Defending Avvo’s Right to Provide Information and Guidance to Consumers
I would like to respond to the class action lawsuit filed against Avvo today.
Avvo.com is designed to give consumers information and guidance to choose the right attorney. There is very little guidance available for most consumers of legal services, and Avvo seeks to fill that gap by obtaining information about lawyers and presenting it in a way that consumers can readily understand and use. Some lawyers will not like this in particular those who have disciplinary actions in their backgrounds that will now be presented for their potential clients to see. But we at Avvo believe that disciplinary actions and sanctions are very important”and that consumers have a right to know about them. Part of what Avvo is doing is taking a great big flashlight and shining it into places that have been forever dark to consumers.
We believe that Mr. Browne’s lawsuit is an effort to make sure these places stay dark, an effort to turn off that flashlight. This lawsuit is an effort to censor and to chill Avvo’s analysis, commentary and opinion in order to protect attorneys who have disciplinary actions in their backgrounds. It seems to reflect a belief, on behalf of the lawyers bringing this lawsuit, that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the dissemination of opinions and information about them.
Among all that Avvo’s beta version offers consumers, the Avvo Rating has clearly taken the spotlight. We consulted hundreds of attorneys and thousands of consumers in prioritizing the criteria to generate the Avvo Rating, and we stand behind it. However, the Avvo Rating is only one element of what Avvo offers to consumers. The site also brings together profile information for every attorney in the states we cover, including years of experience and disciplinary sanctions. Consumers can submit ratings and reviews of attorneys they have worked with, and lawyers can update their profiles and submit endorsements of other lawyers.
We are doing something different and we have supporters and detractors. It may take some time for some to get their arms around the benefits that Avvo offers. However, in just nine days after launch, over 1,800 lawyers have already claimed their profiles and provided consumers with valuable information regarding their experience. Consumers have submitted over 800 client ratings and lawyers have submitted over 1,100 endorsements for other lawyers. We think making all of this information and the opinions that go with it available to consumers is in everyone’s best interest.
Mark Britton
CEO
Avvo, Inc.
June 15th, 2007 at 7:34 am
“However, in just nine days after launch, over 1,800 lawyers have already claimed their profiles and provided consumers with valuable information regarding their experience. Consumers have submitted over 800 client ratings and lawyers have submitted over 1,100 endorsements for other lawyers.”
Are you referring to Washington state attorneys? I believe you have over a half million attorneys in your system from the various states you currently cover. If your numbers refer to this entire group, the attorney participation rate after nine days would be quite small. It would be helpful if this was clarified.
June 15th, 2007 at 9:06 am
There is no first-ammendment protection for deceptive speech…
June 15th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Your post seems to be willfully disingenuous. There are more objections to Avvo than simply the black-box rating system. (How you feel safe rating and posting maps to judges’ homes (literally), I have no idea.) For my part, I strenuously object to being conscripted. First, I am not in overtly public practice; that is, I cannot accept clients now or in the foreseeable future. Advertising information about me without that vital bit of information is misleading. Of course, Avvo welcomes me to correct their misleading post
June 15th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Speaking as a client of legal services, I find the attitude of the lawyers who have responded to this post (I know they are lawyers by the language they are using) simply shocking and somewhat offensive.
There seems to be an attitude of entitlement and arrogance…yes your private little ‘clubby’ world is coming to an end…the Internet is going to change the way lawyers do business just like it has changed many other industries (insurance, real estate, etc.). The notion that information about sanctions and disciplinary actions should hidden from consumers is outrageous. The notion that clients can’t provide feedback on the service they receive because lawyers will claim disparagement is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to silence them. Yeah, the service has some kinks, but that is natural at this early stage of its development. Instead of threatening Avvo, you should use this as an opportunity to engage with them and help them.
As a business owner and client to numerous Seattle attorneys (e.g. WSGR, Venture Law Group, Seed IP, Garvey Schubert and Barer), I am completely supportive of what Avvo is doing. I don’t see this as any different that writing a product review, service review, etc., that has become so very commonplace due to the Internet.
Get over it…focus on serving your clients better…focus on staying within the appropriate ethical guidelines put forth by the King County Bar Association. This entire class action gambit is going to backfire because potential clients like myself want a service like Avvo. I’ve personally made the decision not to use the services of an attorney who tries to silence Avvo. I think Avvo should publish a list of the lawyers who want to turn off the flashlight…to help me avoid the legal professional who clearly have something to hide.
Mark and team – KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
Alex
PS – The fact that you guys are making such a stink about it is simply going to give Avvo a ton of free marketing. That is the part that has left me quite amused.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Whether or not the Avvo ratings are “deceptive speech” will most likely be decided in the courts.
However, it may be a good idea to allow attorneys to opt to be “unrated” by the automated system. Avvo could still provide information from public records regarding reprimands etc, and let users provide ratings, but not necessarily insist that all lawyers be rated by the 10 point system.
This way, lawyers who feel comfortable with their references, awards etc being posted online will have a lot of good information posted about them, and the amount of good information available about a lawyer will signal their competence levels to potential customers.
Most clients are unlikely to strictly use a 10-point system to choose a lawyer anyway.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:51 am
“I think Avvo should publish a list of the lawyers who want to turn off the flashlight
June 15th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I think that the attorney’s in the class action are just being cry babies because the truth is out about them.
Yes, sometimes it may be inaccurate, but Avvo is just one opinion which is in constant refinement. If Avvo cannot be accurate about its ratings, it will go out of business so it’s their business to make it more accurate which will come eventually.
This service is no different than consumer reports who puts out opinions about goods and services, or any of the social networks where people can leave feedback about others.
June 15th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Totally predictable, this response from some of your, ahem, Esteemed Colleagues, Mark. Sadly.
Take it as confirmation that you are well and truly on the right track. Like I need to tell you that :)
- Stuart
June 15th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Let me just say that I think that the Avvo rating system is stupid. Here’s why. Imagine that “Car and Track” magazine rates cars using a 1-10 point scale. Prior to testing, each car receives a score of 6 points. After a car has been tested, its score is revised up or down depending on the test outcome. Now, imagine that “Car and Track” presents scores for all cars on a web page, but doesn’t describe which cars have been tested and which haven’t unless you drill down into a details web page. Imagine–a Yugo and a Honda would both show up with identical scores for, what, several months? If a user sorts cars on the basis of scores, the Yugo shows up somewhere in the middle. Stupid, eh?
That’s not too different from Avvo’s score presentation. Further, many attorneys work in areas that don’t show up in public databases. Given Avvo’s scoring system, they’ll never be able to escape the mediocre score that Avvo assigns no matter how good they are as attorneys.
I’m not asserting that Avvo has no right to present raw and processed information about attorneys. I just happen to think that the current Avvo scoring system is crap, and I won’t use it. At least Consumer Reports has the good sense to tell their readers when insufficient information exists to generate a meaningful rating (unlike Avvo).
My recommendation: back to the drawing board. Oh, and you might want to apologize to all of the hardworking attorneys out there that you have labeled as mediocre.
June 15th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
“Of course, Avvo welcomes me to correct their misleading post
June 15th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Does Mr. Berman et al. regularly sue the regional business magazines that publish their annual “Best Lawyers” stack ranking? I doubt it.
Does a college or university sue US News & World Report every time they come out with the “Best Schools” issue? I doubt it.
Somehow, certain lawyers recoil at the idea of someone having the audacity to actually try to rank/rate their practice.
Is the Avvo.com rating system perfect? No. I don’t see Avvo.com claiming that it is. Is it better than having no information? In most cases, yes, it is. Those who sue to enjoin the service are simply saying that no rating system, short of perfection (as defined by them) is adequate enough to serve the little people. How condescending.
It’s inevitable. Information *wants* to be shared. And it will be. Whether it’s by Avvo.com, Zillow.com, Consumer Reports, Zagat’s, or the next service that rates doctors and dentists around the world.
Is it perfect? No. Are consumers so inept as to assume that a simple rating is either 100% accurate, or the be-all-end-all system to determine the best fit? Not on your life.
And go ahead and update your profile if you’d like to improve the accuracy, or opt-out. Or, better yet, start a competing service if you think it can be done significantly better. But it’s futile to attempt to turn off the flashlight, because it’s going to get brighter, and brighter, and brighter. Just ask any realtor. Or travel agent. Or mortgage broker. Or car salesman. Or doctor…
June 15th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
“And then what happens when 10 other similar sites launch? Do you have correct your information at each of them?”
Nope. You certainly aren’t required to do so.
You also don’t have to correct any post when people post to the newsgroups that you provide lousy service. Or if someone writes a letter to the editor to a local newspaper complaining about your service.
But it just might be a good idea.
It’s called “marketing”.
Face it, the Internet makes information sharing much, much easier. The friction that used to exist between someone’s bad opinion of your service (maybe only shared with a few friends) and the rest of the world is now gone. Avvo.com didn’t do that. The acronyms TCP/IP, HTML, HTTP did.
Turns out that marketing in the Internet age includes both proactive marketing and reactive marketing. If lawyers have had the luxury of doing only one of these, you’re simply joining the rest of the world in 2007. But take heart. It also has many benefits.
Welcome aboard!
June 15th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
“And then what happens when 10 other similar sites launch? Do you have correct your information at each of them? That’s part of the problem, too.”
This is certainly another issue that gets lost with the focus on Avvo. If Avvo has any amount of success competitive services will spring up and it is highly unlikely their ranking method and results will be the same. The end result will be that consumers will receive conflicting information from a variety of sources and in many respects will be no farther ahead than they are today. We see this played out on a daily basis with Google searches for specific types of legal issues and/or attorneys that return mountains of information, much of it not relevant.
“But it’s futile to attempt to turn off the flashlight, because it’s going to get brighter, and brighter, and brighter. Just ask any realtor. Or travel agent. Or mortgage broker. Or car salesman. Or doctor
June 15th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Here’s at least one large law firm that apparently doesn’t mind a ranking or two:
Press Release: “The Best Lawyers in America (R) Includes 53 from Stoel Reeves”
http://www.stoel.com/showrelease.aspx?Show=742
So, can someone point me to the class action suit against “The Best Lawyers in America (R)”? Or, could it be true that if assessments are published in book form, it’s OK, but if they are in searchable form on the Internet, it’s not OK?
June 15th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
“The end result will be that consumers will receive conflicting information from a variety of sources”
Good point!
If this abomination allows to stand, then, can you believe it — information will exist on a wide variety of sources!
Oh say it isn’t so!
And conflicting information! On the Internet? We clearly shouldn’t *allow* conflicting information on the Internet! Let alone from a wide variety of sources.
Here in Eastasia, we’ve been Double-Plus Good at making sure all sites on the Internet contain exactly the same reviews and rankings of all products. We cannot possibly allow any double-plus ungood sites say different things about products or services. That after all would be contrary to our grand plans.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
You guys are completely misunderstanding the problem.
The lawyers aren’t complaining that “the truth is coming out.” They’re complaining because the exact opposite is the case.
Avvo is spreading false information about lawyers. Rather than assigning an N/A when they don’t have enough data to make a ranking, they’ve applied a default ranking to everyone. This means that someone just starting out may have the same ranking as someone who’s been in the business for years but only practices in a very specialized area of law.
Even worse, Avvo’s “ranking” gives lawyers with criminal records higher rankings than Supreme Court justices, accomplished law school professors, and even famous civil rights lawyers. When I last check, a good number of the 8.0+ lawyers on this site had been disbarred or suspended for various ethical and legal infractions. Meanwhile, Scalia and Kennedy were both stuck in the 6’s.
Avvo’s about as accurate as a crapshoot.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
What about Martindale Hubbell? Much of what they promise is very similar to what Avvo does, if you read my post here http://www.myshingle.com/my_shingle/2007/06/a_tale_of_two_l.html
June 16th, 2007 at 6:51 am
I would like to hear some lawyers thoughts on the perfect ranking system, because I gaurentee there will be some other lawyers that don’t agree.
The idea of everyone having a default score is an interesting idea. And like people have pointed out, it certainly encourages (does not force) people to become active and contribute more info to improve there scores.
But hey, if you don’t want to, if your such a hot shot that you can’t be bothered, then you certainly don’t have too.
This stuff is not going to stop, you can rank doctors, venture capitalists, dentists, schools, professors, and underwear. And now you can rank lawyers too.
June 16th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Jorge, last I checked, there are many lawyers that currently show as “Not Rated” (including Antonin Scalia, at my last check), presumably because Avvo determined that they don’t have enough information piped into their system yet to try to assess an automated score.
I’m not an Avvo employee, but I assume there is some threshold of information by which they feel they can apply a score. For those that receive the “Not Rated” ranking, they’ve probably determined there is generally not enough positive (or negative) information with that score yet in their database to divine a high or low ranking. And you know what? That’s their prerogative. You don’t have to endorse it. You don’t have to use it.
You can (and should) freely criticize it, and help it (or competitors) improve.
But there are many of us consumers who applaud Avvo for trying to do this hard work in culling through tons of opaque, generally-unavailable-data, and reveal their estimate (however flawed it may be in version 1.0) to us. Without such an attempt, there would be no improvement. The class action lawsuit argument seems to be that any attempt short of perfection is misleading to us dumb consumers. Further, heaven forbid that there be *multiple* competing and even potentially conflicting sources of information rating and ranking lawyers. Guess what — it’s the Internet. That’s what the Internet allows — it opens up the unwashed masses of data, and sometimes it’s very messy. Sometimes it conflicts. Sometimes it’s incomplete. But by putting it out there, it gets some structure. It improves, relentlessly.
In 5 years, will the Avvo (and other competitor) scoring systems be much better aligned with most-people’s assessment of the real world? You bet it will. Will the average consumer’s ability to find a better lawyer fit for them be improved as a result? Absolutely. Will lawyers have to spend more time doing marketing and maintaining data on various websites? Probably. Sure. Just like anyone that cares about their brand.
You say that we just don’t get it — that the problem you have with Avvo is that some of the information and calculations are misleading.
Fine. I’ll accept that some of the information and calculations are misleading. I can live with imperfection. In fact, I implicitly accept that some of the information is misleading on Expedia, Travelocity, WebMD, CarPoint, Zillow, and every other site I visit on the Internet.
And don’t think that just because, well, this is the legal business that it has to have a much higher bar. Notice that I included WebMD above. I’d argue that health information is even more important to get right. And you know what? You’ll find thousands of different sites and opinions out there telling you how to recognize the symptoms of tuberculosis. The point is that they are *there* to be included in a sentient person’s analysis.
The notion of enjoining a service simply because you don’t like the results of a version 1.0 attempt seems like tilting at windmills. You aren’t going to stem the tide of rating / feedback / search services. Avvo.com has a right to attempt this, and many consumers like me applaud them for doing so.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:29 am
To all the lawyers who have taken umbrage at this site.
1) Quit whining
2) You have chosen to sell your services to the public – individuals or other entities
3) The rest of the non-lawyers are consumers of your service
4) So you are selling a product or service. The only difference between you and someone selling other mundane everyday product or service is that you may have a more “prestigous” degree
4) If your work is inferior, mediocre or superior, it will be evaluated
5) Consumer evaluations of any product have a subjective element
6) You are like a car mechanic – no different
7) The rest of us as consumers have a right to our opinions
So get over it and go back to work and serve your clients well. If not you should simply go out of business and maybe go back to school and become an engineer or a salesperson
June 16th, 2007 at 10:02 am
“Of course, Avvo welcomes me to correct their misleading post
June 16th, 2007 at 10:08 am
All completely on point Steve.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:32 am
As an experienced — and good I might add — lawyer myself, I find the attitude and behavior of the plaintiffs to be appalling. It reflects a fundamental antipathy towards free distribution of information, full disclosure, and just about everything else that makes for an educated consumer. Sure, as a creative plaintiff you can always cook up claims about damage to business and reputation, in order to to slap together a cognizable cause of action. Anyone worth his salt can do that. But I’m not buying it. This one smells of sour grapes, and an antipathy to the consumer.
Sure, your ratings could be unfairly low or undeservedly high. Same with your credit rating, Dun & Bradstreet report, tax bracket, blood pressure, driving record, and law school grades. That’s the way it is with numbers. It’s an unfair world. But an imperfect statistic is better than none at all, and keeping information out of the hands of the public will only hurt.
I don’t know where lawyers think they can get away with playing by the same rules as everyone else in the business world. The plaintiffs and their counsel will suffer the same infamy as all the others who sue to silence the truth.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:55 am
**I’mm not an Avvo employee**
No, but you are a former Expedia executive (with deep roots at Microsoft) as is Stuart Mac Donald (also on this post). (Mark Britten, the Avvo CEO, come from the executive ranks of Expedient; Avvo board member Rich Barton founded Expedia and before that Zillow, and also was at Microsoft; Avvo board member Brad Silver berg comes from the executive ranks of Microsoft).
Incidentally, I have to say if anyone benefits from Avvo it may well be this exclusive group: Avvo returns 9,814 attorneys – nearly 40% of the attorneys in the state – when a search is conducted for Medina.
**But there are many of us consumers who applaud Avvo**
I’m not aware of any consumer surveys regarding the quality of Avvo’s service. Hopefully Avvo will be as generous with this information as it is with attorney profiles. I don’t think anyone doubts the need for better ways for consumers to find and evaluate legal services. The issue is whether Avvo is helping or hurting this goal.
In any event, a challenge to Avvo: post consumer feedback on your Web site. Are you all for that, Mr. Murch (after all, this is the Internet)?
**applaud Avvo for trying to do this hard work in culling through tons of opaque, generally-unavailable-data**
I’m not clear what this information would be. The core information posted to profiles by Avvo is available from bar associations. The public already had access to the same information. Much of the remaining data must be posted by the attorneys themselves, and that consists largely of peer review and related information, publications, and speaking engagements. The relevance of this to someone’s ability to provide high quality but affordable legal services is highly debatable. I think this is lost on some.
**
Further, heaven forbid that there be *multiple* competing and even potentially conflicting sources of information rating and ranking lawyers. Guess what ” it’s the Internet.
**
I have no idea what the last sentence – “it’s the internet” – has to do with the underlying issue. This doesn’t provide a pass of any sort, as Google quickly discovered with its youTube acquisition and copyright issues. As far as conflicting ranking systems being just fine, that’s nonsense. It means consumers are no farther ahead than they were before.
**
In 5 years, will the Avvo (and other competitor) scoring systems be much better aligned with most-people’s assessment of the real world? You bet it will.
**
This is offered with the certainty of much of the dot-com hype, before the bubble burst when so many were convinced we had entered a new age. Whether you’re correct, again, is highly debatable. Services like Avvo’s have inherent limitations for a variety of reasons that are not found in travel or book buying services.
**
Will the average consumer’s ability to find a better lawyer fit for them be improved as a result? Absolutely.
**
Again, this is highly debatable. See some of my previous comments. I’m also reminded that consumers have been suffering from often bloated, buggy Microsoft software for years. “Patch Tuesday” is one date many IT departments would rather forget if only they could. This notion that consumers are always beneficaries of technology advancements and Internet
services is romantic – but simply not true. Often the only real winners are company executives and other inside investors who are ensured a payout regardless of the company’s performance.
**
Will lawyers have to spend more time doing marketing and maintaining data on various websites? Probably. Sure. Just like anyone that cares about their brand.
**
This is somewhat cavalier. If there are 3 or 4 competing services, each with their own ranking system, I can’t imagine why an attorney would have either the time or obligation to keep them all updated. I’m not clear who benefits from this other than company shareholders.
**
You say that we just don’t get it ” that the problem you have with Avvo is that some of the information and calculations are misleading. Fine. I’ll accept that some of the information and calculations are misleading. I can live with imperfection. In fact, I implicitly accept that some of the information is misleading on Expedia, Travelocity, WebMD, CarPoint, Zillow, and every other site I visit on the Internet.
**
There is absolutely no comparing an Expedia to a system than ranks attorneys. While you may be willing to accept what you euphemistically refer to as “some misleading information,” actual consumers may have a different take. Steve Berman’s class action is focused on this very issue. Let’s see what the courts say.
**
And don’t think that just because, well, this is the legal business that it has to have a much higher bar.
**
This is much too cavalier, this notion that shopping for an attorney is no different than buying an airline ticket. I think one of the inherent problems with Avvo is the background of its management and board encourages a view that everything is a quantifiable commodity.
June 16th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Thanks James for responding point by point, for most of the points. I’ll reply in turn below.
**I’m not an Avvo employee**
>> “No, but you are a former Expedia executive (with deep roots at Microsoft) as is Stuart Mac Donald (also on this post). (Mark Britten [sic], the Avvo CEO, come from the executive ranks of Expedient [sic]; Avvo board member Rich Barton founded Expedia and before that Zillow”…
Yes indeed! You’re quite right about all the above; I have the pleasure of serving with both Mark and Rich while at Expedia. I have nothing to hide about that, and that’s in part why I linked to my blog and my full bio in my posts here on this board. I’m not an investor, advisor, or employee of Avvo. But I do know Mark Britton and Rich Barton, and support Avvo.com’s attempts to shine some more light into this heretofore pretty opaque-for-consumers industry.
**But there are many of us consumers who applaud Avvo**
>> “I’m not aware of any consumer surveys regarding the quality of Avvo’s service.”
James, it’s only been out about a week. Give it time; there will be plenty of opinions surfaced about it, I’m sure.
>> “Hopefully Avvo will be as generous with this information as it is with attorney profiles… In any event, a challenge to Avvo: post consumer feedback on your Web site. Are you all for that, Mr. Murch (after all, this is the Internet)?”
ABSOLUTELY!
** I applaud Avvo for trying to do this hard work in culling through tons of opaque, generally-unavailable-data**
>> “I’m not clear what this information would be. The core information posted to profiles by Avvo is available from bar associations. The public already had access to the same information. Much of the remaining data must be posted by the attorneys themselves, and that consists largely of peer review and related information, publications, and speaking engagements.”
Where on the Internet can I search all the information that Avvo.com is attempting to post, for free? Link please?
** Further, heaven forbid that there be *multiple* competing and even potentially conflicting sources of information rating and ranking lawyers. Guess what ” it’s the Internet. **
>> “I have no idea what the last sentence – “it’s the internet” – has to do with the underlying issue.”
For the first time in history, the Internet provides a nearly friction-free way to pass information from one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many. Many industries have built-in cultures, ethos and assumptions that relied upon information hording. These cultures and models break down when it’s frictionless. Expedia and Zillow are two very good examples of this, each in different categories. Avvo is yet one more in a long, relentless drive toward more complete information sharing.
>> “This doesn’t provide a pass of any sort…As far as conflicting ranking systems being just fine, that’s nonsense. It means consumers are no farther ahead than they were before.”
Baloney. I am not suggesting that just because it’s the Internet, all legal rules are off. If Avvo.com is being *deliberately* slanderous and has met none of the defenses to libel or slander (e.g., truth, being a passive conduit, etc.), then I’m all for shutting it down until they get it right.
I am not suggesting that just because it’s the net, it’s OK. I am saying as clearly as I can that those who simply want to enjoin Avvo.com because they’ve come up with their own rating system (and don’t choose to share how it’s calculated) are trying desperately to hold on to a very different era, and will forever be tilting at windmills. The finger can only stay so long in the dike.
Got a problem with the individual information? Fix it in the system by updating it, just as hotels that get a two-star rating do with Expedia.
Got a problem with the way the score is calculated? Express your opinion as loudly and as frequently as you can. That’s not only OK but it helps everyone in the long run, including Avvo.com.
But it’s a chicken-sh*t move to try to enjoin the service simply because a score is calculated, or information is passed along in searchable form. Why don’t lawyers sue Seattle Business Monthly for publishing the stack rank of “Best Laywers” every year? Why don’t colleges sue US News & World Report for their rankings?
** In 5 years, will the Avvo (and other competitor) scoring systems be much better aligned with most-people’s assessment of the real world? You bet it will. **
>> “This is offered with the certainty of much of the dot-com hype, before the bubble burst when so many were convinced we had entered a new age.”
Huh? I don’t know if you’ve used Google, but it’s a whole lot better than what existed before. I don’t know if you use Expedia or Travelocity or TripAdvisor to do travel research, but I for one am very glad that lawyers didn’t attempt to shut them down, simply because they were imperfect. Guess what — they still are. They are imperfect. It’s OK to be imperfect, if imperfection is GREATLY better than no service at all.
>> “Whether you’re correct, again, is highly debatable. Services like Avvo’s have inherent limitations for a variety of reasons that are not found in travel or book buying services.”
Oh, that old saw. Your argument is essentially “lawyers are different”. Go over to the zillow blog (http://www.zilloblog.com) and see how many threads are from desperate real estate agents trying to convince us all why buying a house is so different that a service like Zillow is worthless (see the discussions right after their launch). Is Zillow, a free service for consumers, highly useful? YES. Is it imperfect? YOU BET.
** Will the average consumer’s ability to find a better lawyer fit for them be improved as a result? Absolutely.**
“Again, this is highly debatable. See some of my previous comments. ”
I did, and remain convinced of my original proposition. We’re certainly entitled to our opinions.
But are your seriously arguing that just because you and some others hold the opinion that it will not be better (which you are certainly entitled not just to hold, but to express!), that the rest of us consumers would be so harmed if Avvo.com just *tries*?
** Will lawyers have to spend more time doing marketing and maintaining data on various websites? Probably. Sure. Just like anyone that cares about their brand. **
>> “This is somewhat cavalier. If there are 3 or 4 competing services, each with their own ranking system, I can’t imagine why an attorney would have either the time or obligation to keep them all updated. I’m not clear who benefits from this other than company shareholders.”
If a law firm doens’t care to update Avvo, they don’t have to.
If a firm doesn’t care to respond to negative product reviews on Amazon.com, it doesn’t have to.
Are you seriously suggesting that just because this causes the legal industry to work harder in marketing, to take on a new job in fact, that it should be enjoined or is somehow bad?
It’s called “marketing”.
** You say that we just don’t get it ” that the problem you have with Avvo is that some of the information and calculations are misleading. Fine. I’ll accept that some of the information and calculations are misleading. I can live with imperfection. In fact, I implicitly accept that some of the information is misleading on Expedia, Travelocity, WebMD, CarPoint, Zillow, and every other site I visit on the Internet.
**
>> “There is absolutely no comparing an Expedia to a system than ranks attorneys. While you may be willing to accept what you euphemistically refer to as “some misleading information,” actual consumers may have a different take. Steve Berman’s class action is focused on this very issue. Let’s see what the courts say.”
I am an actual consumer; please don’t try to speak for me. I’m happy to put it up for a vote. And if there are *some* consumers that are confused, should we shut down a rating service?
I guess that would put an end to the credit bureaus. And Expedia. And Travelocity. And Movie reviewers. And epinions. And Consumer Reports.
** And don’t think that just because, well, this is the legal business that it has to have a much higher bar. **
“This is much too cavalier, this notion that shopping for an attorney is no different than buying an airline ticket. I think one of the inherent problems with Avvo is the background of its management and board encourages a view that everything is a quantifiable commodity.”
Shopping for a lawyer IS different than buying an airline ticket. Buying a home IS different than buying an airline ticket.
But just because they are different, doesn’t mean that more information isn’t better. Even if it’s incomplete. Even, yes, if it conflicts with others. Even, yes, if it places a new marketing and data-correction hassle on those lawyers that choose to participate in it.
June 16th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
What crap from Mr. Britton. Sounds a tad defensive, are you on the run? Are your investors worried, they should be. If I start a site like yours on cars and tell the consumer to rely on it at least the criteria should be known(and accurate), if not and the information is wrong the consmer has been defrauded. The criteria for Martidale and Best Lawyer is known and provided.
Most importantly as I stated on the Radio(why did you refuse to participate?) your site is SLOPPY. I hope you fired the people who did this work for you. You rated a DEAD,DISBARRED attorney higher than many.
If you want to make this personal about ME as a defensive tactic fine, wait until you see all the people signing on to this class action. I am not MAD about my rating I think it is silly and misleading. If you wanted a Criminal Defense lawyer(you might need one soon) would you like to know that he or she WINS over 70% of cases tried? Thats the most important information. Sure a Bar “Admonition” is important(mine I agreed to, because it was the right thing to do) but how about the Bar Award I was given the same year same for doing free work for poor people!
Your first amendment argument shows how low you are going. The first amendment does not protect reckless, sloopy work that purports to be accurate. You should have let me be deleated from your scam when I first requested. By the way have you seen the client comments about me, check them out you might need me someday. I LOVE the LIGHT not the DARK, just make sure the light does not reflect back on you Mr. 8. JHB
June 16th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Wow, Mr Brown. You must really not have enough to do.
June 16th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
James, Yes I am a former colleague of Mark’s (and Steve’s) which is clear from the “about me” section of my blog. But I have no relationship with Avvo whatsoever, and am inserting myself here because I believe in what Mark is trying to do, and think trying to shoot down services which are designed to empower and inform is just plain silly.
I was made aware of this situation by another blog post of a lawyer friend and felt it important to chime in (post here: http://www.robhyndman.com/2007/06/15/in-a-shocking-development-avvo-gets-sued/ ).
Trying to cast my comments in any other light would be incorrect.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
I’m going to be rich and famous after I invent a new wine using all the sour grapes from this board.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
How about looking at this from a regulatory standpoint? In theory, we are looking at regulating the presentation of available information that may be indicative of the quality of a lawyer’s service.
First, it is important to remember that lawyer conduct is pervasively regulated. Quite understandably, states have prohibited lawyers from engaging in misleading advertising. Generally, the definition of misleading advertising includes unsubstantiated comparisons of one lawyer’s services to other lawyers’ services. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/aba/current/ABA_CODE.HTM#Rule_7.1)
If I were a lawyer, I would not feel comfortable “updating” my profile because it would arguably be misleading advertising. I wouldn’t want to risk my livelihood. Do you see many lawyer websites where they call themselves a 10/10? No, its unethical.
The question: What is the better alternative to this rule? Do we, as a society want to deregulate the legal industry so lawyers can communicate their services as some other professionals? Will the market itself offer enough protection?
Avvo brings a real problem to life. Consumers and lawyers need to find a balance between access to information and consumer protection. If consumers want the legal advertising venue to be loosely regulated, then they need to cope with the inevitable effects.
We have already addressed this problem. Our elected officials gave the power to regulate lawyers to the courts. The courts transferred the power to bar associations. The bar associations put the brakes on unsubstantiated comparison of legal services. Sure, you can say, “I’ve been in practice for 10 years longer than Joe Schmoe.” But, you cannot just say, “I’m 30% more effective than Joe Schmoe.” In effect, Avvo is saying the latter. They’re saying it millions of times and custom crafting the statement based on a visitor’s query.
Allowing Avvo to continue as-is would set a precedent that would lead to the diminution in the value of accurate INFORMATION about lawyers. Sure, you could get tons more INTERPRETATIONS about the quality of lawyers. In reality, my guess is that actual information about lawyers would be vastly outnumbered by various rankings. Lawyers would be necessarily be able to rank themselves, more or less. Consumers would likely be less able to make any value judgments about lawyers because of the lack of reliable information. If that is what consumers want (I’m saying whether this is right or wrong), then they should lobby to change lawyer advertising regulations.
Avvo is a live example of this conundrum. You can currently get information about the plaintiff in the Browne v. Avvo litigation from the WA State Bar. (http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView-Member.asp?Current_Tab=Public&Usr_ID=750427) That page shows all of the publicly available information displayed on the Avvo site. The big question: What does a proprietary ranking system add to the information available from the WA State Bar? If it adds something, then lawyer-advertising regulations should be changed accordingly. We just need to be willing to deal with the consequences.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Kudos on a very thoughtful and carefully constructed post, JWC. Also very much appreciate the pointers to the URL’s.
>> If I were a lawyer, I would not feel comfortable “updating” my profile because it would arguably be misleading advertising.
I guess I’m just dense here. Why is simply updating your profile with *truthful* information at risk of being misleading advertising?
>> Do you see many lawyer websites where they call themselves a 10/10?
Nope, I don’t. Market forces (as well as legal forces) keep it that way. From a market standpoint, such a claim would simply hold no credibility, just as a car company that rated its own cars a 10/10 (and other makes and models presumably lower) would hold no credibility.
That’s in part why all rating systems that hold any water seem to be driven by a third party, either an individual or an organization.
>> Allowing Avvo to continue as-is would set a precedent that would lead to the diminution in the value of accurate INFORMATION about lawyers.
I respect your post very much but completely disagree with your point here.
I think that services like Avvo, combined with market forces (particularly, consumer’s interest in learning ever-increasing bits of information, and many service-providers interests in providing more information to reach more consumers in their marketing) tends to provide much more information over time. And feedback loops from consumers and peers who consume or review their services does tend to balance out over time in much richer, more useful information.
And though we can come up with cute sparklers in this v1.0 product just days after launch like “look here, this lawyer is DEAD and sorts higher in Avvo than an-alive-and-breathing one!”, the simple fact is that this infomration imperfection exists in print form as well.
It’s a red herring. Information in any form is imperfect. It also is constantly changing. Since no ESP system has yet been developed, radio, television, print and the Internet are always working on old information. And consumers have become remarkably adept at understanding that all information needs to be taken with a grain of salt. (Except those few consumers who sue McDonald’s because the hot coffee is, well, hot.)
More importantly, viewing the ratings (and the ratings themselves) statically, only at a snapshot in time, is pretty silly. The ratings will change. The information that powers them will change radically. The rating *method* itself will probably change several times as well, just like Google’s search algorithm. (Avvo’s ratings may already have changed for all I know.)
Here’s a challenge — find me an example of how any analgous Internet-based transformation of an industry — be it in finance, health, travel, real estate or whatever — has led to much WORSE information and much WORSE insight-decision-action process for consumers across an entire industry over a period of multiple years. Then, maybe I’ll believe the hypothesis that somehow this is just the beginning of a terrible mess of confusion for consumers and should be stopped immediately.
Maybe I’m missing something, but in every single case that it’s been tried so far, such efforts have radically improved information flow, access to information for consumers, and it’s even improved the business of those suppliers in the industry that choose to embrace it.
And interestingly enough, each industry has witnessed its own transition through the exact same Stages of Grief (Fear, Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance) that is going on here. I’d say we’re currently on Stage #1 or #2.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
The issue at the heart of this discussion is that the “object” of ratings are PEOPLE, not cars, houses, gadgets. The threshold for having a rating should be VERY VERY HIGH.
Would you mind if i created a PUBLIC profile of you and “rated” you based on what grades you got in school (assume it was pubic) or what your colleagues thought of your work habit? How abou the value of your house, how about if i got “feedback” from your ex-lovers?
My point is that information while “free” can be very mis-leading if not analyzed in the right context. AVVO owes these lawyers a well thought system.
June 17th, 2007 at 6:10 am
LinkedIn and AngiesList are two of many sites that allow you to comment on the quality of work by people. And MySpace certainly allows people to comment on others and provide feedback in a more social setting.
Personally, I know I’m in the minority, but I’d be happy to have my rating published based on what you write above, because I’m proud of it. But since I’m not in the business of selling my professional services, I’m not sure where the market is for such a service.
June 17th, 2007 at 9:16 am
“AVVO owes these lawyers a well thought system.”
Avvo doesn’t owe lawyers anything. It’s not a service *for* lawyers, it’s for consumers. If consumers don’t find value in Avvo’s information they will simply stop using it. If consumers meet an inadequate attorneys that were highly ranked, they will stop trusting Avvo. Pretty “common sense” wouldn’t you say?
This is a new service, so why the need for regulation? Have they cornered the market on this sort of info? Are attorneys careers at the mercy of Avvo? No, on both counts. It’s Avvo’s best interest to keep improving this service if they are to become relevant and suing them because one doesn’t like how they’ve been rated rather than to try to work with the company to resolve this is just plain silly and will generate zero sympathy for the plaintiff. If anything, it will rally the people to support Avvo that much more. Ironic in a way that a lawsuit against Avvo may actually yield the sort of attention that those pressing their sour grapes have feared :)
June 17th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
“More importantly, viewing the ratings (and the ratings themselves) statically, only at a snapshot in time, is pretty silly. The ratings will change. The information that powers them will change radically. The rating *method* itself will probably change several times as well, just like Google’s search algorithm. (Avvo’s ratings may already have changed for all I know.)”
Here is where you continue to miss the point. According to Avvo:
“The Avvo Rating is our assessment of how well a lawyer could handle your legal issue. It is based on data we have collected about hundreds of thousands of lawyers – including their number of years in practice, disciplinary sanctions, and professional achievements.”
1) In fact, the score might provide little indication how well an attorney can handle a case – this is at the heart of the Berman class action suit. It pretends to offer something that in fact it can’t. The notion that the rating system will improve over time – and how is this to be assessed? – is totally irrelevant – this is what consumers are being offered now.
2) There are several fundamental flaws with Avvo. First, the data itself is highly problematic in terms of assessing an attorney’s skills in handling a particular case. What is the connection between Super Lawyer or Best Lawyer awards and this success? Second, the methodology used to rank someone based on this data is capricious. Reliance on different data (eg, client or peer reviews – Avvo does not use these for rankings) or weightings could provide a completely different set of rankings.
Even a cursory review of Avvo reveals these problems. An attorney ranked at the very top of a practice area targeted by Avvo (a “10″) in one of its states provides no picture and no discussion whatsoever of his/her 13 years of work experience. 20% of this individual’s practice is devoted to the practice area in question. They have received a number of awards including Super Lawyer awards since 2000 have and a dozen or so publications and speaking engagements. They have no client reviews and two attorney reviews, including a review from the attorney ranked second on the list. The attorney ranked second on the list has received a review from our #1 attorney (this is a common practice).
An attorney ranked a 9 on the list has provided a picture, a discussion of his/her work record, and has 25 years of experience. 80% of this individual’s practice is devoted to the practice area in question. In addition this individual has received Super Lawyer awards since 2000, has several publications, and half a dozen speaking engagements. Despite the clear industry recognition, Avvo has determined that this individual should receive only 3 out of 5 points in this category, and this is the difference between a 9 and a 10. The many more years of experience and much great focus on the practice area are presumably of less importance.
In another system these results could be reversed. What any of this information tells us about the ability of the attorney to handle my case at a reasonable cost is not clear.
3) Here are obvious consequences of the current Avvo system:
a. The notion of “superb” or “very good” has lost all meaning. You may or may not be getting a superb attorney through Avvo, and that superb attorney may be just good or even “only” good in a different system. This is deceptive and misleading.
b. Much as in the case of Google search results, attorneys who are ranked “10″ or at the very top of the list will receive the most attention. Should Avvo become a major portal for this type of service – this is certainly their goal – a lot of good attorneys who may in fact be better choices for handling a case may never be found. And, of course, this is not good for consumers.
4) Despite Avvo’s strong representation of their rating system and service to consumers, their disclaimer (http://www.avvo.com/support/term, section #7) – something few consumers will find or take the time to read – is much less sanguine. In part it reads:
“You further acknowledge that an Avvo Rating and the other information contained in an attorney’s profile, such as descriptions of an attorney’s areas of practice (including percentages devoted to each), and other data, summaries or descriptions on the Site, are based on the data obtained by or submitted to Company, which may be incomplete or inaccurate, and rely on automated interpretations of the information gathered by or submitted to Company. An Avvo Rating reflects the Company’s assessment of a given attorney, based upon the information obtained by or submitted to Company; someone else’s assessment of the same lawyer may be different or based upon different information.”
They go on to say a little further on, “Furthermore, you should independently verify the accuracy of any information you obtain on the Site before using it.”
This is to be contrasted with the language presented front and center to consumers (http://www.avvo.com/avvo_guide/avvo_rating):
“Here’s why the Avvo Rating can help you find the right lawyer:
* It’s unbiased. Because scores are calculated using a mathematical model, all lawyers are judged by the same standards. The Avvo Rating takes into account many factors, including experience, professional achievements, and disciplinary sanctions.
* There’s no favoritism. Here at Avvo, all lawyers are treated equally. They can’t pay to change their scores, and we don’t play favorites to lawyers we know. It’s just the facts, so to speak.
* It’s developed by legal experts for non-experts. The model used to calculate the Avvo Rating was developed with input from hundreds of attorneys, thousands of consumers, and legal experts.
* It’s easy to understand. With a simple ten-point rating scale and the ability to sort by Avvo Rating, we hope to make the murky process of comparing lawyers clearer.”
In other words, the very system Avvo strongly endorses as an extensively researched method for finding quality legal services, they provide disclaimer after disclaimer for in the fine print.
5) What should Avvo do?
Two things. First, the ranking system should be removed. It’s patently misleading and does not provide consumers what they believe they are receiving. In addition, this system, in my view, it anticompetitive in that it funnels consumers to a narrow group of attorneys. Secondly, attorneys should be provided the option of participating in Avvo. Avvo’s primary motive for loading their system with every active attorney’s data is it’s the only way of ensuring a critical mass for consumers – and a successful business model. However, this approach is also critically flawed in that very good attorneys are receiving low Avvo rankings based on a system that Avvo’s own disclaimer makes clear is highly subjective and susceptible to error.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Mr. Murch: Thank you for the reply. I agree with you wholeheartedly; the legal profession needs to allow consumers to shop for value. Consumers cannot do this without information. This market is messed up. But, regardless of the lawsuit, there needs to be collaboration between the lawyers and the information-seekers.
As a law student and soon-to-be-lawyer, I appreciate both sides of this dispute. But, from my perspective, the parties are not doing the best job working together. It is obvious that the legal market needs an autopsy; I’m just not sure that this is the most efficient way of going about it.
>> Why is simply updating your profile with *truthful* information at risk of being misleading advertising?
The issue is a LEGAL one. I’m not saying that the Avvo rating is clear cut unethical advertising. The problem is the leap between objective data and subjective “rankings” based on this data. The data points are not the same across the board because they are subject to manipulation. The ranking may be a problem, from an ethical standpoint. Look at the comments to the ABA rule 7.1 cited with link above (which has been adopted, with changes, in nearly every state except CA). “A truthful statement is also misleading if there is a substantial likelihood that it will lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services for which there is no reasonable factual foundation.” Comment [2]. Also, “an unsubstantiated comparison of the lawyer’s services or fees with the services or fees of other lawyers may be misleading if presented with such specificity as would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the comparison can be substantiated.” Comment [3]. But, “The inclusion of an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language may preclude a finding that a statement is likely to create unjustified expectations or otherwise mislead a prospective client.” Comment [3]
Apply the facts, pretending you’re in the shoes of a lawyer who wants to participate. Now, we’re not lawyers, but if we were, wouldn’t we see some risk in participating in Avvo? It’s the same ethical risk as putting 10/10 on your own website. The bar may not be happy about this. And since the law license is a lawyer’s meal ticket, you can see the pickle this puts lawyers in.
>> That’s in part why all rating systems that hold any water seem to be driven by a third party, either an individual or an organization.
Right! That seems to be the heart of the dispute. Here, the ratings are being driven by the lawyers themselves. The lawyers provide the information and Avvo boils it down to a ranking. I think this is the crux of Mr. Browne’s claim that Avvo’s rating system does not hold any water and therefore creates a consumer legal issue (Notice, I am not taking any position on the merits of this claim).
>> Maybe I’m missing something, but in every single case that it’s been tried so far, such efforts have radically improved information flow, access to information for consumers, and it’s even improved the business of those suppliers in the industry that choose to embrace it.
I think that is exactly the problem that Avvo has brought to the foreground. The bottom line is that there is no information available about lawyers. Let’s face it, hiring a lawyer based soley on the limited information available through state bar associations is foolish. We want to know success rates. We want to know whether the lawyer listens and returns phone calls. We want to know prices. We want to know if the lawyer addresses concerns. We want to know what VALUE a lawyer can provide. We crave information. The information is simply not available at this point in time.
I have the same beef with both sides of the “v.” in this litigation: Neither side has displayed that they are trying to resolve anything. There has been a complete breakdown in the relationship between lawyers and consumers. It has become expensive and it really makes lawyers look bad. Hell, I’m embarrassed and I’m not even a lawyer yet.
I really think both sides need to recognize and cope with the problems they face in this dispute. They need to embrace the shortcomings in the status quo and work together to fix it. Yes, there is a shortage of information. At the same time though, taking the limited available information, passing value judgments and then strong-arming lawyers into engaging in arguably unethical behavior is not necessarily the solution.
Lawyers need to step up and help Mr. Britton, who is really trying to do something good. Likewise, Avvo needs to address the bar’s concerns and commit to creating a sustainable solution. If it’s framed in the right light, I think many would be willing to help, including myself.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
WOW! What a great story.
I have to admit I was laughing reading many of the posts.
* If attorneys got paid by the “word” they would be rich. (look at the size of some of the posts)
* This is why people hate dealing with lawyers. They believe the have diplomatic immunity and are above everyone else.
* This is why most good lawyers hate other lawyers.
Recently there was a similar website created for rating Venture Capital firms. Needless to say the VC’s were pissed. Yet, they have not filed lawsuits because they are smarter people than lawyers and realize this is a lose lose situation for them.
http://www.thefunded.com/
June 17th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Great & thoughtful post JWC. It appears we do agree a lot more than I initially thought.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
James, Avvo has a right to calculate a score and publish it, just as Robert Parker has a right to score and publish wines.
If the scores have no correlation to reality, the market will quickly determine this and Avvo’s ratings will be a failure.
What I object to is the privilege that some lawyers seem to assert that their domain should not be subject to the same qualitative, subjective assessments that every other professional service (and consumer product) service industry is subject to.
Seattle Business magazine publishes an annual list of “Seattle’s Best Lawyers”. It’s a highly subjective list, yet it’s stack-ranked, which implies a score. Are you suggesting that they don’t have a right to publish this? What about the publication “America’s Best Lawyers (R)”? Inclusion or exclusion from this directory depends upon some kind of weighted score.
Google has a right to use calculations to order their search results, and you could make the same argument that they are also highly anticompetitive because a large amount of business goes to the top search results, and potentially better “fit” is never found.
I spend a great deal of time trying to do search engine optimization. Sometimes I wish I didn’t have to do it. But I would never think that suing Google is the sensible or right course of action. It’s tilting at windmills. If it’s not Avvo, it’ll be another one that’ll come along and try to do it for lawyers, doctors, dentists and others in one fell swoop.
Be vocal and loud about your concerns with the rating system. Help it improve. Send Avvo all kinds of product improvement requests, even with red exclamation points attached. But litigating over it seems futile in the long run and counterproductive in the near-term.
June 17th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
There is a place for lawyers to go with poor ratings… politics.
June 18th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Mr. Britton,
First of all, hats off to you for fighting on the consumers’ side. Secondly, you should just take comfort knowing the fact that lawyers feels so strongly about this only makes your site that much more important/valid.
Best of luck with the legal stuff. I find the whole ordeal incredibly entertaining.
S
June 18th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
**
James, Avvo has a right to calculate a score and publish it, just as Robert Parker has a right to score and publish wines.
**
I believe this remains to be seen. The comparison with Parker’s wine scoring system is not apt.
**
If the scores have no correlation to reality, the market will quickly determine this and Avvo’s ratings will be a failure.
**
And how will this happen? What is the feedback mechanism? If Avvo rates an attorney “Superb” but his/her performance is subpar over time, there is no effective means of determining this. The feedback must come from clients, and in many instances people are far less inclined to talk about their legal experiences than their travel experiences because of the nature of the issue, fear of defamation, what have you. I can’t imagine third party Web sites like this:
http://www.my3cents.com/search.cgi?criteria=expedia
which abound, serving this purpose. And if a former client does complain, who’s going to evaluate the complaint? Certainly not Avvo.
Nonetheless, in my view Avvo, which claims its scoring system is based on careful research (at least on that portion of their Web site where consumers are sure to go – the legal disclaimer is something together different, as I indicated in my earlier post) should have to bear responsibility for its results. Currently they’re having their cake and eating it too.
**
What I object to is the privilege that some lawyers seem to assert that their domain should not be subject to the same qualitative, subjective assessments that every other professional service (and consumer product) service industry is subject to.
**
This is absolutely incorrect. What attorneys object to (and I am not an attorney, incidentally) is a system that is capricious and flawed. Examples of this have been pointed out time and again. And I’m struck by your use of the phrase “qualitative, subjective assessments.” In fact, Avvo claims to have a quantitative, objective system – this is their language (at least, again, in that portion of their Web site where consumers are certain to go – their disclaimer is far less bold as I described previously).
Incidentally, have you considered providing a forum here:
http://www.escapia.com/
where Escapia’s clients can post their “qualitative, subjective assessments?” Like many businesses (and law firms, for that matter, in the form of their successes) you do post testimonials, but these are obviously selected by Escapia.
**
Seattle Business magazine publishes an annual list of “Seattle’s Best Lawyers”. It’s a highly subjective list, yet it’s stack-ranked, which implies a score. Are you suggesting that they don’t have a right to publish this? What about the publication “America’s Best Lawyers (R)”? Inclusion or exclusion from this directory depends upon some kind of weighted score.
**
The lists produced by Seattle Business magazine, Best Lawyer, numerous Super Lawyer publications, and a number of other organizations are very, very different than Avvo’s ranking. The numbers of attorneys that make these lists are relatively small, and you’re either in or out. If you’re out, no harm done. 99% of consumers have never heard of these lists (which are marketed to attorneys, not consumers) and if a prospective client discovered you didn’t make one they wouldn’t think twice about it (but, it certainly doesn’t hurt business if you’re on it regularly, and firms and attorneys post their lists every year). However, Avvo is a different creature. Not only are you always on the list, you may be very far down it to the detriment of your practice as John Henry Browne has argued. Or you may just be on page two or three of the Avvo list and, much like a Google search result, for all practical purposes invisible. If, as I noted earlier, Avvo is successful with this model and consumers flock to Avvo’s or similar portals rather than perform Web searches or yellow page lookups, a lot of good attorneys could be locked out. And in view of the fact Avvo’s attorney rankings are flawed to begin with – I have absolutely no doubt about this – neither consumers nor attorneys benefit.
Note, this is nothing like a travel site where rankings of a relatively small number of airlines can change position regularly based on price. In the Avvo system only relatively few attorneys from each practice area will receive visibilty in what is pretty static ranking system.
**
Google has a right to use calculations to order their search results, and you could make the same argument that they are also highly anticompetitive because a large amount of business goes to the top search results, and potentially better “fit” is never found.
**
Again, this comparison is not apt. Web sites can always be refined to gain greater visibility. Avvo holds far more cards than Google does in terms of restricting upward mobility.
June 19th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Let’s be clear here. Avvo does multiple things: allows public comment, collects information, and generates a score.
First, regarding the public comment. I don’t think there would be (could be) any serious objection to that. As long as the comments came from genuine interactions (or could be flagged or removed if they were bogus), that would be valuable.
Second, regarding the information collection. Avvo apparently collects information, but does not link to it. For example, it says John Henry Browne has been sanctioned but does not link to the sanction, nor to the WSBA provision he violated. How can a consumer evaluate that information?
Third, the ranking. As noted above, Avvo goes beyond other consumer evaluation services by ranking all the products (laywers) in the category, whether it has substantial information or not; and Avvo does so without any transparency. Again, how can a consumer evaluate that information?
So, is this really bringing value to the consumer? Or is the slick presentation of partial information deceptive? The site does look good and if I were looking for legal services I would tend to think that this had solid, reliable information.
I still say that – as a default – Avvo should display disciplinary action (with at least a link to the state bar disciplinary section), the year of bar passage, and allow comments. If the lawyer wants to claim the profile and give Avvo information, *then* Avvo should have more information (and hopefully sufficient information) to provide a meaningful ranking.
That way, you would not be ranking your CEO higher than Supreme Court Justices (which seems the definition of hubris, to me).
Lastly, regarding the comments from coworkers and friends of the CEO. Of course you are predisposed to view his work favorably. There’s nothing wrong about that. But, the more you assert your complete and total independence and open-mindedness, the more you hide from your predisposition. Everyone has a bias. Only dishonest people will tell you they are totally engaged in a conversation that they care nothing about. (My bias is that I am a lawyer who is *not* in private practice and is a privacy nut. Consumers gain nothing from learning about me and I am irritated that Avvo advertised my home address and a map to my home.)
June 19th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Thanks for your post – if your home address is listed, please be aware that that is also what is listed on your publicly available state bar information. If you contact Avvo’s customer care department, we will remove your address from your profile on Avvo.
Regards,
Conrad, Senior Marketing Manager at Avvo.
June 19th, 2007 at 9:32 am
> “The comparison with Parker’s wine scoring system is not apt.”
I disagree. Parker has assigned a score based on his own (unpublished) weighting of various factors. Consumers can place any level of emphasis they want on that rating. Perhaps an even closer analogy is credit rating services. They apply their own algorithms to a wide variety of elements to come up with a quantitative assessment of various subjective elements. They have a right to determine this score, and various consuming entities of this service have the right to place any amount of emphasis on the result.
** If the scores have no correlation to reality, the market will quickly determine this and Avvo’s ratings will be a failure.**
> “And how will this happen? What is the feedback mechanism?”
The feedback mechanism is the free market.
For instance, I tend to place very little emphasis on Roger Ebert’s movie ratings, because I’ve learned that over time, these ratings don’t correlate very well with my own personal likelihood that I’ll like the movie.
The Internet also has a wide variety of opinion sites (one of which you actually linked to, so you must be aware of them!), where people freely share their feedback as well. There will likely be competitive lawyer-rating sites to emerge, and consumers will be able to compare feedback amongst them.
Finally, Avvo itself posts all client (and peer) feedback, and if a consumer has an experience that wildly mismatches with the Avvo score, or the feedback they’ve seen, Avvo loses credibility over time. This is the way it should be.
> “And if a former client does complain, who’s going to evaluate the complaint? Certainly not Avvo”
Avvo is, among other things, a site where clients can comment on past performance of lawyers. As such they are not in the business of “evaluating” complaints (or praise), but IMO they do have an obligation to rectify opinions that are not actually made by real clients, if it’s brought to their attention. Once these complaints (or praises) are made, they have every right to factor this into the Avvo score.
> “Incidentally, have you considered providing a forum here: http://www.escapia.com/ where Escapia’s clients can post their “qualitative, subjective assessments?”
Funny you should ask (n.b. for other readers, Steve is chairman of Escapia, Inc.). Wait a few months — we at Escapia are building a place where consumers can shop for and book vacation rentals, and reviews from real & verified renting consumers (for the first time in the industry), as well as other transparency-shedding information such a real-time pricing and availability, is a major part of it.
But even though we are in fact doing this, your attempt at a point here is a red herring, because I’m not suggesting that *all* websites are obligated to invest the development work to provide a feedback loop.
Instead, I am suggesting that Avvo.com has a right to do it.
I am also suggesting that (1) that feedback loop WILL happen, though, like it or not, by one or more players in the industry. It is only remarkable to me that (a) the legal industry has been more or less insulated from this for more than a decade of the Internet’s existence and (b) some in the legal profession are incredibly arrogant to assume that they can (and should) go to the courts to block subjective scoring and/or consumer feedback, rather than work, as all other industries have done, to improve it.
> “The numbers of attorneys that make these lists are relatively small, and you’re either in or out. If you’re out, no harm done. 99% of consumers have never heard of these lists (which are marketed to attorneys, not consumers)…”
You’re essentially making the argument here that because these directories and stack-rankings are incomplete (i.e., they don’t list the ones who didn’t make it, and are in print form, and are “marketed to attorneys, not consumers”), then its OK to stack-rank (i.e., score), and have imperfect information.
Essentially, you are arguing that when things are made more friendly for the consumer (e.g., we go from having just a small set of rankings to a full list of rankings, and a much larger universe of lawyers is listed, and is freely searchable on the Internet, and it IS marketed to consumers, unlike the attorney-specific-vertical-publication called “Seattle Magazine” that’s sold in lawyer-only grocery stores), then those rules change. Strikes me as a little absurd, opaque and protectionist.
—————
Speaking of transparency, this brings me to a question for you, James Cameron.
Are you the person named “James Cameron” who happens to run a business called LegalWerks (http://www.legalwerks.com), which is in the business of setting up websites for lawyers, and which undoubtedly would be threatened by an Avvo.com’s success?
Could it be that you’re hiding some information from us here about your possible motivations?
And if you are *that* James Cameron of legalwerks, why do you ludicrously claim that Avvo.com is “anticompetitive” because it forces more business to the top-scored lawyers, when you apparently are in that exact same business of sending more consumers to the sites that you create and search-engine-optimize and host, such as “injuryAttorneysofWashington.com”?
I think the answer to this paradox may be revealed by your closing sentence: “Avvo holds far more cards than Google…”. Avvo.com certainly does present a competitive threat to legal website building-companies. On that I can agree with you. But that doesn’t make it illegal.
It’s fine if you perceive a threat from Avvo.com. And it’s fine if you want to throw stones from the sidelines at a well-financed effort to build a consumer portal for lawyers. It’s also fine, as JWC and others have done on this board, if you raise thoughtful questions for Avvo.com to consider in further enhancing/revising its rating system. That’s happened with the launch of every rating system that’s ever been tried — suppliers that are rated provide feedback to the rating entity that this-or-that could be done better. And though I’m not an Avvo.com employee, investor or advisor, I do think it’s a pretty safe bet that the Avvo rating system will undergo changes over time, and some of that will depend upon what they’re hearing from those that choose to voice their opinions.
But it does strike me as more than a tad disingenuous if you’re attempting to “call others out” on the board, when the others of us actually provide direct links to bios and biases (and acknowledge them), and you have an even more vested interest in Avvo’s success or failure, and do neither.
If you are not THE James Cameron from http://www.legalwerks.com (maker of lawyer websites), and are perhaps instead the Oscar-winning director of The Terminator and Titanic who has miraculously taken a sudden interest in the Internet/Legal world, then let me offer my sincere apologies.
But I have a sneaking suspicion that you’ve got a little more vested interest here, and I think that deserves some transparency, don’t you?
June 19th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I think that the lawyers that started this rediculous lawsuit have something to hide. Not only would I not seek their services because of what may be on their rating but what makes me really want to avoid such an attorney is their lack of respect for free speech.
I stand behind this service and will do everything in my power to help promote it. I also posted about it on my blog.
Anyone speaking against Avvo.com is a dictator or supporter of.
June 19th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
It does seem silly to me that a lawsuit would come up in only a week or so after a site launch. Is that really enough time to definitively say it’s helping or harming a law firm?
I’m a pretty big fan of the CitySearch portal (live since ‘97) and both plaintiffs have only “average” ratings in there, too. Gonna’ sue them next?
I’m curious if Avvo opponents are also “Super Lawyer” opponents. Some claim unfairness with SL because of large-firm-vote-padding loopholes.
As a consumer, I’ll wait to render judgment. A number on a 1-10 scale doesn’t mean nearly as much to me as honest, real reviews. If Avvo provides that, I’ll like it! If profiles only offer canned, fake reviews, I won’t.
June 20th, 2007 at 3:58 am
Okay, how many of you guys got your secretaries to type up your blog responses from an anal rant on a dictaphone. Come on, out with it.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:41 am
First things first:
**
Are you the person named “James Cameron” who happens to run a business called LegalWerks
**
Yes!
**
ld be threatened by an Avvo.com’s success?
**
Maybe only if we created a similar business OR I became a lawyer with an Avvo ranking of 9 or 8 or less. But, this is premature since it’s far from clear whether Avvo will find success, at least in its current form.
**
Could it be that you’re hiding some information from us here about your possible motivations?
**
Yes . . . I wanted to meet you (and I’ve certainly had success with that!).
I’m probably one of the most objective participants on this blog since I’m not an attorney and I don’t have long standing ties with Avvo executives and board members. I also happen to understand the issues better than most because of my many years working in technology and with law firms and attorneys. I’m in a unique position to carefully analyze and critique Avvo, and it’s clear to me it’s a deeply flawed system. I’m also very troubled by a system that can rank a very good attorney like John Henry Browne – someone whom I don’t know personally – as it does. Avvo clearly has the potential to affect the lives and livelihoods of people, and they have an obligation to do a much better job than they have to my way of thinking. If you want motivation, look here.
I’m also deeply troubled by a somewhat cavalier response to these concerns. There are few people, if they could trade positions with Mr. Browne, who wouldn’t discover some instant wisdom.
Moving on . . .
**
And if you are *that* James Cameron of legalwerks, why do you ludicrously claim that Avvo.com is “anticompetitive” because it forces more business to the top-scored lawyers, when you apparently are in that exact same business of sending more consumers to the sites that you create and search-engine-optimize and host, such as “injuryAttorneysofWashington.com”?
**
Because Avvo is or at least has the potential to be anti-competitive if it becomes a primary portal for consumers. Google does not have nearly the potential to funnel consumers to specific Web sites. Moreover, Web sites can be tweaked and refined to up their ranking considerably. Attorneys are severely limited in what they can do to move themselves up in an Avvo system – aside from the fact the rankings are seriously flawed to begin with.
This is very, very clear.
**
Avvo.com certainly does present a competitive threat to legal website building-companies.
**
If they are, it’s a huge stretch of the imagination.
It would mean that Avvo would either getting into the law firm Web business or that attorneys would decide they didn’t require their own Web sites, and neither of these is at all likely. In the former case, Avvo would be creating business relationships with, presumably, their top ranked attorneys, calling into even greater question the objectivity of their rankings. In the latter, the attorneys would be relying on their Avvo profiles, which is not an option for law firms (especially) and attorneys who like any business are focused on creating a brand for themselves.
Moving on again . . .
**
thoughtful questions for Avvo.com to consider in further enhancing/revising its rating system.
**
Indeed, many have raised serious questions regarding the rating system and I think it will have to undergo serious modification. I do not think it was well thought out and, as Mark Britton has stated, Avvo did not anticipate the reaction (A surprising admission, since I think the reaction could have been easily anticipated – this points to the insularity of some of the thinking).
Incidentally, a very interesting radio interview at LegalTalkNetwork on Avvo’s problems was highlighted by John Cook of the PI. See http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/venture/archives/116913.asp or go to LegalTalkNetwork.
**
And though I’m not an Avvo.com employee, investor or advisor
But it does strike me as more than a tad disingenuous if you’re attempting to “call others out” on the board, when the others of us actually provide direct links to bios and biases (and acknowledge them)
**
I must say, I’ve honestly wondered why former Expedia executives have been far more visible on this blog than current Avvo executives (and all in strident support of Avvo!). The issues raised by me and others are serious and stand quite independently of who’s raising them . . . focusing on me is a red herring.
What I – and I imagine many others – would really welcome is hearing from Avvo, since they most certainly are in a better position to respond. However, Avvo has fallen very silent. They were invited onto the radio program above, but declined, and have been all but absent on their own blog. That’s not to say they haven’t been well represented.
**
and are perhaps instead the Oscar-winning director of The Terminator and Titanic
**
Well, there is the possibility that THE James Cameron also has a law firm Web business (and you’ve been talking to him as an extra bonus!).
**
It is only remarkable to me that (a) the legal industry has been more or less insulated from this for more than a decade of the Internet’s existence and (b) some in the legal profession are incredibly arrogant to assume that they can (and should) go to the courts to block subjective scoring and/or consumer feedback, rather than work, as all other industries have done, to improve it.
**
I agree there need to be better methods for consumers to find and evaluate legal services – unfortunately Avvo isn’t providing it.
What is just as remarkable to me is many of those connected to Avvo, directly or indirectly, come from companies that have a very mixed record when it comes to the consumer. Microsoft software has provided an autobahn for years into corporate and personal computers, and their anti-competitive history is well known. Consumers would certainly benefit if Expedia devoted a section on their Web site for people to post their experiences, but this isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
More later.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:27 am
LOL!
So, we’re supposed to believe that:
1) Even though you chose to hide your identity as someone who runs http://www.legalwerks.com, a company that builds websites for lawyers because you “wanted to meet us first”, it’s OK for you to chide other people (who actually link to their own bios and blogs) and/or organizations for not being transparent enough, in nearly every post.
Seems more than a little hypcrotical to me, but I’ll let others be the judge of that.
2) You claim to be “one of the most objective people on this board”, even though:
3) Your business is a direct competitor to Avvo.com. Though you claim it’s not, let’s look at where you sit in the value chain. Each of you ultimately gain your revenue by connecting consumers to lawyers, via the World Wide Web. Whoever does a better job at that in the long run will be in a strategically stronger position.
Many, many suppliers use their CitySearch page as their web presence. Many solo practitioners do not have any web presence. If lawyers eventually use Avvo.com as their business-dashboard and/or web-presence, it’s relatively incremental for Avvo.com to let lawyers start building out their own web presence, with or without the rating. They could sell top-level domain names and a storefront-creator to them today, or tomorrow, or next month. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to extrapolate here — you guys are likely to be in direct competition very soon (I’d argue that you already are.)
—–
One thing I can agree with you on is that the podcast at http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/venture/archives/116913.asp is worth a listen, and that I’d encourage Avvo.com to get more involved in the dialogue on this.
Several good points are made, particularly by Carlolyn of http://www.myshingle.com (http://www.myshingle.com/my_shingle/2007/06/a_tale_of_two_l.html#trackback), including the fact that the legal industry left this hole for others to fill, that other rating services have for years been doing much of what the class action lawsuit is trying to shut down, only in a more opaque-to-consumers way, that the ratings themselves could improve in quality, and that actively working to improve Avvo.com, rather than immediately resorting to a lawsuit, would have been a wiser (and more common) course of action.
I agree with all of those points, and think that the discussion on http://www.myshingle.com is well-worth exploring.
You wonder why Avvo.com executives haven’t been more engaged in the dialog. I agree it’d be better to hear from them more actively. But let’s see. Could it be that a *class-action lawsuit* has squelched their *ability* (and not their desire) to discuss this in a public form?
Again, I’d say that this quick-to-litigate action was NOT the best way for either those that are highly concerned about this improvements made that are to their liking, or enhance the dialog, or even get what they want in the long-run.
Even in the most unlikely circumstance that a whacky judge sympathizes with the class action argument and enjoins the service, another one (or a reborn Avvo.com itself) will come along with slight modifications and the process will start all over again.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
“Consumers would certainly benefit if Expedia devoted a section on their Web site for people to post their experiences, but this isn’t going to happen anytime soon.”
Don’t know if you’ve seen or heard of it, but the “section of Expedia” where travelers can post their experiences is TripAdvisor.com, the #1 Internet site for people talking about travel, which Expedia Inc. owns and is deploying throughout their purchase process (e.g., hotel reviews, etc.). There, you’ll find plenty of reviews and ratings from real travelers about their purchases, and not just the positive ones. Cheers.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
What you are doing should be considered no worse than Google. You are entitled to your own algorithm/opinion. It doesn’t have to be perfect. I can show you websites all day long that get good Google rankings that in no way deserve it. Any lawyer who is scared of this might be worried about the truth coming out. I hope you fight this to the end.
November 18th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Bravo to Avvo!! It’s about time for a change! For far too long, the “good ole boys syndrome” has been the rule rather than the exception, and I have personally been the victim of lawyers who are simply waiting to go home from work rather than doing the best they can for their clients (which is the way it’s supposed to be.) If you want to whine and bitch about it, attorneys, then it’s time you take a good long look at yourself, because something is wrong. I am not downing all of you, since I have also been represented by the VERY BEST THERE IS- Julie, I hope you’re reading this- As attorneys, you have a responsibility to your client- if you want to do business in a way that makes you nervous, then maybe it’s time for a career change… to a career in which you DON’T hold people’s lives and freedom in your hands…
Thanks for your time-
December 31st, 2007 at 12:20 am
“But an imperfect statistic is better than none at all.”
What drivel. Go get lost in the woods. I’d rather know that I’m lost and take action appropriate to that situation; you would strike off confidently in the wrong direction and get even more irretrievably lost.
The first comparison I thought of WAS credit rating. Potential debtors are not the beneficiaries of this system, potential creditors are. It is the vendors of credit who use this data to assess the risk of doing so. True, there is no opt-out, but there is immediate feedback if information is incorrect (credit is refused), and the person being described by that information has the right to challenge it. He/she does not have to “belong”, and the onus of providing correct information (or correcting bad information) falls on the rating agency.
Avvo quite obviously turns this model on its head. To run a credit rating agency in the same fashion, one could simply make little effort to collect or report any semblance of accurate information and refuse to rectify the situation until each member of the public paid a membership fee. I really don’t think the people would stand for that.
But this situation with attorneys is even worse, since lost business doesn’t provide immediate feedback except in the rare instance where someone withdraws his patronage and tells you the reason why. You have no feedback from people who simply pass you by because the info unjustifiably cast doubt on your practice, or who were directed past you because another was unjustifiably rated higher.
If Avvo is going to provide a service, let it solicit memberships from those who want the information–potential customers of legal services. Let THEM buy the memberships, and let them assess whether you can provide a service of acceptable quality. You are lawyers, so I trust that any warnings about this debate will be buried adequately deeply in the fine print.
It shouldn’t surprise me that lawyers can’t understand the basic objections to Avvo’s model. Actually, for two basic reasons: you can’t see the forest for the trees, and you don’t recognize a shakedown as being inherently wrong. As for those who purport to be consumers of legal services, I was told a long time ago that businessmen succeed because they only have to compete against other businessmen.
January 5th, 2008 at 7:14 am
This is an open letter and response to Mr. Britton who seems to think that he has an unfettered constitutional right to interfere with business relations. As an attorney, he should know better. I would think he would do well to check the state bar rules before including a state in his site. And, I would think that he is subjecting himself to potential discipline as he is licensed to practice law. A simple statement and analysis of some of the Rules here in Pennsylvania follows:
Rule 7.1 Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Service
A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.
Comments to this rule are as follows:
[1] This Rule governs all communications about a lawyer’s services, including advertising permitted by Rule 7.2. Whatever means are used to make known a lawyer’s services, statements about them must be truthful.
[2] Truthful statements that are misleading are also prohibited by this Rule. A truthful statement is misleading if it omits a fact necessary to make the lawyer’s communication considered as a whole not materially misleading. A truthful statement is also misleading if there is a substantial likelihood that it will lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services for which there is no reasonable factual foundation.
[3] An advertisement that truthfully reports a lawyer’s achievements on behalf of clients or former clients may be misleading if presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case. Similarly, an unsubstantiated comparison of the lawyer’s services or fees with the services or fees of other lawyers may be misleading if presented with such specificity as would lead a reasonable person to conclude that comparison can be substantiated. The inclusion of an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language may preclude a finding that a statement is likely to create unjustified expectations or otherwise mislead a prospective client.
My position is simple…I believe that the simple act of claiming your profile any lawyer in Pennsylvania subjects that lawyer to discipline. Avvo does not state how they arrive at the conclusion they do to give the rating. Further, the site itself also states that all of the information about the lawyer may not be contained therein which by definition is an omission. It also tells lawyers they can affect the rating by providing avvo information. But clearly, the lawyer would then be providing information to affect a score that could be misleading under this rule. The avvo rating is therefore clearly misleading in that there is in fact a substantial likelihood that it could lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services for which there is no factual foundation. As such, I believe that without providing the means of the avvo rating, or any information about the supposed algorithm, then by definition, the avvo score is misleading and by definition violates the rule. As to the disclaimer, well it clearly is insufficient as it is buried in the site and most readers would never read them anyway. People are not inclined to search for the information. If, as Mr. Britton states, that people do not know where to turn for a legal problem, he suggests they are in somewhat of a panic. I doubt highly that any disclaimer contained in this site is sufficient.
There are a number of other rules here in PA that I think are being violated by not only Mr. Britton, but each and every attorney who participates. I have particular concern about the peer review ratings and the client recommendations. What I have found is that attorneys are colluding to post peer recommendations for each other. Surely there can be no value in that. I also noted that there is no identification of those client ratings recommending lawyers and in one instance, it appeared that the ratings actually came from the same person. Now if these peer review and client reviews are included in the rating, then the avvo results are worth even less than what they appeared to offer at the start – which is really nothing at all. And if an attorney does not know who is saying these things, what is the attorney to do if he gets a client rating that is totally false?
Even more disturbing about avvo is that they are soliciting e-mails on my behalf. I have expressly asked they cease and desist along with asking them to remove me from the site as I really do not want my name stained by the reputation of this site. Since I last checked, they still have refused to remove the link to my website and have refused to remove the solicitation link for e-mails. That link by the way, opens a window for the user to input the e-mail and then avvo takes the info and then e-mails it to me. In so doing, they are acting as my agent and doing so not only without my permission, but my explicit demand to cease. Is this not an interference with my business operations? Should I not have the right to decide how clients contact me? What if I wanted to block all e-mails from avvo and then they continue to solicit e-mails? Wouldn’t my business be harmed? The people using this system have an expectation that they have an express right to act on my behalf. I think this clearly crosses the line. Imagine if a third party decided to start accepting your US mail and then send it to you? Would that be lawful? Or how about redirecting our phone numbers and start behaving as our answering service?
To be clear…I have no sanctions against me. Sure, I could sign up and affect my rating, but how could I do that when I firmly believe what is going on here is in violation of the rules. What about my oath? Catch 22.
Mr. Britton, would you please stop soliciting e-mail on my behalf? If you are going to continue to refuse to do so, would you have the courtesy of a response and a statement as to how you believe you have the right to do so? And, Mr. Britton, how about responding right here about where you get off sticking your nose into my business and my relationships with potential clients? How about comments on your position as to the PA rules as stated above? Finally, Mr. Britton, is it not true that you have no interest in the public or the attorneys yo9u claim you want to help and that you envision yourself as the Google for the legal referral world as your site clearly implies? Is it not just about the targeted advertising you have planned down the road? Are you not going to just use your system to steal clients away from those that use your site vis a vis their coming to your site to get our ratings and then you will advertise other lawyers with higher ratings right next to us?
I would appreciate it if you stopped deceiving the public that only lawyers who are unhappy with your rating system or who have sanctions against them are the only detractors. It simply is not the case. In short, some of us just do not want to be associated with you or the system you are gaming and believe it to be actually contrary to the interests of the public at large and the oaths we have taken. Those of us with ethics are the ones who will be harmed because we will not be able to come to your site and affect our ratings because quite simply, our ethics will not allow it.
For some reason, I do not believe you will have the guts to either post this open letter to you or respond to it here. Surprise me, Mr. Britton, please.
January 21st, 2008 at 8:02 am
You say that you are fair and unbiased. If that is the true aim of your site, wouldn’t it be truly fair and unbiased to have, in hand, the criteria upon which you judge before assigning an arbitrary rank? And if you are fair and unbiased, why not tell the world how you reach that ranking without the necessary critical information?
The problem is, your site may well hurt the reputations and careers of lawyers who do not deserve it. And the average consumer will not know the difference between your arbitrary assignment of a rating and one that is peer driven by those who actually know the lawyer and his/her work.
Why doesn’t this matter to you, if you are, as you say, fair and unbiased?
March 26th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I am an attorney who actually received a fairly high rating from AVVO. I think some points need to be considered.
1. Public disciplinary records of attorneys are just that; public. The fact that AVVO has data mined this information and organized it in an easy-to-access manner should offend no one. It simply makes it easier for potential clients to do the research that they should do but otherwise might not. Not all disciplinary actions necessarily reflect on how attorneys will represent their clients; but the information should be available and considred by potential clients.
2. Since the amount of control that may be exercised by attorneys over their listings is limited, the concerns about advertising are somewhat less compelling than they would be if attorneys could anonymously make postings that boost their ratings.
3. It is true that no ratings systems is a perfect way to evaluate how an attorney will perform. However the existing ratings systems (i.e. Martindale-Hubbel, which has provided AV ratings for a few years) are not necessarily any better than AVVOs system; although the MH system does not really provide for the negative information that AVVO does, it is also voluntary on the attorneys’ part to participate. I do not know how some of the “best attorneys” publications operate, in particular, whether or not they are revenue based. It appears that AVVO is seeking to base some of its ratings on public performance records. That, of course can be difficult; some attorneys, for example, assigned criminal defense attorneys and some immigration attorneys may only appear in reported cases that were hopeless to begin with; if they were sucsessful, the case may never have made it up to the level where a decision was reported. I can certainly appreciate the sentiments of attorneys who may be in that situation, but I believe that the AVVO system is better than boards that allow anonymous postings about attorneys as the only indication of performance; those can be skewed by attorneys themselves building themselves up, a few disgruntled and irrational clients (who typically would be the most inclined to make posts!), and possibly even competitors.
-Fred Korkosz
March 27th, 2008 at 11:56 am
2 Follow up comments:
1. I was not actually replying only to the last post, but trying to leave a general comment. However, since I apparently resurrected an old thread, I will comment here.
2. After reviewing the AVVO posts, I noticed that some attorneys who I happen to know have disciplinary histories were listed has not having any such histories. I assume that is due to technical issues in picking up the histories from the case reporters, and it will eventually work out on its own.
3. Ironically, it appears that most of the lawyers receiving the highest ratings on AVVO are also ones who are generally respected by people “in the know” as being good attorneys in terms of overall quality of service. Some of the higher rated attorneys practice in specialties that I have no dealings with, so I would not know anything about them. Some of the lawyers who are rated good or average may not have as many published decisions to their credit. But still, I think that AVVO seems to be more realistic in its ratings than some other listings.
-Fred Korkosz
March 28th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Fred – I moved your comments up to my post of a couple of days ago. With an old post like this, seldom will someone wade through dozens of comments. Thanks for your support Frank!
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:40 am
munchie…
classic scorched earth…
August 18th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Avvo’s information is inaccurate on many counts. One problem is that attorneys who are primarily licensed in one state that Avvo doesn’t cover are depicted as having been licensed for many years less than they actually have been licensed — in some instances, decades less. If a lawyer moves from an uncovered state into a new state and has been licensed there for only a year, he is depicted to the public as a first year attorney. There is no attempt at accuracy and when requests for correction are sent in by attorneys they are ignored or declined. For this, and many other reasons, AVVO deceives consumers and is deceptive speech is not protected by the first amendment. Most lawyers are not public figures so in deciding to publish things about them that are not true, one is engaged in defamation and disparagement, and that is what AVVO has done to many.
August 12th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
My issue with AVVO is that they are exploiting my name for commercial purposes without my permission. They are using my name to advertise their services, where I live this is not only actionable, its also a crime. They are stealing from me, just like someone illegally downloading a movie, and then re-selling it for profit.
In addition if I want to add information or fix incorrect information, I have to pay AVVO a fee.
For you people out there saying shut up and stop whining, picture a scenario where I can call up the credit bureaus, make up any story about you, destroy your credit so you can’t buy a car, get a job, or buy a place, and post it on the internet, and then turn around and advertise the made up story and generate revenue from it.
That is essentially what AVVO has done. So if you think that is a good idea, send me your credit infom and a check.
August 19th, 2009 at 8:37 am
You gona get another lawsuit to fight.