponsored placements, no ranks for sale, no referral fees, and we take no share of any case. Nobody is here because they paid — they're here because we found them.
We're not a law firm. We don't take cases or represent clients, and nothing here is legal advice. Talk to a licensed lawyer about your own situation.
How to read a listing
Every fact on a listing is tagged with where it came from, because not all of them carry the same weight.
One pattern worth knowing, since it's the opposite of what you'd expect: the most rideshare-focused firm we found publishes the vaguest numbers — "thousands of clients," "millions recovered," no figure at all. The listings we rejected published the most precise ones. A specific number is not the trust signal it looks like.
Who we leave out
We screen considerably more firms than we list. Most of what we dropped was the same handful of patterns: one "firm" appearing in several cities on a single toll-free number, referral brokers trading under a law-firm name, and listings whose reviews describe roads in the wrong state.
Where we are now
Two hundred and twenty-eight lawyers across twelve states and seventeen cities, weighted toward New York, Seattle, Philadelphia, Denver, San Diego, Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Orlando, Houston, Austin, Miami, Dallas, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Atlanta and Chicago. Every market we list has been checked. Bar licensing is checked by hand against state records. Every lawyer we list is done — two hundred and twenty-eight checks across twelve states. Nine turned up disciplinary records, and those listings report them in full. Two listings show a dash rather than a value, because the records we were given did not carry that line. Three more say on their face that we could not reach the firm's website. One says something we have never had to write before: that the firm's rideshare page was never written at all, and still carries the demo text its template shipped with.
Fifty-nine listings carry a dash on discipline rather than a green tick, and that is deliberate. Twenty-three of the twenty-four in Washington, because that state's register never says "none" at all. All twenty-one in New York, because the court system displays "no record of discipline" and then instructs you to confirm it with the Appellate Division — which we have not done. And all fifteen in Pennsylvania, for a third reason again: the Disciplinary Board's attorney record carries no disciplinary field at all. Not "none", not a blank with a caveat — the question is not on the form. Three registers, three different reasons, the same honest answer.
The twenty-fourth Washington listing is the one that shows the dash was worth arguing about. Its register displayed an actual disciplinary entry — a reprimand, with a date — which is how we know that when Washington has something, it shows it, and that the other twenty-three dashes are a missing sentence rather than a hidden record.
Massachusetts, our tenth state, goes further than any of the others. It answers the discipline question plainly, and where the answer is not "none" it hyperlinks the decision document itself. One of our twelve Boston listings carries a public reprimand on exactly that basis — which is why those eleven clean Massachusetts records get a green tick rather than a dash.
We first wrote that no other register hands you the paperwork. That was wrong, and San Diego proved it. California links disciplinary decisions too, and does it more fully — one San Diego listing's record carries two case numbers, two suspensions and five linked court documents. We had simply never had a Californian listing with discipline to display. Both pages have been corrected.
Twice now we have been sent something that was not a register. Two San Diego candidates arrived with a trade-association listing instead of a bar record, and we did not publish them. The whole Denver batch arrived with entries from a lawyer directory rather than Colorado's regulator — so we went and searched the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ourselves and rebuilt all fourteen listings from what it holds. On three of them the directory and the regulator name different employers; on one the directory publishes an entirely different person's biography. The rule that follows is simple: when a real register exists, go and read it.
It happened a third time with Austin, and that one is worth telling in full because it shows what the rule is actually for. Nine of fourteen candidates arrived with an Austin Bar Association listing — a voluntary membership directory with no disciplinary field. This time we could not go and read the register ourselves: the State Bar of Texas refuses our connection from this network. So we published the five that came with State Bar records and held the other nine, named on the Texas page.
The nine sat unpublished until someone supplied the regulator's records. Every one of them came back clean — no public disciplinary history, all nine. On the face of it the hold achieved nothing except delay.
Except that it also caught things. Three of the nine licence dates in the association directory were wrong. Four addresses disagreed with the State Bar, and on three of those the regulator matched the lawyer's own website — including one lawyer the directory had placed in a different firm's building. None of that was visible until there was a second source to check against.
That is the whole argument. We could not have known the nine were clean without looking, and "they're probably fine" is not a standard. A directory that quietly padded its count with unchecked entries would be a different product from this one — and it would have shipped three wrong dates and an address belonging to someone else.
Corrections
If you're listed here and something's wrong, tell us and we'll fix it. If you have a source that contradicts our research, send it — we'd rather be corrected than be wrong.