Houston Criminal Attorney New Astroturf King
Back in the 1960’s, Houston became home to the first major artificial playing field – the original, inglorious, Astrodome. So it’s only fitting that the largest city in Texas can now proudly claim title to the reigning king of “astroturfing”: In online parlance, the practice of buffing up one’s reputation by posting phony user reviews online.
Houston criminal defense attorney Andy Nolen – or someone who has a stake in Mr. Nolen’s online reputation – has been posting, on Yahoo Local, positive reviews of Mr. Nolen and scathingly negative reviews of his competition. 31 posts, all on Houston attorneys, all negative, except for one: Andy Nolen.
Others have filled in the backstory on Nolen, including consummate Texas bloggers and attorneys Mark Bennett, John Floyd and Cynthia Henley. Let’s just say that much like the astroturf that was rushed into Houston’s dome to replace a failed go at growing grass indoors, Andy Nolen’s ersatz reviews appear to be an attempt to substitute for courtroom success that failed to thrive.
What’s important to note is that “astroturfing” is more than just juvenile and corrosive of the quality of information that consumers are growing to demand from online marketplaces. It’s also illegal. Just last month the New York Attorney General’s office announced the successful prosecution of an astroturfing plastic surgery concern, resulting in a $300,000 settlement and injunctive relief.
Professor Eric Goldman, a leading authority on internet law and online forums, has noted the importance of online reputational ecosystems and the need to keep them as open as possible. As these systems build out, real feedback will drown out or expose any artificial reviews. Attempts to flame the competition or astroturf should be aggressively reported to site operators, but the best of all cures for this behavior is more input from clients.
By the way, if you want to review your lawyer, you can do so here: Avvo Lawyer Reviews. But astroturfers take note – Avvo reads every review before deciding whether it gets posted.
August 19th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
As one of the victims of the attack by Andy Nolen, I want you to know how much I appreciate your effort to clear up misconceptions that may have been created by the vicious lies posted either by Nolen or on his behalf. Nolen’s comments mislead the public into possibly doubting the abilities of many fine lawyers he attacked, while concurrently deceiving them about his capabilities, if any, comparatively. I strongly suggest that when people search for a lawyer to help the life changing situation of being accused of a crime, they contact multiple lawyers to talk and get a feel for whether what they have read about the lawyer is real or astroturf.
Thanks, AVVO, for reading the reviews before posting them – potentially saving the freedom of those who would mistakenly hire Nolen, & providing good, dependable information regarding the many capable attorneys accessible through your site.
Cynthia
August 19th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
People looking at Avvo instead of Yahoo for lawyer reviews would have found no reviews for Mr. Nolen, but only his disciplinary history.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
[...] the no-lose results of generous praise to the result that Andy Nolen got by astroturfing: notified of the fraudulent reviews benefiting him, Yahoo has deleted those reviews. So the desired [...]
August 20th, 2009 at 5:16 am
How about simply looking an attorney up on the State Bar of Texas website? Here is Nolen’s entry: http://tinyurl.com/nusbvo. That has his disciplinary history too.
September 4th, 2009 at 2:13 am
The Lawyer-Client Privilege is long recognized in criminal courts in Florida. The client has the privilege to refuse to disclose confidential communications when the communications were made when rendering legal services to that client. The privilege can be claimed by the client, the client’s guardian, the personal representative of a dead client, and the lawyer on behalf of the client.
There is no Lawyer-Client Privilege if:
1. The services of the attorney were obtained to aid anyone to commit a crime.
2. The communication is relevant to an issue brought out by people who have made a claim through a dead client.
3. A communication is relevant as to whether or not the lawyer breached a duty to the client.
4. A communication is relevant to the competence of a client to execute a document in which the lawyer was a witness.
September 4th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Thanks for teaching a new term. Your website does a great job informing the public about potential issues that they may come up with a lawyer.