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 just beat back the silly Seattle lawsuit to shut it down. It was a curious win, with the Judge calling Avvo concept “ludicrous“, but you take your wins as you get them.
What comes as shock is the Journal’s acceptance of Avvo as a viable source of information.
At a time when the judicial system is under increasing scrutiny, the courtroom performances and verdicts of its practitioners would seem a reasonable object of public interest. For those shopping for legal counsel, an online rating service might at least provide some measure of transparency in an otherwise opaque profession.
The site, called Avvo, does for lawyers what any number of magazines and Web sites have been doing for other professions for years. Magazines regularly publish stories that rank an area’s doctors and dentists. There are rating sites and blogs for the ‘best’ hairstylists, manicurists, restaurants and movie theaters. Almost any consumer product or service these days is sorted and ranked.
Professional ego aside, it’s hard to see why lawyers or judges should be any different.
(Quote lifted wholesale from Kevin). While you can’t argue with the concept of transparency in selecting a lawyer, or the fact that lawyers are an “otherwise opaque profession,” the position offers absolutely no logical connection between the interests at stake and what Avvo provides. Just because viable information is hard to come by doesn’t mean that any information, regardless of validity, methodology or accuracy, is better than nothing.
Now I have no personal beef with Avvo, particularly since I’m not displeased with my Avvo rating. Of course, Avvo representatives have personally sat at counsel table with me through my trials, watched me voir dire, open, cross and close, countless times. They read my appellate briefs, and parse my pre-trial motions. So when Avvo says that I’m a perfect “10”, they know exactly what they’re talking about. I’m all about transparency.
But I’m not quite sure that Avvo ratings are as valid for others as they are for me. After all, there are only so many Avvo people available to spend countless hours with lawyers assessing their skills. So unlike me, most lawyers get rated based upon the most vapid and insignificant information, or no information at all.
For those who read blawgs, Avvo’s existence is well known, and it’s likely that many have already claimed their ratings, inserted some information that will personalize it to some limited extent. After all, even by inputting the handful of things that Avvo deems significant, it fails to consider the skills that distinguish a good lawyer from a bar association sycophant. You would think that the WSJ would demand more.
Of course, the WSJ has apparently taken the position that any information is better than none, as shown by its endorsement of such gimmicks as “magazines and websites” promoting various “best of” lists. Maybe this is just free market politics run amok, or the ugly groundwork preceding real transparency.
Regardless, for all the lawyers who have yet to claim their Avvo ratings, or don’t understand why their name is on the internet when they didn’t ask for it, there is one thing that’s clear. Websites like Avvo are here to stay, and to the extent that anyone will ever want to check up on you, you might as well look the best you can. True, it doesn’t make you a better lawyer or give your clients any better chance of prevailing, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the sleazy lawyers are busy puffing up their Avvo ratings, so the good lawyers should as well.
In the end, it will all be another wash, since potential clients will still be unable to tell if their counsel of choice is any good or not. But given how little one can put on one’s website, and how little meaning any of this has on a lawyer’s ability to serve his clients, and how self-promotion has toppled professionalism and dignity as the hallmark of the legal profession, don’t be left out in the cold. If you won’t do it for me, do it for the Wall Street Journal in the name of transparency.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Scott, did you really just write ‘if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em?” That’s not the Scott I’ve come to know and love through his writings. Wow.
There’s no “beat ’em, join ’em” involved here. They simply are. I rail against evil and injustice. Avvo simply isn’t of sufficient consequence to deserve a fight. It’s silly and unhelpful and meaningless. As long as consumers understand that it is just another vapid pseudo-marketing effort and nothing more, then no harm done.
I do not buy in to concept that, given a little information, consumers are not capable of evaluating a lawyer.
I am not referring to a rating by Avvo. I am referring to the information which the Avvo site may display on lawyers over time. I looked at some of the bios which included personal statements by the lawyer (much more down to earth than the spin you see on websites), lengthy statements about an experience with the lawyer – as a client and/or as another lawyer, and general information answers to legal questions from consumers.
That’s a lot more than the yellow pages, Martindale-Hubbell, and 99.9% of law firm websites.
Far from perfect, but giving people a little information about the clown they see on TV or in a full page yellow pages ad who they are ready to hire as their lawyer, is a start.
How wierd is this! Here I am, the non-marketer of all time, in the middle ground between Kevin and Susan.
That’s me, Mr. Moderate.
Scott, I disagree. If a significant and vocal portion of lawyers out there withhold their approval, do not participate, actively disapprove with a simple disclaimer on their site and do not shore up the limited information AVVO can gather on their own, it will gut them and they know it. It can mitigate the damage they will cause. Avvo is a Trojan Horse, Scott.
I must agree with Susan on this one. What insurance is there that any comment made by anyone about any lawyer, either “big law” or a solo is of any truth? We all know clients get pissed off when they don’t win a case. And for every winner in a suit, there is one that doesn’t win. What is to stop that client from writing a review of a lawyer that is not even close to the truth.
Avvo serves no purpose except for padding the pockets of those involved. And I for one am a bit disappointed to see Solo’s like Carolyn Elfant coming out in support of Avvo. Like M&H, Avvo will serve no purpose for the solo and even the small firm. The only winner here is Avvo and what ever profit it derives from it.
Now, I am all in favor of the consumer knowing something about a lawyer. But this is not the way. Without some way of insuring accurate information about the lawyer, no one wins.
Put yourself in the public’s position. They hate lawyers. They are supposed to pick lawyers from yellow pages and late night TV ads?
People pick a dishwasher from other consumer comments online but dam, we’d hate to allow consumers to hear from other consumers about their experience with a lawyer. Go back to the yellow pages because lawyers dislike public commentary about themselves online.
If GE jumped all over an appliance ratings site because a buyer of a dishwasher ‘could’ leave a bad comment, we’d tell them where to go. Why are we lawyers so special?
What’s to say a lawyers blog is not written by someone else? Maybe the blog is full of incorrect legal information. How do we protect consumers from reading such a blog. Maybe we should boycott all blogs. Better yet let’s outlaw all blogs and the lawyers who earn money as a result of them. I am talking extreme, but doing so to make a point.
If Avvo provides a valuable resource to the public, and the public, not lawyers, will decide if its valuable, they should earn a lot of money. I thought producing something of value to others and getting paid for it was the American way. If it’s a scam the public through the powers of the net will call them on it and Avvo will fail.
I disagree. Sure the public is entitled to information on a lawyer. Good or bad. But it must be truthful. No where, nor no one has provided any assurance that the information provided by Avvo is truthful. Avvo at first plush appears to be no better than and of no benefit to the solo than M&H.
And aren’t we forgetting one factor here. isn’t the consumer these days more intelligent than we are giving them credit for. Why does a consumer need someone like Avvo to tell them whether a lawyer is good or not. Most consumers don’t run to the first lawyer they see on TV or in the yellow pages. It has been my experience that most consumers pick lawyers based on referrals from other happy clients. Yes, we live in an age of the Internet. And yes, a lot of clients find their lawyer from the Internet and from blogs. And most consumers can see through the bullshit and can find a lawyer that is qualified to handle their problem.
Without some assurance the information provided by Avvo is both truthful and honest, it will serve no purpose at all. We have no assurance those complaining about a lawyer are providing a true picture. And, yes this slaps in the face of what I state above.
Avvo is just what many of us thought it would be from the very beginning. Just another way for “big law” to get another advantage over the solo and small firm. The Internet has put the solo and small firm on the same footing as big law. From legal research to marketing. Now, we see one more way big law wants another advantage.
Someone please prove me wrong. I have asked for that before and have yet to see it.
So, is Avvo truly a tool for the consumer or a tool for “big law”? Time will tell.
And if lawyers do not participate in any meaningful way, the lawyer does not condone this fatally flawed ranking system under the guise of helping the public. For once, given the power of the internet, individual lawyers (solos) can have a loud and clear opinion that is heard based upon the power of their own individual voices through their use of the internet. And clients and colleagues are free to comment about their experiences with lawyers as they wish, too. I think this court case very clearly confirmed opinions are free speech? And I’m sure any potential client sophisticated enough to find Avvo can type in their potential lawyer’s name and find all manner of information they need to make an intelligent decision. They don’t need aggregation and mathematical ranking and padded commentary bought and paid for. They just need Google and the name of the lawyer they saw in the yellow pages or the side of the bus, Kevin.
How “old” is Avvo?
Grant: I’ve heard this comment before: that Avvo primarily benefits Big Law and have never fully understood it. Instead of debating the point from a philosophical perspective, I’ll point to last week’s list of top viewed lawyers on the Avvo Blog (http://avvoblog.com/2007/12/17/top-10-lawyers-viewed-last-week-14/)
You’ll note that 3 of the lawyers (Don Heyrich, Shelly Crocker, and Elizabeth Powell) on the list are solo/small firm lawyers. You’ll also note that most of the others are celebrity/news lawyers.
Conrad from Avvo
We launched June 5th of this year.
Conrad from Avvo
Conrad,
I find it very interesting that of all the arguments against AVVO listed here and elsewhere you responded with simple diversion to a blog post which features three solos for a brief post. I feature solos almost weekly. Is that the best you can do against legitimate questioning of your corporate mission and its impact on the profession and the public?
My, we really are on the warpath here. I see nothing about Avvo to make it a threat to solos. That may, perhaps, be a product of my field of practice.
I am no fan of Avvo, and don’t see any substance to their ratings that serves anyone’s interest. On the other hand, I don’t see why it matters one way of the others. Obvious, Susan, you see this as being a clear threat to the solo. I would certainly be opening to changing my tune if I understood why.
As of now (and since my discussions with Paul Bloom of Avvo), I just see it as a silly effort to create silly ratings that do little for anyone. If the best Avvo does is serve as site to look up “celebrity” lawyers, then who cares. It’s the Lawyer ratings version of Imus as far as I’m concerned. Irrelevant.
Scott, while I look damn good in a headress and warpaint, I still would like Conrad to answer my questions. If he chooses not to, that, too is an answer.
Their ratings may be not be taken serious. But, worse, they may be. And it is interesting that the one answer I got was to send me to a site that featured what appears to be solos. But, I am still researching the lawyers mentioned. But what is most apparent from the reference is the “famous” lawyers being searched for.
But, again, I must agree with Susan. Where is the answer to the really serious questions. What assurance do we have that anything on Avvo is truthful and/or trust worthy? And what is the mission of Avvo? Who are its major stock holders?
What is even more interesting is the list of individuals involved in Avvo. I saw at least two of them that come from Microsoft. Where are the small firm and solos?
Lets get real and give us some real answers.
Grant-
A lot of words, but still no clue what the evil is. I’m no fan of Avvo, and yet I find this attack of your problematic. So what if Avvo has two people who worked at Microsoft “involved”, whatever that means. This makes them evil? They’re from Seattle. Everybody there worked for Microsoft at some point. What in the world does that have to do with solos?
The more you attack, in the absence of any rational basis for your attacks, and the better you are making Avvo look. I’m serious. You just aren’t making any points this way. Tell me (and everyone else) what the evil with Avvo is all about, and maybe we can join you in your harangue.
And it is a lot of words with no answers we are getting from Avvo.
Grant – I’m still lost as to how Avvo is another way for Big Law to take advantage of the solo/small firm lawyer. I can tell you that the lawyers who receive the most traffic on the site are predominantly solo/small firms. You can review 20 weeks worth of this information here: http://avvoblog.com/category/top-viewed-lawyers/ . I can also tell you that anecdotally, most of the lawyers who I have had the privilege of interacting with are technically savvy, entrepreneurial, solo and small firm lawyers. I’d also point out that Avvo is the first (and only) web presence for many of the small firm/solo’s out there who don’t even have a website.
After we launched, we spent a lot of time listening to feedback and making some changes. I’d welcome your input on any specific suggestions that you think we should consider to further level the solo v Big Law playing field.
Conrad from Avvo
WSJ: Avvo Is The Source
Nice, bookmarked it!
Scott, thanks for hosting this interesting debate. I respect Susan and Grant tremendously, but I do part ways with them on this particular topic (see my post here – http://www.myshingle.com/my_shingle/2007/12/this-solo-has-n.html) Personally, I trust that consumers will not rely on a number in making a decision in hiring a lawyer. And Avvo also makes more lawyer accessible to consumers. Think of all the lawyers, many highly qualified, who can’t afford YP and don’t have an internet presence. Consumers will not find them on the Internet. Finally – and this is my biggest beef- who do you think gave Avvo the opportunity to set up this site to begin with? Our own bar associations. There is no reason why every bar in the country could not have set up an online directory, listing lawyers, their areas of expertise and links to their websites. Had the bars done that, consumers would have a convenient way to find information, and Avvo might never have come into being. Avvo was started to fill a need that we lawyers should have satisifed but didn’t. Shame on us.
What Has Avvo Done For / To You?
My
What Has Avvo Done For / To You?
My
What Has Avvo Done For / To You?
My
Carolyn, I just answered you and others in the comment section on your new post on your blog.
What I still find most perplexing is why Conrad has suddenly removed himself from the conversation? Hopefully, it is to sit back and learn the real issues, that what is causing the anger has nothing to do with lawyers’ egos or neccesarily profits. Nor is it about the sluggishness of other professional agencies to create this aggregator first.
It’s about a particularly dangerous business model to a profession and the consumer. And at the very core of that business model is the very uniqueness which will drive profits to AVVO. So parsing the issues raised without taking them as a whole serves no purpose except to obfuscate the main problem people have with AVVO specifically. And maybe that is precisely what is wanted.
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?
My
What Has Avvo Done For / To You? (Updated)
My
What Has Avvo Done For / To You? (Updated)
My
What Has Avvo Done For / To You? (Updated)
My
What Has Avvo Done For / To You? (Updated)
My
Hey Grant,
Let me respond to each of your three questions.
1. To address your first question, let me outline the various sources of the lawyer profile data.
We start with data from the state bar and/or disciplinary agency. This typically includes contact information, licensing information, and disciplinary sanctions (if any). State bar data sometimes includes law school and other background information.
If we know the location of the lawyer’s web site, we supplement the bar data with information published on his/her web site.
Lawyers can add or edit information on their Avvo Pofile (for free). For example, they can update their practice areas, add cases they have worked on, add publications/speaking engagements/awards, work experience, fees, and languages. We assume (though can’t guarantee) that lawyers will post information that is both truthful and relevant to their practice of law. As a safeguard, we have a “data team” of lawyers on staff to review every piece of profile information submitted. If this information is not relevant to their practice of law (e.g. some lawyers have tried to game the system by uploading baseball awards), the data team ensures that these don’t count towards the Avvo Rating.
Finally, peer endorsements are submitted by other lawyers (who are required to claim their Avvo Profile so that they are clearly identified as the source of the endorsement.) Client ratings are submitted by consumers who must register with Avvo prior to posting. Every client rating is reviewed by a human, and we reject approximately 5% of reviews submitted.
In short, lawyers have significant control over the information in their profile. The only data they can’t edit is their licensing information, disciplinary information, and client ratings.
2. Avvo’s mission is to provide the information and guidance to help consumers choose the right lawyer.
3. Our major shareholders are two venture capital firms, Benchmark (http://www.benchmark.com) based in Silicon Vally and Ignition (http://www.ignitionpartners.com) based in Seattle.
I hope this is helpful, Grant.