I couldn’t write a “Lawyers in the News” post without including some juicy Eliot Spitzer quotes

East Coast bloggers weigh-in on the firewall Avvo has hit in New Jersey regarding attorney licensing records. Powering her press from Washington, DC, Carolyn Elefant introduces an interesting angle to this whole matter in here Law.com article entitled, “New Jersey’s Fight to Keep Lawyer Records from Avvo: Privacy or Profit Motive?” She writes:

Consider this: In 2006, the New Jersey state bar launched a fee-based, online lawyer directory at its Web site. The directory would allow consumers looking for lawyers to click on a live link directly to the firm’s Web site. The bar recognized that the fee-based listings would generate revenues for the state bar. As New Jersey Bar spokesperson Barbara Straczynski explained in this article on Law.com, “if just 100 members sign up for links to their own sites, that’s $10,000 right there.”
. . .
It’s too bad that New Jersey is so busy “minding its “p’s” — privacy and profit — that it’s overlooking the p-word that should matter most in all of this: the public.

Live from New York, Scott Greenfield writes in his post entitled, “Avvo Sues Jersey to Share the Wealth“:

. . . New Jersey’s refusal to disclose the identities of its lawyers because it will interfere with the state’s own ability to cash in is an affront to the public.

If Jersey refused because it had issues with Avvo’s ratings, like the issues it has with Super Lawyers, then it would be a fair question and a responsible position. But if the only problem is has is cash (hey, it’s not cheap to clean up toxic waste sites, you know), then it’s just plain disingenuous.

Let’s hope that the firewall we have hit in New Jersey, contrary to these articles, is not about the cash. Consumers need help navigating the legal industry, and hopefully New Jersey will step up to assist Avvo in its mission of getting consumers the information and guidance they need to choose the right lawyer.

Mark

1. Jayceon Taylor, better known as rapper “The Game”, was released from jail this week, after only serving a mere eight days of his 60 day sentence. Last month he was convicted on charges of possession of a firearm in a school zone. While playing an innocent pick-up basketball game on school property, The Game apparently had a scuffle with a player from the opposing team in which he waved his gun around. Shawn Chapman Holley, his lawyer, said, “He is now on probation and will eagerly begin his court-ordered community service.”

2. The ABA journal reports that a former lawyer “has sued seven casinos for failing to stop her compulsive gambling that led to $1 million in losses and the end of her law practice”. Criminal charges are still pending regarding Arelia Margarita Taveras‘ law practice. The $99,000 she skimmed from the $500,000 she earned yearly financed her nasty gambling habit at Atlantic City casinos. My money is on the house.

3. Judge Rolf M. Treu dismissed a lawsuit filed against Robert De Niro this week. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company claimed De Niro misrepresented his health when he signed paperwork saying he had never been diagnosed with prostate cancer. The actor signed the insurance document only two days before he was diagnosed. His Lawyer, Robyn Crowther, said “We are pleased that the court has found that Fireman’s Fund can’t sue Mr. De Niro for getting cancer.”

4. Bad news bears. Brenda Finnegan pleaded not guilty to stealing $68,000 from the North Clark Little League in Yacolt this week. According to court documents, the former league treasurer took the money over three year’s time. She is represented by defense attorney David Kurtz. In an interview Finnegan says she altered bank checks and used the money to pay her mortgage and pay off credit card debt.

5. Billie Jean Jackson was arrested this week for trespassing at Neverland Ranch. The 60 year old woman claimed to be Michael Jackson’s wife and the inspiration to the song. Maybe she just wanted to celebrate the fact that MJ saved his beloved Ranch just before foreclosure. His Attorney, L. Londell McMillan, said that MJ worked out a “confidential” agreement with Fortress Investment Group, LLC, allowing him to retain ownership of his property. Speaking of foreclosures

Paul wrote recently about public records and Avvo’s mixed experience in obtaining information from the keepers of this data in each state. Where some states make attorney licensing data freely available (e.g., California, Texas and Washington), others are head-scratchingly opaque about what should be straightforward, publicly-accessible information. We’ve run up against this in spades with New Jersey, to the point where we’ve had to petition the New Jersey Supreme Court to get relief. I thought it would be interesting to let readers follow the sausage-making process we’re going through to obtain this public information.

New Jersey is the 11th most populous state, but it boasts the 8th largest number of licensed attorneys. Naturally, we would love to expand Avvo’s coverage to include New Jersey; we cover New York and we regularly get inquiries from New Jersey lawyers asking when we are going to cover the Garden State. However, despite a year-long effort to obtain attorney information from New Jersey, we have gotten . . . just about nowhere.

As this will be the first post in my chronicling of New Jersey, let’s start with a little background. Want to find information about a lawyer in WA or CA? Go to the state bar website and enter the name. Easy. How about NJ? You’ve got to call the Clerk of the New Jersey Supreme Court (like many eastern states, NJ does not have a mandatory state bar handling attorney admissions and discipline). Not only is there no website for attorney info, but it took us quite a bit of poking around before we even found the right people to talk to. Not exactly helpful for a consumer trying to find out, say, if the divorce lawyer she is considering hiring is in good standing with the bar.

After getting the run-around last spring, we put NJ to the side and launched service with the 9 states (and DC) that Avvo currently covers. Last fall, I reinitiated our efforts to get the New Jersey data. After several calls, I was told I needed to deal with the Supreme Court Clerk, Stephen Townsend. Oh and I had to do it by letter. But hey, at least they let me send it by fax! That’s progress, right?

Next – The Letter Writing Commences, or How I Reverted to My Pre-Internet Days as a First-Year Litigator.

Here at Avvo, we have been getting a fair number of inquiries regarding the AP story that broke yesterday reporting our difficulties in getting lawyer records from New Jersey. For those that are interested, our General Counsel, Josh King, is putting together a diary of sorts regarding our dealings with New Jersey to date. The first installment is ready to go and, although based in reality, the story is just outlandish enough to make for good reading. Josh’s plan is to keep releasing installments until we reach some level of rational interaction with New Jersey.

As a preamble to all of this, I want to say that we are not trying to poke a stick in New Jersey’s regulatory eye. That being said, we are completely baffled regarding New Jersey’s behavior to date. The information we are requesting is already published in book and disc form (costing you $78 + tax and shipping by the way) by a company called Lawyers Diary, based in New Jersey. If this information is so confidential or otherwise difficult to produce, then why does New Jersey only distribute it through the very expensive Lawyers Diary year after year? Wouldn’t New Jersey want to make that information widely available for consumers for free? Yes, one can call the New Jersey clerk of court and get any information regarding a single attorney; but that’s not very helpful if, like all of those going to the Yellow Pages, you don’t have any attorney’s name.

We look forward to New Jersey addressing some of these inconsistencies, and I personally look forward to Josh’s reporting on it all. In the end, if New Jersey and Avvo are truly of like mind in helping consumers get the information and guidance they need to choose the right lawyer, then this should all take care of itself pretty quickly.

Josh, take it away . . .

Mark

The Economist has a good article “The battle for Wikipedia’s soul” that explores the rift opening up between two Wikipedia factions. The factions are the “inclusionists”, who essentially believe that Wikipedia should include information on any and every topic that an individual is willing to invest the time to write about, and the “deletionists”, who argue that Wikipedia should adhere to strict criteria regarding which subjects are worthy of being on the the site. The battle seems to be getting bloody, as one faction has come to calling the other faction “wiki-lawyers.”

The behavior of Wikipedia’s self-appointed deletionist guardians, who excise anything that does not meet their standards, justifying their actions with a blizzard of acronyms, is now known as “wiki-lawyering”

Notwithstanding the not-so-flattering allusion to the legal profession, this ideological split is yet another sign that user-generated content (UGC) is coming of age. Google, with its planned “knol” service, seems to be on the side of the inclusionists, betting that the community of consumers can be effective at arbitrating what content is useful, particularly if articles include information on the writer’s credentials.

We’ve had similar discussions inside Avvo, particularly as it pertains to expanding the content on our site and to what degree the content should be “editorial” vs. “user-generated”, or a mix of both. While UGC has the advantage of tapping into the unique expertise of a broad population of individuals, there is the potential for UGC spam that does not exist with a purely editorial model. When we did the initial planning for Avvo, we felt that the best approach would be a combination of the two. Thus, the Avvo Rating essentially gives an editorial “opinion”, and this is enahnced with UGC from both lawyers and consumers.

In any case, I was pleased to see that Wikipedia’s entry on deletionism and inclusionism has survived the wrath of the deletionists on Wikipedia itself.

I guess we could call this a special edition of “Lawyers in the News” because I’m not sure that any lawyer has seen this much press since maybe Nixon.

Anyway, from the title, you probably assume that I am going to get on my high horse and pummel Mr. Spitzer for the inconsistent activities of his alter ego “George Fox.” (who interestingly was also the founder of the Quaker movement). Sorry to disappoint, but how could I offer something so highbrow when there is a MUCH bigger ratings story in all of this? In fact, I’m a little disappointed that it has not been the heart of the Spitzer story.

Allow me to elaborate: According the Wall Street Journal, Eliot’s (or George’s or Client 9′s) current favorite website, Emperorsclub.com, guided its customers using a rating system of one to seven diamonds, with the seven diamond ladies charging roughly $5,500 per hour.

Now, Eliot only paid $4,300 so that probably puts him in the five to six diamond category but I digress.

The POINT is that, from Eliot’s actions, we can only presume that he was attracted to this elite service because of the exceptional information and guidance it offered regarding the “services” available through the site. I mean, if you are going to buy something that might destroy your entire political career, it’s a pretty important decision.

So, while he didn’t come out and say it, I see this as a fairly strong endorsement by Mr. Spitzer of ratings systems across the board. While we don’t see this as a great time to hire Eliot as an Avvo spokesperson, we appreciate his support nonetheless.

Keep up the great work, Eliot.

Mark

1. Alani Golanski, Brooklyn, NY

2. Manubir Singh Arora, Atlanta, GA

3. Roni Deutch, North Highlands, CA

4. Anthony Colleluori, Woodbury, NY

5. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Washington, DC.

6. Moses Lebovits, Los Angeles, CA

7. Ronald Coleman, New York, NY

8. Daniel Harris, Seattle, WA

9. Joseph Campos, Seattle, WA

10. Laura Wasser, Los Angeles, CA

1. Waffle batter leads to battery for Kid Rock. This week Robert James Ritchie’s lawyer, Darryl Cohen, pleaded not guilty to a charge of battery on his behalf in DeKalb County State Court. Ritchie, better known as rap/rocker “Kid Rock”, and 5 of his buddies were arrested after a brawl outside of an Atlanta Waffle-House last October.

2. George Karl, coach of the Denver Nuggets, has an attorney with a lot to say. Lawyer Bret Adams went above and beyond to stand up for his client this week by sending a threatening email to the creator of a website called firegeorgekar.com. He did this on behalf of, not his client, but himself. Here is the best part of his email: “Is your life really this boring and meaningless that you would spend the hours necessary to create such a website? As Coach Karl’s counsel I am putting you on notice that I will sue you into bankruptcy should you cross the boundaries of permissible speech.” Karl, who is not considering legal action, had this to say “It wasn’t on my request. It was on his friendship towards me.”

3. Client needs to clean it up in court. Judge Eduardo Robreno fined Aaron Wilder and his lawyer $29,000 for engaging in “hostile, uncivil, and vulgar conduct, which persisted throughout the nearly 12 hours of deposition testimony.” Attorney Joseph Ziccardi

Here’s an interesting article from the ABA’s Law Practice Magazine on the new website Texas Bar Circle. It looks like Texas is getting into the lawyer social networking business similar to Ohio’s Liam which launched last year. While each of these sites might offer competition to Avvo, I am simply happy to see these state bars being progressive and helping their attorneys enhance their web presence. Also, the more acquainted attorneys get with the web, the more they will understand that AVVO RULES!

The digital tidal wave is only gaining force. Grab your long boards . . .

Mark