When we updated the Avvo Terms of Use (“TOU”) at the end of October to cover our launch of the medical directory and Q&A, we made a number of other more ministerial changes as well. One of these was to provide for notice of changes to the TOU via the Avvo Blog. While we may provide notice of certain changes by other means (email, newsletter, etc.) as well, we decided that the easiest, most predictable way to provide notice was to post to the Avvo Blog whenever we update the TOU. To receive notice of changes to the TOU automatically, just subscribe to the Avvo Blog by email or using an RSS reader (my go-to RSS tool is the free Google Reader).

So here’s the first notice of a change, albeit a very minor one: We’ve updated the TOU, effective today, to delete a reference to arbitration from the forum selection clause (paragraph 22 of the TOU). We’re making this change to reflect the fact that the TOU no longer has an arbitration clause, as it was deleted in the October 31, 2010 revision.

Please don’t hesitate to comment below – or contact me directly – with any questions or comments about our new TOU update policy.

Since launching Avvo Doctors only one month ago, we’ve received great interest from physicians and healthcare marketers wanting to learn more about the platform. In response, we are pleased to continue our free introductory webinar series through the end of the year.

The schedule is below – click on any date and sign up! We’ll cover the following:

- What is Avvo?
- Your doctor profile
- How to claim your free Avvo Profile
- What is the Avvo Rating?
- Group Claim for hospitals
- Avvo Q&A and Health Guides
- Your Questions

Tuesday, November 30
Wednesday, December 1
Monday, December 6
Wednesday, December 8
Monday, December 13
Wednesday, December 15
Monday, December 20
Wednesday, December 22

On Friday, I had the pleasure of being on CNBC’s “Power Lunch.”  The topic was online, user-generated reviews of doctors, lawyers and others.  I was paired with the CEO of Medical Justice, Jeffrey Segal.  As loyal readers of the Avvo Blog may recall, we have never been a big fan of those Medical Justice agreements that attempt to restrict patients from leaving negative online reviews regarding their doctor.  We dislike them so much, we blogged about them twice. :-)   (See “Stone Age Thinking . . . No Opinions Unless I Like Them” and “Doctors Trying to Silence Patients”)

The interview focused on how websites can work to ensure the legitimacy of user-generated reviews, and Avvo was there to speak to best-practices.  And, while repetitive for some, I think these best-practices are worth repeating because I sincerely see Avvo as the gold-standard in client and patient reviews. 

• Avvo has strict Community Guidelines for its reviews, requiring that every review be factual, without personal attacks, etc.  We reject 35% of our reviews for violating these guidelines.
• Avvo requires every reviewer to register with the site.  As a consequence, Avvo does not have anonymous reviews.  While we may not disclose reviewers identities on the site, Avvo knows who they are and how to contact them.  This helps on the front end to ensure our reviews are legitimate; and it helps on the back-end if a doctor or lawyer disputes a review (see below).
• We have proprietary software that looks at every client and patient review once submitted.  You would be shocked at the silly things people do when attempting to leave fake reviews.  It is easy to train a computer to look for these silly things and flag it for Avvo Customer Care.
• We have a HUMAN look at EVERY review before it goes up.  That is why we ask to have 48 hours before we post a review.  This is expensive and takes a lot of time, but it is truly worth it.
• We have a process where we work with doctors and lawyers and their reviewers in the event that the professional disputes a review.  In a nutshell, once the professional contacts us, we remove the disputed review and contact the reviewer (because, unlike most sites, we have contact info for the reviewer).   If the reviewer does not respond, the review comes down.  If the reviewer wants to maintain the review, we will repost it.  However, often the reviewer will want to modify the review before we repost it based on reflection, the professional’s feedback, etc.
• Finally, doctors and lawyers can respond to any review – positive or negative – right on the site.  We put the response right under the patient or client review.  In particularly, this gives the professional the chance to address negative reviews thoughtfully and professionally, turning a potential negative into a positive.

Thanks again to CNBC for having Avvo on the show and recognizing our commitment to reviewing excellence.

Be Reviewed!

Mark

Recently a woman in Seattle had the courage to report being repeatedly sexually abused as a child, bringing charges against her mother’s ex-boyfriend.

Earlier this month, traffic was stopped all around Avvo’s offices as police and passerby tried to persuade that same woman not to jump to her death from the roof of Seattle’s King County Courthouse.  Why?  Because the victim of years of rape and molestation was being forced to give her testimony in the case against alleged child rapist Salvador Cruz, to Cruz himself, who was acting as his own attorney.   She would have rather killed herself than to have been interrogated by her alleged abuser.

Police managed to get the woman safely (physically so, at least) from the roof.  But by way of legal and emotional protection, the system failed her miserably.  In order that she not be subjected to interrogation by her purported rapist, Salvador Cruz, she was forced to drop her charges against him.

Cruz’s trial continued, and several other young women claiming sexual abuse and assault by Cruz were grilled by him in court.  The sister of the woman who threatened to jump to her death to avoid confrontation with her accused rapist also claimed abuse and sexual assault by Cruz.  She testified that as a child she was so terrified of Cruz that she would hide under the bed whenever left in the family’s apartment with him.  On November 9, 2010, she was subjected to his hours of questioning by Cruz in the trial against him.

Any person accused of a crime has the right to face his or her accusers in court, and because Cruz was acting as his own lawyer, he had the right to question the five alleged victims in the case against him.  This is the second rape case in King County in the past year in which a defendant has been allowed to question his alleged victims in court.

While defendants’ rights must be upheld, witness intimidation is illegal.  So, just how does the court define intimidation?  If the court enters a no contact order, why is it suddenly void within the courtroom because a defendant chooses to act as his own counsel?  Cruz was appointed an attorney to assist him with his defense.  Why wasn’t that attorney appointed to confront and cross examine the women Cruz allegedly sexually abused?  Vulnerable parties deserve protection.  Allowing an alleged child rapist to drill his accusers with questions about the sexual assault they claim to have suffered at his hands certainly seems to be clear and active enabling of continued abuse.

To add further insult to deep injury, a bill that would have protected the victims of sexual assault from direct questioning by their abusers failed to pass in the state Legislature earlier this year.  That bill would have upheld the state’s interest in protecting the physical and psychological survival of child victims, while sustaining the defendant’s right to face his or her accusers in court.  Supporters of that bill say they will try again.  Let’s hope they succeed before the pressure of confronting one’s alleged rapist drives a victim over the edge.

Physicians, welcome to Avvo! To take advantage of all the free features of your Avvo profile, you first need to claim your profile (it’s free!). Claiming your profile is the process of verifying your identity to Avvo, you only have to claim it once and you will forever have access to update and add information to it.

This short video here will walk you through the steps. If you have additional questions, please sign up for one of our intro webinars being held over the next several weeks. Here’s the schedule!

I stumbled upon a great Newsweek article from 1995 entitled “Why Web Won’t Be Nirvana.” It includes such gems as:

• People will never order airline tickets online, make restaurant reservations online, or negotiate sales contracts online.
• People will never consume books and newspapers over the internet.
• E-commerce will never work because there’s no secure way to send money online and you need salespeople.
• And much, much more…

The purpose of this blog post isn’t to poke fun at the author, who was wrong on nearly every point. In fairness, I’m sure we’ve all said things that sounded ridiculous 15 years later, and perhaps a little curmdgeonry would have useful during the internet bubble. The point of this post is to show how quickly and dramatically the internet can change and how far we still have to go.

The future has a wild imagination

The thing is, in 1995 these predictions weren’t entirely unreasonable. In fact, if anything seemed unreasonable it would have been to predict what actually happened. Who really thought that travel agents would soon go extinct, newspapers would be on the verge of bankruptcy, and e-commerce would rival shopping malls? Yet that’s exactly what happened. Then insurmountable problems like securely sending money over the internet now seem trivial.

Still in the Stone Age

It’s easy to look at the internet today and think we’ve reached nirvana, but things are still surprisingly primitive when you think about it.

Many people are still choosing lawyers based on the largest Yellow Page ads and spending less time researching doctors online than vacations. For professionals, many are still questioning whether the internet even matters. And, of course, we can’t forget an awkward little tool, considered at the bleeding edge of social media, that forces you to speak in 140 character blurbs peppered with cryptic symbols.

We’re not there yet

We still have a long way to go, and you can bet the internet of 2010 is going to seem downright primitive compared to the internet of 2025, but one thing remains constant – we’ll always have curmudgeons.

Thank you to everyone who attended our guest webinar last week on the topic of virtual lawyering with Stephanie Kimbro. Given all the great feedback, we want to make sure those who missed the presentation, have the opportunity to hear about Stephanie’s experience, learnings and success. You can also read more about running a virtual law practice at Stephanie’s blog.

As Conrad mentioned the other day, the ABA is cranking up the process of looking into lawyers’ use of social media tools. The ABA Ethics 20/20 Commission (in front of which I had the pleasure of testifying last month, on another topic they are investigating – lawyer ratings) has issued a 15-page-long “Issues Paper Concerning Lawyers’ Use of Internet Based Client Development Tools.”

Comments to the paper are due on December 14, and they will no doubt be voluminous. One concern of many lawyers is that this process will lead to even more overreaching regulation by the states – sowing confusion and making it harder for lawyers to communicate with and offer innovative services to clients.

I was struck, then, by a release this week from the ABA’s counterpart in the world of medicine. The American Medical Association this week issued its policy on this topic, titled “Professionalism in the Use of Social Media.” Those reading it will be struck first by its brevity; it clocks in at all of 358 words (the commentary alone to ABA Model Rule 7.1 – which simply prohibits false and misleading attorney ads – is almost that long):

The Internet has created the ability for medical students and physicians to communicate and share information quickly and to reach millions of people easily. Participating in social networking and other similar Internet opportunities can support physicians’ personal expression, enable individual physicians to have a professional presence online, foster collegiality and camaraderie within the profession, provide opportunity to widely disseminate public health messages and other health communication. Social networks, blogs, and other forms of communication online also create new challenges to the patient-physician relationship. Physicians should weigh a number of considerations when maintaining a presence online:

(f) Physicians must recognize that actions online and content posted may negatively affect their reputations among patients and colleagues, may have consequences for their medical careers (particularly for physicians-in-training and medical students), and can undermine public trust in the medical profession.

Ponder, for a moment, the reflection and simplicity here. There is a tacit acknowledgement that physicians are professionals – professionals who may need some guidance in this area, but certainly not in the form of having every communication scrutinized for compliance with the rigid corners of some picyune rule. Are lawyers really so different than doctors that we need detailed, step-by-step rules for communicating in public? Is it not enough that professionals be guided by basic, high-level principles?

The AMA has focused on the positive ways that social media enhances communication between physicians and patients, with a gentle reminder – befitting professionals – to be aware of potential risks to the integrity of the physician patient relationship. The ABA could do the same, and offer clear reminders about the big-picture issues with social media instead of mucking about in the weeds.

Sadly, all indications are that lawyers will end up with something a good deal more Byzantine than the AMA’s thoughtful policy.

More clients are expecting the cost-savings and convenience that come from conducting business with web-based applications.  Forward-thinking attorneys and law firms are beginning to offer some form of virtual law office component to their clients.  Whether created as a completely web-based office or integrated into a traditional, brick & mortar law office, virtual law practice is being accepted as a form of law practice management that addresses the needs of both the clients and the profession.

Join us tomorrow (11/9) at 1PM ET / 10AM PT for a free webinar with Stephanie Kimbro, the founder of Kimbro Legal Services, and learn all about virtual lawyering – covering the practical aspects of a virtual law practice to how to deliver your legal services to clients. Ethics concerns will also be addressed as they relate to the daily operation and best practices for a virtual law office.

Sign up here!

“The State Bars should get out of the business of regulating marketing because it is something they know nothing about.” – Larry Bodine

That jolted me out of my seat at the MyLegal Case for Social Media Conference last month. It’s no secret that some state bars have struggled to understand new technology and Avvo has run into this on more than one occasion. But, this quote came from Larry Bodine, the venerable law firm marketing consultant who has spent the past few decades working with Big Law Firms on foundational business development concepts. It seems that both Larry and Avvo have run into similar concerns with the regulation of marketing from state bars and are experiencing first hand how that regulation is damaging an industry already hurting from the economic crunch. Across the legal industry there is a growing consensus that the regulation of marketing is causing much more harm than good. While it was appropriate (and brave) to include a counterpoint to social media at the MyLegal conference by including a presentation from a state bar regulator; but I was aghast by the fear mongering put forth including:

• Don’t use Facebook, your computer will get hacked with malware, keystroke capture and your bank account numbers will be stolen. (Shouldn’t we toss email too while we’re at it along with the Internet in general?)
• Your competitors surf social media looking for opportunities to turn you in to the State Bar.
• You can have your law license suspended for blogging.
• All content you put on Facebook is saved on your computer and State Bars can get to it.
• State bars spend lawyer dues proactively trolling social media looking for ethics violations.

The room drew a collective breath, sat up in fear and started scribbling notes madly. A few, including Carolyn Elefant, the esteemed author of Solo By Choice, challenged openly – “you are putting your own constituents at a competitive disadvantage.” Marketing opportunities brought about by online marketing can level the playing field, helping small firms compete with the deep pockets of Big Law. After all, it only costs $9.95 a month to host a blog if you are Wilson Sonsini or Ross-Johnson-I-Just-Got-Out-Of-Law-School. Limiting small practices’ ability to engage with consumers on Facebook, Twitter or Avvo is curtailing their ability to build their business. The connection some have drawn is that these anti-technology social media rules being pushed by the bar are protectionist for the Big Law firms trying to defend their turf.

Frequently, ethics rules are brought about in the name of the (apparently extremely stupid) purchaser of legal services. Do consumers really need to be protected from the opinions of other consumers about the quality of service? Are they really so stupid that they think an online rating saying “Bill is the best lawyer” means that Bill is absolutely the best lawyer? As Carolyn writes: “I am not aware of a single complaint by a consumer alleging that he or she was mislead or deceived about a lawyer’s quality due to customer rating sites.” Why does the legal industry, that already has an image trouble among the general populace, quash that same populace from saying nice (even great, wonderful, awesome, stupendous) things about the legal industry?

False or misleading advertising doesn’t belong in the legal profession. That simple standard should apply to lawyers on Facebook or Avvo just as it does to lawyers at a cocktail party or golfcourse. The FTC has repeatedly pushed the bars to be less specific around lawyer advertising rules and regulations and we can see why when considering the Florida bar’s latest directive. All Florida attorney websites may soon need to be redesigned to require every page beyond the homepage to be accessed only after affirmatively clicking on a disclaimer. We call this the Florida Website Developers Employment Act. Can you imagine only accessing a book on Amazon or a trip on Expedia after reading an interstitial legal warning off the home page? Limiting access to information about lawyers and the law by these types of firewalls hurts both lawyers and consumers. Larry Bodine is absolutely right – most bars don’t understand marketing (let alone technology marketing).

More Reading

Red Alert: The ABA Wants to Regulate Online Lawyer Marketing

ABA, Social Media and a Time to Panic

To The Whining Online Marketers: You Started This (counterpoint from Brian Tannebaum)