Lawyers Sue Lawyer Ratings Site
Duncan Riley
32 comments »
Lawyer ratings site Avvo is being sued by lawyers unhappy with negative ratings.
The complaint on behalf of Seattle lawyers John Henry Browne and Alan Wenokur says Avvo is deceptive, unfair and violates state consumer protection laws.
It would be easy to call irony on this one, but in reality it sits far better with clichés including when you dance with the devil and when you play with fire.
From a strict consumer viewpoint it’s easy to side with Avvo, and as CEO Mark Britton writes on the Avvo blog, the service helps consumers by providing them with information that empowers their ability to make an informed choice. Yet you just know this was going to happen. Red rag to a bull perhaps?
The suit itself claims that Avvo’s rating system is flawed. Browne and Wenokur allege that the Avvo system can be gamed, citing an example of a lawyer improving Avvo ratings by including sports awards with their profile. Whilst the suit skirts the question of free speech in terms of Avvo not confirming the veracity of supplied information, it does not seem to have the potential of becoming a legal battle focused on free speech. The crux of the suit is about calculations and ratings; the only people who would be deeply concerned with the suit are Web 2.0 startups that use proprietary ratings system. The thin end of the wedge could be a precedent where service providers with negative ratings on review sites could sue those sites on the basis that the rating system itself was deceptive or unfair, and that could mean just about all of them.
One can not really make an informed decision if flawed information is given.
The overall concept is good, but it has to be tweaked so as to be as fair a possible to all parties involved. Careers can potentially be adversely affected.
Only in america could this happend. In my opinion your law-system has gone to far. When only money, time and the number of lawyers greatly affect your odds in winning or loosing a trial, and were only the costs of pursuing a trial are too high for most people, there is something wrong with the judicial system.
Proving once again that lawyers are pricks. Or more accurately, it’s guys like this that give all lawyers a bad rap.
I wonder if John Henry Browne and Alan Wenokur’s Avvo ratings have taken a hit after this?
So can I sue Alan & John..for sueing Avvo….actually I would rather use them as pinatas…
Law is a risky business. Stick with IT. (:
Why bother? Move the site offshore to a less litigious country.
Q: What do you call 100 dead lawyers?
A: A good start.
There are far too many lawyers on this planet, struggling to justify their existence by suing everyone left and right.
That is my opinion anyway. Please don’t feel threatened, I would never harm a human, not even a lawyer.
The issue seems to me to be “Opinion” site versus “Clearing House” site. Avvo seems to be just a site that aggregates opinions. Since when do opinions violate free speech?
Isn’t that what blogs are, opinions? So if I aggregated blog news would I get sued?
Oh, BTW, 2 lawyers “unhappy with negative ratings” - now THAT’s a good start!
i am with avoo here. even if the database seems flawed, the more info we have about lawyers, the better
The irony.
I can say that as of right now, their methodology is missing a lot of data points. I’m sure it will get better, but….
Look up US Supreme Court Justices.
Samuel Alito: 6.5/10.
John Paul Stevens: 6.5/10 (kinda common name but i’m sure it’s him because it says he has been practicing for 49 years, which he has been)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 6.5/10
Didn’t seem to have data on the rest of the Supreme Court.
Then I looked up Andrew Speaker, the 31-year-old GA personal injury lawyer who is famous for globetrotting with drug-resistant TB. He gets a 7.4/10.
Let me emphasize this: a guy who has been practicing law for like 3 years gets a higher rating than 3 Supreme Court Justices. Probably because he went to the trouble of submitting some softball awards or something.
for more on this: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/.....-web-site/
to 10.
…so what?
oops - meant to say to 13. 10, please don’t sue…))
I had a really bad experience with a partner at one of the big name firms in Silicon Valley. He was a perfect storm of arrogance, incompetence and total inattention to detail. He charged $500 an hour, billed us $50,000 for $5,000 of work (which we had to have another lawyer do over again).
I can understand why Avno is being sued, but hope they win. I would gladly share my experience with this attorney in a forum like theirs (and post positive reviews for the lawyers who did good work for us).
Lawyers…Kill them all like Shakespeare said.
The ratings system is just a red herring. The scum sucking lawyers in this country don’t want anyone to criticize them or hold them accountable. They want to continue ruining this country by stealing from all of us and don’t appreciate anyone pointing a light at them.
99.99999% of lawyers are nothing but a fucking scourge and plaque upon our country.
Hey, lookie. An “average” rating on yelp.com too now.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/-xDUBLbY1MaKq2iroqf-xw (cough cough)
Ooh, a Wikipedia article too! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Browne (cough, cough)
http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/.....78806.html
Apparently their system rated my less than ideal attorney almost perfectly. I would never have hired this guys firm had I seen this information earlier.
Shame on me for believing his sales pitch. Everything his firm provided I had to personally undo.
This is funny. As a teacher, I dislike such websites as RateMyTeachers.com and RateMyProfessors.com. A large number of teachers have been trying to take that site down. It’s funny that a Lawyer-related website almost has the power to do so …
Neil (#s 14 + 15). The point I was trying to make is that if the site gives useless information then maybe it’s worse than nothing.
The default rating for all lawyers seems to be a 6.5/10. The only lawyers who have different ratings are those with disciplinary actions against them and those who have gotten specific awards or something.
I only used the example of the Supreme Court because they are well known AND should probably be rated higher than almost everyone whether you agree or disagree w/their politics.
Try another well-known lawyer: David Boies (prosecuted Microsoft, defended Napster, etc.) he also gets a 6.5/10. But yet Deborah Rhode, the Stanford Law prof who sits on the Avvo board, gets a 10/10. I doubt there is much of a difference in the quality of their work as a lawyer.
Then look up your neighborhood shady personal injury attorney and they will probably also get a 6.5/10 unless they were actually formally disciplined.
I think the one good thing Avvo does is make the disciplinary actions easily accessible, because normally members of the public will not be able to find that without a lot of effort.
I think the overall idea of the site is a good idea but it really needed a ton of work and a ton more data before it went public. They should have just started with the disciplinary actions and no numerical ratings, I think, since those are facile and easily misinterpreted.
It’s funny, we got a very different take on the lawsuit by a couple of lawyers when we discussed this at AppScout, they were very offended by Avvo personally, and wished the lawsuit well. Check it out:
http://www.appscout.com/2007/0.....ed_wit.php
in order to / rate you should have to enter your court date ect…
- then the site should check public records / to make sure your court date is real…
- then post your rating ….
- after that - its all fair game.
- anything less / and it not due / diligence
There is a legal basis for the lawsuit: the problem isn’t the dissemination of data, if you read the complaint. The issue is the responsibility to get data right WHEN you encourage people to rely on it in a legal sense.
The same people who want this to be a simple story (”censorship! free speech!”…”they hate Avvo for its freedom!”) are the same people who will jump down Avvo’s throat and…find a lawyer….to sue when they hire a lawyer based on a web site rating and something goes wrong.
While the intentions of big firm lawyers is always suspect, both sides are composed of the same type of lawyer, so it’s hardly David vs. Goliath on behalf of the little guy at work here.
Now, I have issues with the complaint too, but the dumbing down of the argument isn’t helping anyone.
And, those people who see this as an opportunity to dump on lawyers, well, enjoy yourselves. The majority of lawyers AREN’T bad people, but it’s a lot more fun to blame them for everything than to take responsibility.
Clients have responsibilities too, and if they hire a stupid or poorly trained or socially irresponsible lawyer, if they hire a lawyer based on a rating, if they hire a lawyer who ignores them and treats them badly and takes their money or gives incredibly bad advice…welll, at some point, it’s not the bad lawyers fault: it’s yours.
Education is a funny thing. Let’s say Avvo gets it right (and they truly could)… are people then going to step up when they make a bad choice and take responsibility for it?
No, more likely, they will continue to blame the lawyers for everything that happens to them. People who use up all their assets fighting in divorce will continue to blame it on the lawyers for zealous representation. People in business will still blame the lawyers, when they hire them to find ways to get around the law. And, people who go to jail for something they actually did will blame the lawyer for not getting them off.
Yes, lawyers do things that aren’t socially responsible, but since when has that bothered anyone in the hundreds of other occupations, who are the same ones asking them to do it?
Are there bad lawyers? You betcha! Are they to blame for everyone’s legal woes: give me a break.
The American Judicial system is in the toilet. You must be wealthy or incredibly poor to obtain one. But if you’re middle class working stiff, forget about it. You can’t find good free legal help and it’s too expensive to defend yourself or seek help if you need it. It’s all about the dollars, not about what’s right.
If these scum sucking lawyers cared at all about rating systems, these same lawyers would go after all rating systems for all sites. But, no, they are simply trying to quell the voice of the people to simply rate their experiences. I bet if these lawyers got a ten out of ten, there would be no lawsuit.
American lawyers, or all lawyers in general, are terrible people. Well, not all. But most I’ve encountered don’t really know that much, are inexperienced, lazy and will ONLY take on a case when there is real money involved. And, of course, the almighty retainer. Never give one, but all want one. I’m a contractor and I’m expected to give everyone a quote on my work. Lawyers, no way. They can charge and charge and charge and NEVER do anything but charge and charge and charge. And there is nothing anyone out there can do about no matter what any idiotic lawyer says on this blog or anywhere else.
I hate lawyers. I hate the profession. And the world would be a much better place without them.
It’s sort of like a psychic getting killed in a car wreck, you would have thought they would have seen it coming.
Mmmm…I don’t like this stuff…I side with Avvo.
The problem with Avvo is that if you don’t register yourself with them and they pull you off of some database, and you don’t have any dings against you or you don’t have any user comments or peer reviews you automatically get a 6.5. That’s why the Supreme Court justices and other prominent attorneys have average ratings. The more information the lawyers publish on their page, the higher their ratings go. If the attorney’s don’t claim their page or they don’t make any changes or updates to their profile, they get that average rating. Is this really a good system? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of having an objective rating system?
I would venture to say that having a review system for attorneys are a good idea because it keeps them all honest, but how can you rate someone when you don’t know who they are, what their ethics are, their personality and do they really care for their client’s cause? I’d rather hire an average/good attorney who cared about me and my situtation rather than a excellent rated attorney who really only cares about the bottom line.
It’s like choosing a doctor based on a number. If you had 10 doctors who had a 10/10 rating, I would want the doctor who had the best bedside manner, and who had a genuine concern about my health and well being. There are other variables that you can’t plug into an algorithm at play when hiring professionals.
Sometime you just have to think and gather your own information and try to make a good informed decision for yourself instead of relying on someone else to tell you who is good and who isn’t.