Hi Marcus,
The more I dig on this one the more problems I find.
1st off realize attys are under heavy scrutiny because many set up virtual offices or shared offices just to appear they are in multiple cities when in reality the secondary offices are not staffed, they are seldom there and therefore are not allowed to have a Place page. Not saying that's the case here, don't have time to go deep. Just saying this is part of the problem this atty is up against due to questionable issues I've discovered. (And if I can find these issues so can Google.)
Google drops you out of the pack for a variety of reasons like duplicate confusion, NAP confusion (multiple listings or multiple sites with the same phone is just one variation of NAP confusion) or violations.
She's like a kindergartener playing a match game. Super smart but easily confused. Give her broken or duplicate pieces and she has a hard time putting it all together.
http://goo.gl/maps/lA1gw Bunch of different problems
#1 this could be the reason they are knocked out of the pack.
Can't have the same phone on 2 listings. I mean technically you can, BUT it often confuses the algo, can knock you out of blended AND can lead to a merge which can be a bear and eats one of the listings.
Additionally it could contribute to the feeling (if a human moderator looks at listing) that one of the locations isn't really valid and full-time, if it does not even have it's own phone.
#2 That Sentinel Legal Services, LLC listing. Check the website. It's a bare template site, but the same phone # is on the site that's on the Harris Law site and both the practice listings. So now we have 2 sites and 2 practice listings all with the same phone. Confusion escalates.
Plot thickens. The guidelines say one listing per location. Practitioners cannot set up additional listings to represent all their different specialties.
3) Check this:
http://goo.gl/maps/dxCqa
A listing with a KW stuffed name is at the same address: "Pacific Bankruptcy".
At 1st I thought could be shared office. Then noticed they both have 2 offices that are at the exact same address. So seemed there was more to the relationship than shared office.
THen look at the snippet on the Pacific Bankruptcy "N.E. Portland New Office!
Hackett & Harris 3913 N.E. Hancock Suite 100. Portland, OR"
Several places on the Pacific Bankruptcy it refers to the practice not as "Pacific Bankruptcy" or Hackett Law
but Hackett & Harris.
#4 Then check this:
http://goo.gl/maps/T2EMI
The Pacific listing phone #, surfaces a listing for your client Harris. Same #. Probably same address but address hidden which is weird for atty.
So anyway Google has all kinds of signals that these guys are connected and it's either confusing her and may also be a violation depending on the real world relationship.
So it seems like they maybe are or were partners? And still share an office? Which is going to cause further confusion with Google and again could be a violation if this is just really one big practice which it appears to be. If so they have to pick a name and should only have one listing.
I'm an hour in and that's my limit on free support, plus carpal is killing. But hopefully that will give you a few ideas about why they may have dropped out of blended. And like I said every time I started digging I found more conflicting issues. Have a feeling I just scratched the surface, but I'm out of time and need to go help some other folks now.
Hope that helps and best of luck!
