Embracing Anonymity
At Avvo, the vast majority of the tens of thousands of client reviews we receive are positive (over 80%). Still, some attorneys have recently begun commenting on the fact that we allow “anonymous” reviews. “Anonymous” is in quotes because it can mean a number of different things. At Avvo, “anonymous” means that we require reviewers to register with the site; but we do not require them to disclose their identities to the general public. We also do not disclose the reviewers’ names upon request. The latest commentary calls for an end to such anonymity. Different lawyers have also suggested that Avvo independently verify all reviews, or that reviewers waive their attorney-client privilege as a condition of leaving a review.
We believe this commentary has merit, but ultimately misses the mark.
Online communities place enormous value on sharing experiences. The tremendous growth of Yelp, Amazon, Twitter and other aggregators of public opinion (including, indeed, Avvo) points to the value individuals place on being able to share their experiences and learn from the experiences of others. And the more robust the community, the more efficient the information and the better experience for all users.
Are there issues with client reviews? Of course – and in this way reviews are no different than any other form of communication, on- or off-line. But the fact that a review system isn’t “perfect” from a lawyer’s point of view doesn’t mean it doesn’t offer significant value in the aggregate. As with any other community, the goal is to balance competing factors in order to make the information as useful as possible.
At Avvo, we start that balancing process by policing the community. A human looks at every review before it is posted, to ensure it meets our community guidelines. We also offer attorneys a mechanism by which reviews can be escalated; in this process Avvo verifies that the reviewer wants the review to remain posted.
But while our community guidelines, human review and escalation process make Avvo’s the most responsible system for client feedback out there, we need to ensure that clients remain comfortable leaving reviews. This is why offering anonymity is a must.
Ultimately, people are going to talk about lawyers and their practices, and they’re going to do so online. Many will rave about how wonderful their lawyers are; others will bemoan attorneys who failed to return their many phone calls. Still others will attempt to falsely inflate or deflate reputations, or blame attorneys unfairly for losing unwinnable cases.
The answer to these marginal abuses isn’t to try to curtail all speech in this forum – it’s to meet it with more speech. Look at Amazon, where reviews abound, positive and negative; credited and anonymous. Even products universally lauded as wonderful will feature a number of negative reviews, but the aggregate “voice” these reviewers offer potential customers is powerful and compelling. As more and more reviews come online, a reputational ecosystem will develop where the pattern of multiple reviews will help reveal the real character of what it’s really like to work with that attorney. This has already happened with most major categories of consumer products and services, and is happening in Avvo’s biggest markets. The sooner we attorneys disabuse ourselves of the notion that our services are less amenable to review than those of a hotel or a roofer, the better off we’ll be.
September 24th, 2009 at 10:45 am
[...] Avvo defended its decision to allow anonymous reviews, citing its internal policing mechanisms and the importance of anonymity. It acknowledges that the system isn’t perfect, but argues that reviews in the aggregate will paint an accurate picture of an attorney. Essentially, any single review–negative or positive–is not important when considered as part of a long list of reviews. [...]
December 11th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Where there are many reviewers and broad participation, a few negative reviews, or even blatantly defamatory attacks, can be dismissed for what they are. However, Avvo does not have that kind of participation, few clients will ever return to this site if they even know about it and most attorneys, yours truly included, do not have thousands of clients. Thus, what works for Amazon and Wikipedia does not work here. Legal services are not like “most major categories of consumer products and services”.
Avvo therefore has a greater duty of care and must put additional measures in place to avoid, for example, opposing counsel or clients from posting fake reviews. Avvo: You are now on notice that you are publishing defamatory material.