Reviewflowz connects to Clio and asks the client for a Google review when the matter is closed. The review is credited to the attorney who ran it, not just to the firm.

Setup is an OAuth connection from Reviewflowz. $70 per location per month billed annually, or $80 month to month with no commitment. The 14 day trial does not ask for a card.

Worth saying plainly, because if you are on Clio you may already have it. Clio Manage can send a review request when you close a matter, and it points at your Google Business Profile.

Here is how Clio describes the automation:

Read the second paragraph again. Automatic review requests are scoped by practice area. That is the only dimension Clio segments on. You choose which practice areas trigger a request, and the request asks the client to review your firm.

Two other things worth knowing before you rely on it. The automation is configured in Clio Grow even though it fires on a matter closing in Clio Manage, so you need both. And Starter, the only plan Clio publishes a price for, cannot send review requests at all. Every plan that can costs an amount you have to ask for.

This is the part practice area cannot reach.

A client who has just had a good outcome wants to say so about the attorney who got it. And Google treats that as a real distinction. From Google's own guidance on Business Profiles:

So an attorney at your firm can hold their own Business Profile alongside the firm's. In most industries crediting a staff member is a leaderboard. In law it is a second listing that can rank, for the name a prospective client is actually searching.

Reviewflowz tracks your attorneys as individuals and credits a review to one when the client names them in it. Misspellings and short forms are tolerated, so "Katherine", "Kathrine" and "Kate" all land on the same person, and anything genuinely ambiguous waits for someone to confirm rather than crediting the wrong lawyer.

Be straight with yourself about what that needs: the client has to write the name. Clio's matter webhook does not tell us who ran the matter, so a review thanking "the team" is credited to the firm and not to a person. Worth knowing before you build a bonus on it. Also worth saying that Clio's own automation does not attribute at all, and neither does any legal-vertical tool we could find.

Clio's feature requests reviews and logs that it sent them. It does not watch what comes back. It has no inbox, no alerts, and no way to reply.

That gap matters more in law than anywhere else, because replying is where firms get into trouble. ABA Formal Opinion 496 is direct about it: a negative review does not by itself unlock the self-defence exception, and even a mild response can confirm that the person was your client.

Reviewflowz shows you every new review across the sites your firm appears on, alerts you in Slack or email on anything at or below a rating you choose, and drafts a reply you can send or edit.

The reply drafting is built from your firm's own previously published replies. If your firm has never confirmed a client relationship in a public reply, there is no example teaching it to start. It writes the way you already write. And if you would rather a person approved every reply before it goes anywhere, set it to suggest instead of send, and nothing publishes without you.

Short version: asking is fine, and the rules bite elsewhere.

The New York State Bar has held that a client's freely given review is not an advertisement at all, because it is not made by or on behalf of the lawyer. Asking a client to leave one does not turn it into one. What crosses the line is writing it yourself, pressuring a client, or making anything conditional on what the review says.

Two things to keep separate from asking:

Incentives depend on your state, and the bars disagree. New York permits a credit that is not contingent on content. Michigan prohibits the same thing outright.

Two state bars, opposite conclusions, on the same question. Check yours before you offer a client anything, and note the FTC's 2024 rule separately bars incentives conditioned on sentiment.

Reusing a review in your marketing is a different rule from receiving it. The moment a client's words go on your website or into an ad, testimonial and disclaimer rules apply. New York requires "Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome". Florida is stricter still.

Neither of those stops you asking. They govern what you do afterwards.

In Reviewflowz, open Integrations, then Automate Review Requests, and click Clio. You will be sent to Clio to authorise the connection and sent back.

Decide whether every closed matter triggers a request or only some. If you run multiple offices, match them to your locations so each request points at the right Google profile.

Requests do not work backwards. A client whose matter closes while requests are off is never sent one, and switching them on later does not go back for them.

Clio publishes one number on its pricing page: Starter, from $49 per user. Core, Signature and Elite all say "Get pricing", and review requests are unavailable on Starter, an add-on at unpublished cost on Core and Signature, and bundled into Elite. The plan you can price is the plan that cannot do it.

The bolt-on vendors in Clio's own app directory are the same story. Birdeye publishes no price on its own site but lists at $299 a month there. Broadly lists at $247. FlowReviews, which does roughly the matter-close request and nothing else, is $59 a month on top of what you already pay Clio.

We are not that kind of software. Reviewflowz is laser focused on one job. It is light, it does that job properly, and there is nothing else in it to pay for, learn, or switch off.

Can I run this alongside Clio's own review requests? You can, but you would be asking the same client twice. Most firms pick one.

Will my closed matters from last year get a request? No. Only matters closed after you connect.

Two attorneys worked the matter. Who gets credit? Whoever the client names. If the review names both, both.

What if a review names no one? It counts for the firm, not for a person. Clio does not tell us who ran the matter, so the name in the review is what makes per-attorney credit possible.

Can I stop requests going out for a particular client? Yes, per contact.