- Home
- Portland, OR
- Personal Injury
- Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost
Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost
LFL Verified 2026Personal InjuryPortland, OR● Accepting new clients
LFL Verified 2026Measured from public recordsYours to display →
40/100LFL Score, every factor measured
25Points from Certified
Not statedFee model
FreeInitial consultation
About Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost
Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost works from Second Avenue in Portland and names thirteen people, including the four in its name. It publishes in Spanish and its own page offers straight answers at no cost.
179 reviews at 4.9. It states no fee model in terms we could record, which is unusual for a firm this size, and publishes no case results we could read.
What this firm has earned Every one from a measured value, with the evidence behind it
LFL Verified 2026
Every eligibility gate this firm's state allows us to check has been checked and held: licensure, discipline, entity, website and footprint. Certification additionally requires a score of 70.
4.9 average over 179 reviews
A high rating is easy at low volume and hard to hold at this one. Pillar C scores it against the market rather than against five stars.
Service in Spanish
Published by the firm on its own pages, which is how this was measured rather than assumed from a name.
LFL Certification Score Scored under Methodology v2.0 · rows tagged Registry, Observed or Ahrefs are measured; rows tagged Illustrative are sample values pending full verification
40out of 100
LFL Certification Score · Methodology v2.0Scored across 68 of the 68 points this firm's state lets anyone measure, out of 100 in the methodology: 32 of them need a register that Oregon does not publish for us to read. Anything unscored counts neither for nor against the firm.
Verified
2 of 5 eligibility gates passed. 3 could not be answered from the available records (G1, G2, G3) and do not count against the firm. Strongest pillar: C; most headroom in pillar A (0/25).
LFL Verified 202625 points to Certified
65 needed · A+B+C floor not yet met (47% of the A, B and C points assessed)
Most headroom: B1 Results published: +6 available · B2 Specificity: +5 available · E1 Free consult & fee transparency: +5 available
G1 LicensureNot published by OROregon does not publish an attorney register we can query, so licensure is not verified here. The state's own attorney search is the place to check it.
G2 DisciplineNot published by OR1 of the firm's attorneys share a surname with a disciplined attorney, and for Chris Thomas 1 of 1 decision(s) naming this surname have no searchable text, so they can be neither tied to nor ruled out against this attorney. The decisions that cannot be read are scans without searchable text, so this is a limit of the published record. Nothing here says the firm's attorney is that person.
G3 Entity & officeNot published by OR1 physical location verified on Google Business Profile. We read the Active Businesses register (data.oregon.gov tckn-sxa6), published as open data by the Oregon Secretary of State and could not identify this firm in it: no entity whose name contains the firm's name. A miss there is not evidence that the firm is unregistered, so this gate is unresolved rather than failed.
G5 WebsiteSite has served over HTTPS, a working phone number published, 11 named attorneys published.
G6 Footprint179 public client reviews across 1 Google listing, above the 10 minimum, and the firm's domain has been registered since 2016-04-26, so it has been operating for more than a year
AProfessional Standing0/25
A2 Experienceno queryable sourceOregon publishes no attorney register we can query, so years since admission cannot be established here for any firm and this is not scored.0 / 10
A6 Roster verifiabilityno queryable sourceOregon publishes no attorney register we can query, so the roster is not verified here and this is not scored.0 / 9
A5 AccountabilityObservedno bar or trial lawyers' association named on the pages we read · no professional liability cover disclosed, which is not scored here: plaintiff firms in this market do not publish it, and an absence shared by every firm separates none of them0 / 3
BPublished Outcomes0/15
B1 Results publishedFirm-submittedThe firm publishes no case results we could read0 / 6
B2 SpecificityFirm-submitted0 case types named; no court or county named, so no result can be looked up0 / 5
B3 Results disclosureFirm-submittedNo prior-results disclaimer on the results page. A past result is not a prediction of another one, and the disclaimer is the sentence that says so0 / 4
CClient Experience18/20
C1 Authentic volumeObserved179 Google reviews · Google Business Profile via Places API. 1 listing, counts summed and rating weighted by count4 / 5
C2 Rating qualityObservedGoogle rating 4.9 over 179 reviews → Bayesian 4.87 (prior 4.83 weighted as 100 reviews, from 1410 scored firms) · single platform, Google only5 / 6
C3 Review recencyGoogle5 of 5 sampled reviews are from the last 12 months (newest 2026-08-04) · a sample of five per business listing, not every review5 / 5
C5 Complaint shareGoogle0 of 5 sampled reviews rate 1 or 2 stars · a sample, so this is the shape of the complaints rather than a count of them4 / 4
DDigital Presence & Authority7/25
D1 Website trust & experienceObservedCWV fail · no fee statement · no privacy policy · no disclaimer · fresh content · scored out of 5 of the 7: nothing has measured accessibility or bar numbers on bios here yet, so it is not counted against this firm1 / 5
D2 Search authorityAhrefs · 2026-09-16DR 27 → 63th pct of 19-firm cohort (median 24) 2/3 · 715 referring domains, 58th pct 1/2 · 165 organic keywords / 665 visits·mo, 66th pct 1/2 · brand demand 0/1 (pending)4 / 8
D3 Local presenceGoogle1 operational Google Business Profile listing · 6 photos · 5 categories, hours published, which almost every listing here has and so separates nobody · the services list, Q&A and recent posts are owner-side fields the Places API does not expose, and NAP consistency across citations and local-pack rank have no source here, so the rest of this sub-factor leaves the scale rather than being scored as unearned0.6 / 1
D4 Content, E-E-A-T & schemaAhrefs · 2026-09-16JSON-LD detected 1/1 · not assessed on any firm yet, so content depth and earned media and AI citations leave the scale (4 pts)1 / 1
EAccess & Responsiveness2/15
E1 Free consult & fee transparencyObservedFree consultation · fee model not published · the fee percentage itself is not published1 / 6
E3 Languages & accessibilityObservedEnglish, Spanish1.5 / 4
E4 AvailabilityObservedno availability published0 / 5
Next automated re-check: Dec 1, 2026 · Cohort: Portland x Personal Injury (20 firms measured)How the score works →
Digital presence snapshot
Pillar D signals, re-measured monthly. Paid advertising is not scored.
Domain authority
27· 63th percentile
715 ref. domains · cohort median 24 · Ahrefs rank 5.3M
Observed · Ahrefs, 2026-09-16Trust pages
2 / 2
attorney bios · blog
ObservedCore Web Vitals
Failmobile
Performance 70
Observed · PSI, 2026-09-15Practice areas 6 areas · primary focus highlighted
The firm’s people the firm names its people without saying who among them practises law · 11 more people are named by the firm without a role, so we do not call them attorneys
Also named by the firm
The firm lists these people among its team and prints no role beside the names, so we do not describe them as attorneys.
Client reviews
4.9
★★★★★
Based on 179 Google reviews · Google Business Profile via Places API. 1 listing, counts summed and rating weighted by count · Quotes below are testimonials published by the firm
Offices 1 location · main office: Portland
Portland820 SW 2nd Ave Ste 200, Portland, OR 97204, USA
Frequently asked questions
How much does Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost charge?
Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost publishes no fee terms on the pages we read, so none is recorded on this profile. An absence here is not a claim that the firm has no fee arrangement, only that it does not state one publicly. The rate itself is not published, so ask for it in writing, along with how case expenses are handled and whether they come out of the recovery before or after the fee. The first consultation is free, which is the place to ask.
Does Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost offer a free consultation?
Yes. Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost publishes a free initial consultation. It publishes material in Spanish.
Where does Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost have offices?
Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost publishes one office, in Portland. Addresses and the Google listing behind each one are on this profile under Offices.
Who are the attorneys at Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost?
Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost names eleven attorneys on its own site, and each is listed on this profile with the page we read them from. They have not been checked against a state register: Oregon does not publish an attorney register we can query, so licensure is not verified here. The state's own attorney search is the place to check it.
What has Law Firm Listings verified about Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost?
Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost scores 39 and sits at Verified. Passed: website and footprint. Could not be answered from any public source and therefore counts neither for nor against the firm: licensure, discipline and entity registration. Every row of the scorecard above names where the value came from and when it was read. Nothing on this profile was supplied by the firm for payment, and no placement here can be bought.
Yours to display
Show this on your site
Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost has earned this badge. They are free, they are not for sale, and each one links back to this page so anybody can read the evidence behind it. They are also live: the file is rebuilt every time we re-measure, so a badge on your site says what is true today rather than what was true the day you copied it.
LFL Verified 2026
On a pale background use the light version.
<a href="https://lawfirmlistings.com/firms/thomas-coon-newton-frost/">
<img src="https://lawfirmlistings.com/badge/thomas-coon-newton-frost/tier-2026.svg"
alt="LFL Verified 2026" width="310" height="96">
</a>