Launch Update + Comments on Avvo Rating
Hello again everyone. I won’t be able to write everyday, but there is so much going on that I wanted to post some thoughts during the second day of Avvo’s public life.
I want to start by thanking all of the lawyers that claimed their Avvo profiles – at the end of today over 1000 lawyers have claimed their profiles and provided consumers valuable information regarding their impressive bodies of work. We also received peer endorsements and client ratings each numbering in the hundreds. What a great start.
I also want to thank everyone who responded to my inaugural post. Good or bad, it is all helpful feedback as we continue to refine our beta. In this regard, I wanted to highlight two changes that we are making to our site in response to your requests:
First, many of you have said that the “Trustworthiness” subrating is not appropriate because it speaks to your character, not your body of work. I agree, and over the next day or so we are changing this to “Professional Conduct” with this sub-rating relying more heavily on an attorney’s discipline history. If you don’t have any professional misconduct, you should default to 5 circles. We picked “Trustworthiness” because it was a word that consumers easily understood; but this is an instance where, in an attempt to make something consumer-friendly, we missed the mark.
Second, while we have tried to be clear that the Avvo Rating is based on the information we know about a lawyer, some of the press and comments we have received tell me that we have not been successful here. In response to this, we are adding disclosure under the Avvo Rating which tells the consumer what the information sources are for the rating – e.g., is it just public records or is it public records and other information, etc.
In addition to these changes, let me make one observation. We have received a number of emails from lawyers saying their scores are too low. For those lawyers and others, please keep in mind that the Avvo Rating IS NOT FIXED. To the contrary, it relies almost exclusively on the information that is in your Avvo profile – e.g., your work experience, professional achievements, disciplinary sanctions, etc. If you feel your rating is too low, claim your profile, upload your body of work – which for most attorneys is quite impressive - and there is a good chance your rating will go up.
That’s all for now – as I’m sure that we will continue to talk about the Avvo Rating for some time as lawyers and consumers continue to get their arms around it. Thank you everyone for making our launch so successful. I realize there were/are some bumps - and there will be more as we continue to test our beta. We will get all the kinks worked out over time. Please keep the comments coming so that we can succeed in that effort.
Mark
June 7th, 2007 at 5:52 am
“For those lawyers and others, please keep in mind that the Avvo Rating IS NOT FIXED. To the contrary, it relies almost exclusively on the information that is in your Avvo profile – e.g., your work experience, professional achievements, disciplinary sanctions, etc. If you feel your rating is too low, claim your profile, upload your body of work – which for most attorneys is quite impressive - and there is a good chance your rating will go up.”
But this is an issue. Without discussion with or approval from the attorney you have provided them with a score that is knowingly inaccurate . . . and more likely than not too low and hence unfavorable. They are passive participants whether they want to be or not and the only way they can avoid the unfavorable rating vis a via their peers (in the great majority of cases) is to become active participants. Very clever since many attorneys will participate only to keep up with peers or avoid negative ratings.
There are a number of other other issues having to do with the shortcomings of the rating system itself which I will get to over time.
fyi, I am not an attorney but have been active in the legal industry for many years.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:40 am
The problem here is that your system appears to default to a “good” 6.1 t 6.5 rating for any attorney who does not have a disciplinary record and has not “claimed the profile”. Any rating of an attorney who has not signed up with you is inaccurate–it is based on nothing. To claim the profile, and thus provide information to you and the general public that might give your rating some basis in reality, the attorney is forced to sign up with your company (providing a credit card in the process). No doubt Avvo will then trumpet the number of attorneys registered with the site in the marketing arm of its business.
It puts me between a rock and a hard place. I don’t want to sign up. But I am given a public “rating” that is a joke, and Avvo suggests it’s my job to make it accurate. Avvo meanwhile trumpets the existing rating as unbiased and based on “facts”. It’s not–you’re lying to consumers by providing ratings on attorneys who have not claimed their profiles.
What you should be doing is providing no rating for those who choose not to play the game, and indicating that this attorney has not chosen to register with Avvo. Alternatively, Avvo should get the “facts” itself by accessing available information instead of leaving it up to the lawyers. For example, if Avvo bothered to check with Martindale Hubble it would find that I am AV rated. Why isn’t that on your site?
June 7th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Question for Mark Britton: If an attorney has, say, a 10 “Avvo rating” can this subsequently decline even though the attorney’s profile has not been altered with new or revised information? Fair question, it would seem, and it would provide some idea whether a superb attorney one day can become just a good one the next even though nothing has changed in his/her profile.
thx,
j. cameron
June 7th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
The notion that Avvo extorts money out of attorneys in order to correct a very public but incorrect rating is outrageous.
This effectively blackmails attorneys into making two choices: 1) Accepting the public rating, which makes the attorney look poor when based on default information, or 2) signing up for an unwanted service and providing a billable credit card.
It’s by no means my are of expertise, but I smell a class action suit coming…
June 7th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I’d like to be able to update or add info to the endorsements I’ve given other lawyers. I used your default endorsement for lack of time, and cannot now rescind and repost, or otherwise correct that.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I wonder whether you will respond to this:
1. I am on your site. Only my state bar has the exact information you posted. That information is posted with revenue from state bar dues (which I pay) and the bar does not reap a profit from posting that information. So, you are taking information I have paid to post and are attempting to make a profit off of it. Care to respond?
2. How can I opt out? I have no need for a public face - I am not taking clients. (The state bar directory is a limited listing of name and contact information, not pushed publicly, and somewhat hard to find.) More than needless, if I do someday want a public profile, it is a potential hurdle because a blank page will create a record of inactivity, true or not. (For example, Potential Client says: “I used Google’s cache and saw that you’ve done nothing for years now; so, I went to someone else.) I can overcome such misinformation, if given the chance; but why should I have to overcome *your* misinformation?
In fact, why post someone’s information without their buy-in at some level? If all you have is contact information ripped from the state bar site, why not gray out the whole page and just actively post disciplinary information. (Even a privacy advocate like me sees the need to involuntarily post disciplinary information.)
3. I realize that the focus of your business is providing rich information to clients looking for a lawyer and that lawyers can add to your business, too. Why not treat us as allies, instead of conscripting us as representative data? I see a good number of attorneys each working day and this has been a big topic today. The misinformation has been pretty funny but there is a good chance that most things will come in line with time. Many of us have been appalled at the way this has popped up, though. Apparently you have our email addresses, why not send us a heads-up, its relatively free. Why not work with the bar association to get information out to us before you publish information about us?
I can see the potential value for many attorneys and smaller firms. Yet, this is not for everyone and, with all the money, brains, experience, and time y’all have had, I cannot imagine that these issues are a surprise to you. That tells me you’ve thought about this and decided that stepping on toes is fine.
In my position, you are creating a record of my supposed inactivity, which I apparently am welcome to correct if I give you give you my credit card information. And, if I work to correct your misinformation, I am working *for you* by supplementing the reach and breadth (i.e., value) of your database. Tell me how this is not incredibly insulting?
June 7th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Hey Mark — great job keeping an open line of communication going — one note for you — you started this post with “I won’t be able to write every day”.
I strongly recommend that you take the opposite approach on that.
What could you possibly have to do each day that is more important than communicating with your customers?
This blog is the equivalent of the storekeeper facing his customers every day and addressing their concerns, talking about successes, and dealing with responses to mistakes.
Use this as the fantastic tool that it is — 15 minutes every day to share information with your customers and fans. Listen to what they have to say (don’t DO everything they ask, of course!) and share what you can.
Best of luck — I’m a huge fan of what you’re trying to accomplish.
Dave
June 8th, 2007 at 5:29 am
[...] Avvo now that they are up and running….one or all of the various live groups that have space in [...]
June 8th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Your site is EXTREMELY inaccurate. Attorney Kenneth Lawson is currently suspended and has had disciplinary action in the past, yet you show him as no disciplinary action. A quick search of the Ohio Supreme Court website proves you wrong. This site offers nothing that clients and potential clients can use. They are better off contacting their local bar associations and the state supreme court for correct information.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Your rating system is critically flawed. Every in-house lawyer is listed on the site, but because they typically don’t have a public bio (not listed on the company site unless they are the GC), they all have an average rating (6.5 and below) because they don’t have “industry recognition”.
So, just because someone doesn’t include all of their awards and accomplishments on a publicly available website, they will be perceived as being average at best. That really disadvantages in-house counsel (and, frankly, any lawyer who doesn’t keep a public bio), and is very unfair and unjust.
Your goal of helping consumers is not met with this site. If anything you will often give them a false sense of security, or cause them to avoid a very good and qualified lawyer who doesn’t happen to see the need to have a public bio listing his/her accomplishments.
With all of the inconsistencies being pointed out by many media outlets, can you seriously justify how you think you are helping consumers? LinkedIn, where at least you can get referrals from people you know in your network (and where people have endorsements from clients), is a far superior way to find a good lawyer than using this misleading site.
I’m truly amazed that sophisticated venture capitalists thought this was a good idea. I feel like it’s 1999 all over again.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:28 am
I commend you on the effort. I’m sure you have gained hundreds of thousands of attorney “eyeballs” in the last 48 hours. I’m certain you can now make a lot of money with advertising. I only hope that isn’t your true agenda.
As I and thousands of others have spent the last 48 hours manipulating our “objective score,” a number of comments and questions have arisen.
Despite your front page claim, your site doesn’t appear to analyze the attorney supplied data in any ojective manner. As long as these folks place as many lines in as many of the fields as possible, their score gets adjusted upward. I can put “4th grade spelling bee” in the award section or Island of the Blue Dolphins Book Report in the speaking engagement and your program will accept it and adjust the score.
Nor is the problem fixed by simply saying that the attorney has agreed not to lie in their profile. I actually did win in 4th grade. I also caught an attorney who put in “dean’s list” for one quarter of undergrad as an accomplishment.
You may say that the consumer can read the data and judge for themselves. Still, that may not relieve your responsibility when you rank them a 10 on their front page, call the measurement “objective,” and place the attorney third down from the top of the list in their field. First impressions count. If you’re unable to read and analyze the attorney “data” then you need a more severe disclaimer on your front page.
As you know, there are also a great number of “awards” and “lists” that an attorney can simply purchase to get the certificate. Will you research those and inform the consumer? I’m sure they’d like to know. I’ve noticed that some attorneys have simply listed each year they bought the certificate as individual “accomplishments.”
We’ve noticed that some attorneys who have half the years of experience in the very same field as other attorneys have twice the “experience” marks. Please explain.
You indicate you rely in part on court records. Do you consider whether or not an attorney has won a published case? Us attorneys consider that pretty impressive. By the way, I looked up a friend who was number 1 at Stanford Law, clerked for the US Supreme Court, has successfully argued in the 9th Circuit, and is one of the youngest partners in a nationally recognized SF firm. You rated her a 6. Isn;t all of that data in the public realm? There’s a lot of relevant stuff you’re not considering which isn’t “style” or “personality.”
You allow clients to supply a comment. If a client happens to leave a stinging but innacurate comment, can we reply without risk a privilege breach? Did you make that a use term and condition for the client before they enter the data?
Again, I sincerely commend you on your effort. The public truly does need more information on attorneys other than their own paid advertisements. But that’s the point isn’t it? You’re trying to combat the phone book ads not simply offer us another page for free.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I echo all of the other concerns. Some rather minor ones that I have not yet heard. I practice exclusively as a contract attorney. There is no way for me to indicate this as a practice area. (By the way, calling them “specialties” is a violation of the RPCs.) I focus on child sex abuse cases, which is obviously not listed as a practice area, yet there is no “other” option. Also, EVERYTHING I do is litigation, but indicating that means I can’t specify the type of litigation.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Rebecca - thanks for your post. I would recommend assigning your practice area as “child abuse” and use the welcome message in your profile to indicate your focus on child sex abuse cases.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I see a distinct lack of public defenders from the Washington area. Is that on purpose or because of lack of information (presumeably because they are generally not singled out on their “company” web sites)?
June 9th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I seem to keep being reduced to fewer and fewer numbers. First I received a nine digit social security number, then an eight digit driver’s license number, then various six digit or less student ids. Now at long last, AVVO reduces to three alphanumeric digits (one is a “.”) the sum of my upbringing, Ivy League education, law school training, professional experience, personality, and whatever other gobbledygook AVVO purports to examine. I’m a 6.4 (yay - on par with a couple of Supreme Court justices!! Wow!!), and that’s without manipulating my score by listing every speaking engagment, publication or organization to which I have belonged (ever), inducing lawyer buddies to give me a favorable rating, or pandering to my clients for favorable reviews. Without AVVO.com to rate me, I wouldn’t have any idea whether I was a good attorney or not (and neither would the hundreds of clients I’ve represented). The best part of AVVO is that my score will go up every year even if no new information is posted to the site. I knew I was getting better with age! And with my aging, no doubt my memory will weaken, so having to remember fewer numbers, just 6.4, is a great help. (Maybe you could simplify the system to bad, good, doubleplus good, you know what I mean Big Brother?)
I have never minded competing for clients, or duking it out in court, which is why the Benjamin Law Offices in Sacramento is a successful, small, private sector law firm primarily serving businesses and employers with counseling, transactional and litigation matters. I seriously doubt that AVVO will help or hinder or be of any relevance to what we do and who we represent.
We encourage potential clients to ask questions, the kind of questions you’d find in any article on choosing a lawyer. Our best clients are those who ask questions about our experience and results in matters similar to their own, but of course, there isn’t and can’t ever be, any way for AVVO to know that information, or appreciate the nuances present in every legal matter. Some things can’t be reduced to a number.
We think the AVVO rating, being a gross generalization and reduction ad absurdium to a single 1 - 10 rating, will never accurately reflect what we do or how well. For instance, I’ve simply been too busy representing clients the last few years to get a decent vacation, so why would I bother with writing articles, conducting seminars or padding my resume with bar association subcommittee activities? Don’t you understand that those activities are marketing tools for many attorneys? To associate an attorney’s merits as a practitioner to their proclivity for writing articles, undertaking public speaking events or paying association dues is silly. When I was a junior associate, I did lots of writing, speaking and bar association activities. Didn’t make me a better lawyer; didn’t get me any clients, either. I found other ways to market my services, so I whittled down the writing, speaking and bar association activities. Almost any attorney can get an article published if they put in the effort, but then unlike me, those folks have more time on their hands. Maybe if they were better attorneys, they’d be too busy…
Although most potential clients don’t seem to think it, we screen them, too. The list of reasons why we won’t represent someone is far too long to list here. A potential client who is focused on the AVVO rating, especially if AVVO’s rating algorithm and database are not greatly improved, will not be the type of client we’re looking for, which is to say, the client who doesn’t know how to find the attorney with the right knowledge, skills, experience, temperment and fee structure for the job, as opposed to the best AVVO rating.
Quantifying intanglibles, who really thought that would work? Good luck with your website; you’ve got a huge amount of work to do before this thing becomes of any use to potential clients trying to determine which of the many capable attorneys is the right attorney for them.
June 13th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
A disbarred lawyer gets 2 out of 5 on the professional responsibility scale? Doesn’t that seem high? Or if that’s as low as it goes is it really a 5 unit scale?