In honor of today, Friday June 3rd being National Doughnut Day, I brought in some doughnuts with a touch of Avvo to help us celebrate.
Go ahead and grab yourself a doughnut that best fits your taste. They are in the back conference room next to Mark’s office .
1. “The State Bar” – For those few remaining bars giving Avvo a hard time with their sticky regulations and admittedly unconstitutional opinions to try to save their own bacon. South Carolina Bar this means you! (raised yeast doughnut with maple frosting and bacon on top)
2. “The Pro Package” – Super charge your profile with intense flavor to market yourself to potential clients. (raised yeast doughnut with blue and white frosting and york peppermint patty mints on top)
3.”The Fake Client Review” – This doughnut brought to you by special collaboration with our friends at Medical Justice – try your luck with a fictitious client rating and worthless World’s Greatest Dad award to increase your Avvo rating. Note: neither of these will help your profile, but may raise some other eyebrows. (raised yeast doughnut with white frosting and lucky charms on top)
4.”The Unclaimed Profile” - The empty shell of a profile – if you need help upgrading, the engagement team is happy to work with you. (raised yeast doughnut with boring on top)
Let me start out by acknowledging I have an axe to grind. We don’t agree with business premise of Medical Justice, the company forces patients to sign a legal gag order before they have access to healthcare services. This censorship of the patient voice, is obviously completely contrary to the transparency and guidance we bring to the medical profession. Instead of silencing patient experiences, Avvo provides a platform for patients to share through reviews (both positive and negative) of individual doctors. The notion that Americans’ access to healthcare could be contingent on their willingness to give up their First Ammendment rights of free speech is deplorable.
Medical Justice disagrees with this position and would force patients to sign gag orders in order to see a doctor. The beauty of this country is that we can have different opinions and the beauty of the web is that we can share and debate those opinions.
Unfortunately, Medical Justice has taken this one step further – deleting content from their own blog in which Avvo and Medical Justice founder, Jeffrey Segal debated the value of patient reviews. In a post called “OK Docs, Your Talent Can be Reduced to a Number Between One and Ten”, Segal initially refused to post comments written by Avvo. Eventually he deleted the post from his blog altogether.
Fortunately, for now, we can still see it by accessing Google’s cache of the post.
And while Segal refused to post all of our comments when the post was live, I did keep a copy. In the spirit of transparency and a small protest against gag orders and censorship, I’ll share Avvo’s last comments which pushed Jeffrey Segal to delete his own words:
Some comments on this thread remind me of the initial reaction from some of the legal practitioners when launched in 2007. Since then, Avvo has become the market leader in legal – driving more business to the industry than any other directory. How did a newcomer like Avvo stand out in a crowded and competitive field? By offering consumers access to more information and better guidance than they’ve ever had before.
Put yourself in the shoes of the average American with a child facing a life-threatening medical issue. You want to make a smart decision in the practitioner that you hire. You want the very best doctor in your city, or in the country. How do you find her? The medical directories you visit are thinly veiled pay for play shills. The Yellow Pages show you who has the largest advertising budget. Your child’s life is in jeopardy. You are lost and you are scared.
Enter Avvo.
At Avvo, you find detailed background profiles of doctors – and while you don’t have the medical background to identify the prestigious school, awards and associations on the doctor’s resume, the Avvo Rating translates these elements into an easy to understand numerical scale. On Avvo, you also have access to client reviews – that bedside manner that is so important.
The gag orders that Medical Justice peddles serves to choke out patient access to those client reviews. Jeff, if you had your way, patients would be relegated to playing roulette with pay for play shills like the yellow pages where doctors compete based on the size of their marketing budget instead of the strength of their resume, bedside manner and industry prowess. You would silence those patients who have had horrendous experiences with awful doctors. This is old school thinking. The industry is evolving. Medical Justice’s gag orders retard that evolution.
You raise issues around transparency, using the Coke analogy, but you miss the point. All of the “ingredients” of the Avvo Rating are in plain sight, in front of every consumer – right on that doctor’s profile. Avvo offers more transparency than any medical directory. Additionally, our client reviews must meet stringent community guidelines, which are laid out in a blog post here.
Jeff, you actually make the most important point: “If your Avvo number has any connection to objective reality, the market can and will value it.” This is exactly what happened in the legal industry and is starting to happen in medical – over 2 million patients visiting Avvo every month, embracing the transparency we provide to make smart, informed decisions. You can’t argue with that groundswell of interest among the American public. Embrace progress, don’t stifle it with contracts that silence the public’s right to voice their dissatisfaction with the bottom end of the medical spectrum.
Medical Justice would silence not only patients’ right to share their bad experiences about a doctor, but also squelch any discourse regarding their own business practices. We have recently seen in Libya and Egypt how access to information can transform a society. While that may sound overly lofty, this is America and we are the vanguard of basic rights like free speech and access to healthcare. Making one contingent on forgoing the other is repugnant. Medical Justice would send all patients back to the dark ages.
I’d like to invite you to the world’s best legal technology conference,Avvocating– Advanced Online Marketing Training for Lawyers – May 19-20 in Orlando. This is unlike any legal conference you’ve ever been to, providing attorneys with direct exposure to the individuals shaping the future of technology. Learn advanced online marketing tactics from technology giants like Facebook, Microsoft, Google, LinkedIn, AvvoandApple. Attendees will walk away packed with cutting edge information on the hottest tools, techniques and technologies to drive their business success.
What You Will Get
Roll-up your sleeves, hands on tactics you can implement immediately.
Advanced product demonstrations of the hottest technologies directly from companies including Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft.
Usable tactics to proactively manage your Online Reputation.
Sophisticated ability to manage online marketing yourself or get the most out of consultants.
What You Won’t Get
Thinly veiled legal industry vendor pitches.
Ivory tower prognostications about the Internet.
Social media gurus showing off their twitter follower count.
I look forward to meeting you in person, May 19 and 20. Save $100 by booking before March. Sign up and learn more here.
This is the year that twitter legal went mainstream I’ll start the follow-up to the Legal Wrap Up Part I with two exceptional legal Twitter profiles:
Attorney Andy Miofsky ends his 140 character bio with “Let’s go kill something.” Love his twitter picture as well.
Anerio Altman – self described “short angry little bankruptcy Attorney. . . .”. I’d like him to meet the attorney who writes this blog:The Angry Redheaded Lawyer and propagate the industry with Short Angry Little Redheaded Tweeting Blogging Lawyers.
Not to miss a chance for an end of your list, Paris Hilton live tweeted a home invasion by a man armed with “two big knifes” and even used her cell camera to bring you the image below:
Facebook Ooopsie
If you are going to practice bigamy, may I suggest not posting your second wedding photos on Facebook like John France did. (Or perhaps its just a little known custom for a groom to wear white on his second wedding?)
Worst Cosmetic Surgery Billboard
I’m not sure what I like least about this drive by ad – the cat, the tuxedo, the champagne, the cat in the tuxedo, or the questionable tagline.
Cosemetic Surgery I Didn’t Know About
Want to look even cuter? Try a “totally adjustable cosmetic dimple” from surgeon Dr. Gal Aharonov. Change your mind . . . don’t worry, its reversible.
Not to be outdone by the easy-to-reach bottled water and velvet (yes velvet) walls of his home office, Steven Gibson was so important he didn’t even have time to remove his headset for his photo op. Check out more about the “Legal Attack Dog” whose business model consists of buying copyrights from newspapers and then suing copyright violators.
Legal Typo
According to a lawsuit filed against 5 Hour Energy, the company was responsible for the death of a man who drank a 5 Hour Energy drink six months after his death. When typos meet marketing copy it can get even worse . . . consider the case of South Dakota lawyer Manny De Castro who took out a Yellowbook ad reading “The Trial Lawyer Fighting For Your Justics.” He’s suing Yellowbook for lost revenue and humiliation.
How do you respond to customer feedback? If you are AT&T you get your legal department to threaten litigation – which is just what happened to Giorgio Galante who had the temerity to send two emails to AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson in one week. Galante was threatened with a cease and desist order if he dared email Stephenson again.
December always brings an annoying slew of year end wrap-ups. Over the past 11 months, I’ve been so excited about this, I’ve flagged almost 30 different stories covering the best and worst in legal (and now that Avvo profiles doctors, a small sprinkling of medical) that I’m going to split this into two different posts.
Odd Websites
Strangest Site: Runnels Law – I can’t tell if this site is targeted towards the dungeons and dragons set or if she really wants Sigfried and Roy as clients.
Cheapest Site: Clark Balcom Law – which is nothing short of a low res image scan. At least he has a great Avvo profile.
Nastiest Assault Charge
Matthew Clemmens went above and beyond the call of duty to prove beyond a doubt that Philadelphia sports fans are the nastiest in the country when he deliberately vomited on a fellow spectator and his daughter. (Unfortunately for Clemmens, his victim turned out to be an off duty police captain.)
Its Not My Fault Award
Remember the woman who sued McDonald’s because her coffee was too hot? It’s a good thing she wasn’t reading Google Maps at the time, unlike Lauren Rosenberg, who sued Google in excess of $100,000 after being struck by a car while following directions from Google Maps.
Foreclosure Defense Batman
After foreclosures pushed him to financial ruin, non-lawyer Craig Cunningham, decided to get even with abusive debt collectors and now runs a side business luring debt collectors into violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cunningham strikes back with lawsuits, providing some action for the 78,000 annual abusive debt collection complaints overwhelming to the Federal Trade Commission.
Star Wars Award Part I:
Remember the Star Wars Kid? Well he’s all grown up now and enrolled in law school this year. Be very afraid Vader.
Star Wars Award Part II:
Goes to Darth Vader for brazenly robbing a Long Island Bank – apparently he used a semiautomatic handgun instead of a lightsaber. (He also escaped via bicycle instead of Advanced TIE Starfighter.)
Trademark/Copyright Bullies
Honorable Mention: Goes to Lexis Nexis for forcing the shuttering of the Electronic Discovery Blog over legal threats around unauthorized publication of cases.
Bronze Medal: International House of Pancakes sued the International House of Prayer for “misappropriating the fame and notoriety of the household name IHOP.” Be careful who you mess with. Speaking of God, this year, The Lord Jesus Christ III was banned from the Clapp Memorial Library in Belchertown, MA for repeated bad behavior. The article reads like an odd Mad Libs. (That’s him on the left.)
Silver Medal: Godzilla, who threatened roadside barbecue restaurant Grill Zilla BBQ in Damriscotta, Maine. The small eatery is considering changing their name to Grill Zillaaaah to avoid further confusion. (only funny if you’ve ever lived north of Massachusetts.)
Gold Medal: Goes to South Korea who is filing a patent for the camouflage design of their new uniforms ostensibly to prevent Pyongyang from copying said pattern and confusing South Korean soldiers in the (increasingly likely) event of armed confrontation. Techdirt raises an interesting point: “if we’re talking about an army invading or infiltrating, one imagines that they wouldn’t have much concern about how they’re also infringing on the patent.”
Overworked Lawyer Award
This award goes to public defender Kristin Stahlbush of Toledo who billed the courts in Lucas County for more than 24 hours of work in a single day on at least three different occasions. She has since been suspended for two years (or 52 months).
Creepiest OBGYN Award
Dr. Red Alinsrodbranded a patient’s name onto her uterus (clearly without consent). His reasoning? According to The Smoking Gun, it was “to avoid getting it confused with others.” Huh?
Thank God I Live In America
Iranian lawyer Mohammed Mostafaei represents Sakineh Ashtiani the woman who has been sentenced to death by stoning for allegedly committing adultery. Mostafaei was forced into hiding after the government’s response to the publicity around Ashtiani’s case. The Iranian government also detained members of Mostafaei’s family.
“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).
“The State Bars should get out of the business of regulating marketing because it is something they know nothing about.”
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.In fact, across the legal industry there is a growing consensus that the regulation of marketing is causing much more harm than good.It was appropriate 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 Jim-Jones-I-Just-Got-Out-Of-Law-School.Limiting small practices’ ability to engage with consumers on Facebook, Twitter or Avvo is limiting 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 who need to protect their turf.
Frequently, these 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 constantly pushed the bars to be less specific around lawyer advertising 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 only after reading an interstitial legal warning off the home page?Limiting access to consumers by these types of firewalls hurts 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
To The Whining Online Marketers:You Started This (counterpoint from Brian Tannebaum)
UPDATE: I just reread this post. I wrote it while in a very cranky mood and the post is obnoxious and arrogant. The irony is that I’m writing about having good manners, which of course, would include don’t be a jerk. I totally missed on this point. -Conrad
Most of this post is very obvious and therefore very boring; but the example I’m recounting is so bad (and true) its border-line humorous. I’m constantly surprised by the need for social media consultants, helping people “understand” things like Twitter and Facebook, but apparently there is a very real need to scratch this itch. The following exchange may point those of you still flummoxed by social media in the right direction:
It’s called Social Media for a reason – it’s social. And social norms that apply in real life also apply online. To wit . . . a recent painful twitter exchange I endured. (I have replaced his real twitter address with @guy)
@ConradSaam Who do I talk to to team up to do a webinar?
At this point I have no idea who this guy is, let alone what he wants to talk about on one of our webinars. I check LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter – no connections. I go to direct message to privately clarify, assuming he’s a connection who has slipped my mind:
DM @guy sorry – i can’t remember who you are or what you do. What is your interest in webinars?
DM @ConradSaam I work for XXXXX, a cloud content management for legal. We have over 12 years exp in legal SaaS. Is their opps for this?
So I don’t know you at all and I’ve never heard of your company, but you want me to put our company’s reputation on the line so you can pimp your product to our audience?
DM @guy i don’t mean to be a XXXX, but suggest you work on building a relationship with us BEFORE you ask to do a webiner. $.02
DM @conradsaam Well that is my question, what is the process to build a relationship so that we can partner to do webinars?
Oh, I get it . . . let me pull out the Avvo Business Development Relationship Building Process Manual. . . let’s see I think its on page 27. I’m really a nice approachable guy, I’m open to networking and learning about new products, but this just isn’t working.
(Incidentally Page 27 of the Avvo Business Development Relationship Building Process Manual is a very short chapter. It reads: Put some social in your Social Media.)
Last week Avvo was sued by Sanctioned Attorney, Larry Joe Davis, whose Avvo Rating reflects a Florida Bar sanction for failing to pay child support, failing to show up to court dates (twice) and obstructing the Bar’s disciplinary process. The resulting coverage by bloggers, the press and resulting twitterstorm has been fairly interesting.
“Davis acknowledges the First Amendment is likely to be an issue in his libel claim, but he says he believes he’s a private figure. Even if a judge finds otherwise, Davis believes Avvo was reckless in handling his information. He also says the First Amendment won’t protect Avvo from claims of unauthorized use of likeness or unfair trade practices.”
“Unfortunately for Larry Joe Davis, he does not have a good number (a 3.7 out of 10). He is angry about it and, like any good American, expressed his anger in the form of a lawsuit. Larry Joe’s rambling 21-page complaint, which he of course filed pro se, makes him the latest of several plaintiffs to take a shot at Avvo, the Zagat-esque rating website for the legal industry. I haven’t read the other complaints, but I’m still sure his is the worst of the group.It reads like a Jack Kerouac novel, jumping around and running together, making it harder to follow than a screenplay-style blog post.”
“If that wasn’t bad enough, the client told Davis that she called him “because he was the lowest rated employment lawyer” on Avvo.com, and none of the other lawyers had answered her call. The client thought that Davis, “being a poorly ranked lawyer, might answer her call (i.e. she assumed that [Davis] would be desperate for employment law clients).”
“Davis says he does not challenge Avvo’s subjective opinions, but its misrepresentations of facts and material omissions of “so-called public information.”
“Davis’ complaint appears bogus for a few important reasons. First, he was, in fact, sanctioned by the Florida State Bar, so their assessment was hardly false or misleading. Thus, asking the judge to censor this information would amount to little more than a violation of the company’s free speech protection.”
“If I had to take a wild guess about such things, I would tend to go with Avvo. My experience is that they aren’t out to wreak havoc with the legal world, upon which they depend for their bread and butter.”
“Avvo hit back in a blog post highlighting some history that the lawyer in question, Joe Davis, probably doesn’t want to generate any more attention (such as being “twice convicted and spent eight days in the pokey”) and suggesting that it’s the desire to hide this info that is the real reason behind the lawsuit.”
“As I have said many times before, we are shining a flashlight in dark places,” said Britton. “Not surprisingly, some are more comfortable in the dark.”
Finally – if you’d like to get into the vastly opinions on Avvo, from scathing critiques to the glowing support, dig into some of the comments on these posts.
I’ve been working with lawyers for the past 4 years and, as a whole, the industry’s pedantic attention to detail drives me around the bend. Far too often, it seems attorneys are gleeful when given an opportunity to score points by pointing out the mixing of “insure” and “ensure” or misuse of a semi-colon when a comma would have sufficed. Presumably this attention to detail is drilled into prospective attorneys over three years at law school. I didn’t really appreciate why until this weekend when I was reading about the 5 Hour Wrongful Death Lawsuit. The complaint starts to look fishy from the first sentence (my bold) . . .
“This is an action for personal injuries and wrongful death brought by Monica Hassell as the surviving spouse of Antonio James Hassell who, at age twenty-seven, suffered a sudden heart attack (ventricular arrhythmia) on August 2, 2009 and subsequently died on March 1, 2009 in Memphis, Tennessee as a direct and proximate result of his consumption of the widely advertised “5-hour ENERGY” drink.”
Apparently the deceased consumed 5-Hour energy a full 6 months after he died. The dates are repeated throughout the complaint, which you can read here.
I now await comments on the grammatical errors in this post . . . .
Arrive Magazine, the on-board publication of Amtrak and Acela Express, has teamed up with Avvo to generate a Top Lawyers List featured in their upcoming Best of the Northeast issue. The Top Lawyers list will highlight exceptional attorneys along the Northeast Corridor. To be considered for inclusion in the list, attorneys should ensure their Avvo Profile is as up to date as possible. Law Firms interested in advertising in Arrive’s Best of the Northeast issue can contact Heather Reynolds at 917 804-1145. The list will be finalized on August 3rd and feature 10 attorneys in each of the following practice areas:
I’ve been working with lawyers for the past 4 years and, as a whole, the industry’s pedantic attention to detail drives me around the bend. Far too often, it seems attorneys are gleeful when given an opportunity to score points by pointing out the mixing of “insure” and “ensure” or misuse of a semi-colon when a comma would have sufficed. Presumably this attention to detail is drilled into prospective attorneys over three years at law school. I didn’t really appreciate why until this weekend when I was reading about the 5 Hour Wrongful Death Lawsuit. The complaint starts to look fishy from the first sentence (my bold) . . .
Arrive Magazine
