classic scorched earth…

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

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

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?

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.

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.