Let’s face it:  Lawyers don’t love us if they have a history of behaving badly.  We knew this would be the case when we launched Avvo, and it is still the case today.  Not surprisingly, these lawyers (in legal parlance, “sanctioned lawyers”) fear the transparency that Avvo offers and they attempt to snuff it.  Now, usually they just threaten to take us to court.  However, every now and then they actually sue.

Yep, that’s right . . . another sanctioned lawyer has sued Avvo.  When I say “another,” you may recall that nine days after we launched Avvo (yes nine days) a sanctioned lawyer named John Henry Browne sued us for, in his view, misleading Washington consumers.  Interestingly, he asked for damages for himself rather than the aggrieved consumers, but that’s another story.  Fortunately, a federal judge saw Mr. Browne’s complaint for what it was and threw it out on a Motion to Dismiss.

Our current plaintiff, Joe Davis has filed a similarly misguided complaint.  It is a 25-page manifesto presumably intended to bully Avvo (you can see it here).  Sadly, not a word of it speaks to the real issue: that Mr. Davis was sanctioned by the Florida State Bar in 2007 and he doesn’t want you to know about it.  And I get it — Mr. Davis has had some serious problems involving child support payments and failing to appear for court dates – so much so that he was twice convicted and spent eight days in the pokey (you can read more about it here).  He was also found to have willfully obstructed the Florida Bar’s disciplinary process relating to these matters.  I wouldn’t want people to know about these things either.

But that is not how the modern informational age works.  Thanks in large part to the informational behemoths like Google and Microsoft, all sorts of information that was once locked away is being digitized and democratized for consumers.  What once may have taken a trip to the courthouse or a public information request is now a simple Google search away.  Those that have something to hide hate this.  Those that don’t range from ecstatic to indifferent.

But here’s the kicker:  Wherever you fall on this spectrum is irrelevant, because it’s not about you.  It’s about those consumers who are buying your products and services.  They have a right to know the good and the bad, and increasingly they demand to see it.  Sites like Yelp, Zillow, TripAdvisor and Avvo have not prospered simply out of the ether.  They have prospered because they give consumers more information and better guidance than they have ever had access to before.  In specific regard to Davis v. Avvo, while consumers have a right to know all of the highlights of Mr. Davis’ resume (which he dutifully shares here), they also have a right to know of his misconduct.

As I have said many times before, we are shining a flashlight in dark places.  Not surprisingly, some are more comfortable in the dark.

Avvo issued a press release regarding this lawsuit today.  You can find it here:  “Avvo Sued By Another Sanctioned Lawyer .”  Thanks to everyone who has already offered their support.  We look forward to a speedy resolution to this deceptive lawsuit and all of the silliness it brings.

Mark

[Note:  Updated at 9:01 a.m. 8/31/10 based on comment below]

Recently, the Lawyerist had a short but interesting article on lawyers using video chat to communicate with clients (“Is Video Conferencing Part of Your Practice”).  Now, just mentioning “video chat” and “clients” in the same sentence will make many lawyers crumple their noses into a risk-averse mess.  “It is so impersonal,” they say (forgetting they use the telephone) or “I (or my clients) don’t really know how to use it,” or “I’m a lawyer, not an Internet-obsessed teenager.”  These and similar arguments are probably what caused the Lawyerist to call this the more-sophisticated “video conferencing” rather than “video chat.”

On some level all of these arguments have merit.  However, the reality is that, as the 15-35 set becomes the core of our consuming public, video chat among everyone – personal or professional – will be commonplace.  And lawyers are not immune.  Even today, I would much rather pull up Skype to meet with my lawyer on a face-to-face issue rather than driving all the way over to her office, parking, etc. (or paying her by the hour to do the same).  Even if we need to review a document together, nothing prevents us from looking at different digital copies at the same time.

Not to hurt anyone’s feelings, but I don’t really need to see my attorneys’ faces on a regular basis (except the ones I socialize with).  I know what they look like and what their offices look like.  We can handle every important matter over the phone, and never am I put off that I haven’t seen their corporeal being for months, if not years.   To the contrary, it appeals to my tightwad nature.  If I’m not seeing my lawyers, they are probably not charging me.

All of that being said, I appreciate it when one of my attorneys reaches out and says, “We haven’t seen each other for awhile.  Let’s grab lunch.”  Or, “Mind if I stop by for 15 minutes to shoot the breeze?”  While I don’t *need* them to do this, I appreciate that they are reaching out and inherently telling me that I am important to them.  And, maybe part of that appreciation stems from the fact that I know they don’t have the time to do this for all their clients, lest they forget to practice law.

So let’s accept the following:

• Most clients are similar to me and like lawyers to unexpectedly reach out and throw them some non-billable love now and then. 
• You can’t be reaching out to all of your clients all of the time.  And, if you have a regional, national or international practice, forget about it.
• Even for important matters, digital communication is more efficient than in-person meetings. 

If you accept each or even most of these assumptions, then what is the next-best-thing to stopping by?  If it were letters, we wouldn’t have the phone.  If it were the phone, we wouldn’t have the Internet or video chat.  The fact is, video is exponentially growing in popularity because it is the next best thing to being there.  With very little investment, both parties get real time, face-to-face communication.  No one needs to commute, clean their office, boil a pot of coffee, whatever.  You simply turn from your email, phone call or meeting, and with a few clicks your client (or your lawyer) is sitting there.  When you are done, no need to walk anyone to the door or engage in idle chitchat while waiting for the elevator.  A simple “thanks for the time” and click of the mouse will do.  Best of all, the enterprising lawyer will be able to do many more video visits than they could ever do in person – especially if their client is thousands of miles away. 

While video chat may not be a necessity for your practice today, it will be tomorrow.  And the more that you can utilize it today — especially with tech-savvy clients – the better off you will be both in time and quality of client contact.

Video killed the radio star.

Mark

Eight of the Sunshine State’s largest law firms have now joined the Florida Bar in asking the Florida Supreme Court to revisit its recently-adopted and widely-derided advertising rules for attorney websites.

The law firms’ brief (pdf available here) offers a great overview of the limits on attorney advertising regulation. And while the brief closes with a request that the court simply go back to how things used to be (i.e., websites are “information provided at the request of a client”, and hence not subject to the ad rules), it also provides support for a more expansive undertaking:

Scrap all attorney advertising rules.

Bar regulators in states like Florida, New York and Louisiana have proven that they can’t be trusted to regulate within the bounds of the Constitution. They routinely flout the First Amendment, create uncertainty in their membership and drive the cost of legal services higher. It’s high time to cut them out of the loop and simply let general prohibitions on deceptive advertising operate for attorneys as they do for every other product or service.

In any event, kudos to Bilzin Sumberg, Carlton Fields, Foley & Lardner, Jorden Burt, Holland & Knight, Hunton & Williams, Weil Gotshal and White & Case for pointing out the abject unconstitutionality of the Florida Supreme Court rules. While it’s doubtful the Court will listen to you, here’s hoping that at least one of you takes this fight to federal court.

Please join us this Thursday at 1:00PM ET/10:00AM PT for a free webinar covering Ethical Issues in Online Legal Advertising and Social Media. Lawyers licensed in New York, California and Washington state will also receive 1hr CLE credit.

Presented by Avvo General Counsel, Josh King, topics covered during this session will include the latest in online paid advertising rules,  the do’s and don’ts of attorney websites, and the ethical use of social media tools like Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. Sign up here!

United States District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled on August 4, 2010 that California’s Proposition 8—the voter-passed constitutional amendment that re-banned same-sex marriages—is unconstitutional.   Ruling that there is no “rational basis” for the existence of Proposition 8, Judge Vaughn Walker stated that Prop 8 was entered into the state constitution with the reason of expressing “moral disapproval” of gay people, which is not an allowable government action.

In the “Conclusion” of the August 4, 2010 Order, Walker writes:

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, commented, “Using the Prop 8 proponents’ own outrageous and inflammatory words, ads and e-mails, the plaintiffs powerfully demonstrated that Prop 8 was a direct product of hostility, fear-mongering and demonization of lesbians and gay men.”

In the Stay Order Entered on August 12, 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker denied a motion to stay his judgment pending appeal, which meant that same-sex marriages in California could have started August 18 at 5 PM, assuming the Ninth Circuit didn’t grant a stay.

On August 16, however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did just that.  This loss for the anti-Prop 8 side is mitigated by the expedited briefing schedule, which was asked for as alternative relief to a denial of the stay.  Oral arguments are now set for the week of December 6, 2010.

In case you missed Andrea Cannavina’s 30 Tech  Solutions in 30 Minutes for Lawyers webinar last week, here is the recording of the session:

At the last Avvocating conference, one of the speakers mentioned that people expect to shop for lawyers online the same way they shop for books.  If that’s the case, and it likely is, then here’s one study that shows why more lawyers ought to list their rates clearly on their websites.

Consumer ecommerce expectations

Oneupweb, a digital marketing agency, recently did a study about which factors most affect consumer purchase decisions on ecommerce websites.  Here is one particularly interesting graphic (click here to enlarge):

As you can see, the number one factor that influences consumer purchasing decisions is clearly stated price information.  This makes intuitive sense to anyone who has shopped online, because with so many vendors to choose from, why bother with one who hides prices?

Buying lawyers vs. books online

The above study wasn’t done with lawyers in mind, so of course some of the results are lost in translation.  However, Avvo does have its own data to support that transparent pricing is important to consumers in selecting a lawyer.  In fact, price transparency may be even more important when “buying” a lawyer as opposed to buying other “products” online because there is much more anxiety associated with hiring a lawyer.

It’s also worth noting that the study found B2B customers don’t place the same emphasis on transparent pricing online, so it may not be as important for corporate lawyers, for example, to show rates as DUI or traffic ticket lawyers.

Avvo was named one of Washington’s Best Workplaces by Puget Sound Business Journal.

The program was launched in 2007 to identify and recognize best practices in the hiring and retention of great people.  After an extensive and rigorous process, which included the completion of surveys by nominee-company employees across the state, workplaces in five different categories — small, medium, large, extra-large company and nonprofit organization — have been identified as Washington’s best, based on their various employee benefit offerings, leadership culture and work/life balance philosophies.

An awards ceremony was held for all the finalists yesterday evening at Safeco Field. Congrats to the Avvo team for making it an AWESOME place to work!!

Would you like to work at Avvo? Check out our open positions.

Despite the unprecedented level of partisan bickering in DC this year, a very meaningful piece of regulation just emerged from Congress on the wings of strong bipartisan support. The SPEECH Act, passed unanimously out of the Senate and signed by President Obama yesterday, effectively brings an end to “libel tourism” – the practice of seeking defamation damages in foreign courts with looser standards than those applied here in the thick-skinned U-S-of-A.

Under the SPEECH Act, such foreign judgments can’t be enforced by US courts unless the speech rights protected in the foreign country are at least as strong as domestic speech rights. And if you try to get your thin-skinned London libel judgment enforced here in the states, not only will you lose, but you’ll also have to pay your adversary’s attorneys fees (the SPEECH Act contains a rare, one-way attorneys’ fees provision).

What’s more, the SPEECH Act explicitly extends CDA 230 immunity to foreign defamation judgments. Eric Goldman has a nice writeup on this provision, which requires that those seeking to enforce foreign defamation judgments against interactive service providers like Avvo or Yelp show that their action would have been permitted in the US under CDA 230 (not bloody likely!).

Great work by Rep. Steven Cohen, who sponsored this bill – we hope to tip our hats to you again in the near future when your federal anti-SLAPP legislation passes into law.

Join us this Thursday, August 12th at 1:00PM ET/10:00AM PT to hear EthicsChecked™ Master Virtual Assistant, Andrea Cannavina, cover 30 technologies she uses, or has tested on behalf of her law firm clients.

With so many different options all promising to make your practice run more effectively,  Andrea will break it down for the non-techy folks who just want to know what works best. Ranging from software to online applications and even the latest gadgets, she’ll provide solutions that are easy to use, secure and affordable.

Sign up for the FREE webinar now!