Brought to you by the Garden State’s finest at Overlawyered, the first lawsuit has been filed against new lawyer rating service Avvo. I’m shocked. Shocked!
As may be somewhat apparent, I have been less than impressed with Avvo’s concept and execution. But that said, there are some meritorious aspects to their efforts. And they have certainly not tried to hide from criticism, as one of Avvo’s founders, Paul Bloom, has even shown up here to face the music. But of the many things that I find wrong with Avvo, actionably low ratings is not one. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I am a well-deserved perfect 10.
One of the failings of Avvo is that every attorney, by simply claiming their profile, can update it to include as much positive information as they can muster to increase their rating. In other words, your rating is largely in your own hands. Take 5 minutes and you miraculously become a better lawyer. With a little imagination, you’re a 10 too, unless you’re truly a miserable miscreant who has done nothing with your career, invoked the ire of your local disciplinary authority and been the poster child for client abuse. With a lot less time and effort than it takes to prepare a complaint, the offended plaintiff could have upped his rating instead of becoming today’s headline at Overlawyered.
What slays me about lawyers is that we keep proving our critics right. If you don’t like your Avvo rating, regardless of how material you believe it to be to your qualifications, change it be doing something that will increase it. Write an article. Give a speech. Earn an award. But don’t whine about it. It’s unbecoming.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here“>http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/98104-wa-john-browne-4323.html”>Here is the suing lawyer’s avvo profile. There’s a good deal he could have done to improve his rating.
(By the way, I’ve figured out why you get that extra 0.1 point that I’m lacking. It’s because you’re so old.)
Oops. I turned that link inside-out. HERE“>http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/98104-wa-john-browne-4323.html”>HERE it is.
No, good to know it’s not me. tags don’t seem to work in your comments.
WSJ: Avvo Is The Source
Via Kevin O’Keefe at Real Lawyers Have Blogs, my favorite source for
free Wall Street Journal content, comes this surprising report that the Wall Street Journal, that bastion of conservative judgment in a frothy sea of new ideas, endorses Avvo, the lawyer rating website that
WSJ: Avvo Is The Source
Via Kevin O’Keefe at Real Lawyers Have Blogs, my favorite source for
free Wall Street Journal content, comes this surprising report that the Wall Street Journal, that bastion of conservative judgment in a frothy sea of new ideas, endorses Avvo, the lawyer rating website that
What Has Avvo Done For / To You?
My
What Has Avvo Done For / To You?
My
What Has Avvo Done For / To You?
My
What Has Avvo Done For / To You? (Updated)
My
What Has Avvo Done For / To You? (Updated)
My
I disagree with this analysis and think people should write about it. And I am shocked that anyone would suggest to “improve their score” as it is the fact that the system can be gauged that renders the score worthless. I would also caution any attorney from claiming their profile in PA as I think to do so is simply a violation of the Rules here in PA.
Rule 7.1 Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Service:
A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.
comments to this rule are as follows:
[1] This Rule governs all communications about a lawyer’s services, including advertising permitted by Rule 7.2. Whatever means are used to make known a lawyer’s services, statements about
them must be truthful.
[2] Truthful statements that are misleading are also prohibited by this Rule. A truthful statement is misleading if it omits a fact necessary to make the lawyer’s communication considered as a
whole not materially misleading. A truthful statement is also misleading if there is a substantial likelihood that it will lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services for which there is no reasonable factual foundation.
[3] An advertisement that truthfully reports a lawyer’s achievements on behalf of clients or former clients may be misleading if presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case. Similarly, an unsubstantiated comparison of the lawyer’s services or fees with the services or fees of other lawyers may be misleading if presented
with such specificity as would lead a reasonable person to conclude that comparison can be substantiated.
The inclusion of an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language may preclude a finding that a statement is
likely to create unjustified expectations or otherwise mislead a prospective client.
My position is simple…they do not exactly state how they arrive at the conclusion they do to give the rating. Further, the site itself also states that all of the information about the lawyer may not be contained therein. It also tells lawyers they can affect the rating by providing avvo information. But clearly, the lawyer would then be providing information to affect a score that could be misleading under this rule. The avvo rating is inherently misleading in that there is in fact a substantial likelihood that it could lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services for which there is no factual foundation. I think the argument is quite simple.
I checked out your Avvo rating. I’d hate Avvo if I were you too. Ouch.
If you think that the rating is an ouch…try this one on for size. I came across this site just last week. I tell all of my clients and indeed everyone to call me ray. I typed in “ray dougherty” on the search. Two names came up…mine and a Gina Mary Dougherty from Ohio who happens to have sanctions. I certainly was not happy about appearing with anyone with the same last name who has sanctions – and particularly only one, considering the fact that there are so many people with my last name. As if that was not bad enough, the menu on the left allows you to filter by lawyers with discipline. I chose the filter by lawyers with sanctions option. A big blue box appears stating you have chosen to filter by lawyers with sanctions and next to it – name: ray dougherty. Under that, the lawyer with sacntions appears. However, at first glance, I thought this was saying that I was the lawyer with sanctions. In fact the word sanctions only appears next to my name. You have to look further and understand the symbols as again the word sanction only appears next to my name – not Gina. My position is really quite simple. I do not want my name to appear anywhere near the word sanctions and specifically next to the words “lawyers with sacntions”. Indeed I cannot really think that anyone would be okay with it. After all, our reputation is everything in this business. As I first mistook what this meant, so can someone else. If someone else does make that mistake, do you think that every one of them will take the time to figure out the truth? Clearly, some would look and say that is that, ray has sanctions and particularly if someone has been served by process and needs to quickly find someone. I doubt highly they would even consider me at that point. And if that person hears my name mentioned after making the mistake and not catching it, clearly they would be likely to tell that person mentioning my name that I have discipline against me. Where does that end? As such I am clearly being harmed by the presentation of the information. Then there is always the guilty by association or just a bad taste left in someone’s mind.
Clearly, avvo was poorly put together, not well thought out and just a bad idea. Ratings are only as good as the system and needs to be objective. Implicit in their rating system is the fundamental principle that lawyers are only as good as the time they have been licensed as clearly that is the most heavily weighted. That conclusion is too subjective. As attorneys, we should all understand the difference between an objective and subjective opinion and the value of such. Simply put, the criteria they use is riddled with subjectivity but presented as though objective. To suggest that the system is unbiased or objective is ludicrous. Finally, the recent New Jersey Opinion about Superlawyers was a good start. The mistake there was they did not go far enough – it should have been extended to Martindale and Best Lawyers