When Avvo first came on the scene, I had my doubts. Like most lawyers, I thought the idea that a lawyer would be wrapped up in a single number was ridiculously simplistic and misleading. Who needed consumers of legal services to be further mislead? Lawyer advertising did enough to mislead people without Avvo. We needed no help.
But while we were sleeping, Avvo has come a long way. Via Real Lawyers Have Blogs comes Joseph Campos’ post at Law.com, legal technology, that the paradigm has shifted away from Martindale-Hubbell, the only game in town since 1868, to client-centric Avvo.
When Avvo first launched, I challenged the concept in a series of posts:
- Yippee! The Avvo Ratings Are Here!
- Avvo Day 2: Is it soup yet?
- What Took So Long? The Avvo Lawsuit
- Good Questions Coming From The Avvo Debate
- Avvo: My chat with Paul
- WSJ: Avvo Is The Source
Yeah, Avvo has been the source of a lot of words here at Simple Justice. Similarly, I questioned whether M-H was capable of keeping pace with a changing world. The problem with being too successful for too long is that change presents huge risk, and recognizing new directions can be very dangerous if you pick the wrong path. It was not surprising that M-H was inclined to go the conservative route, but it could have hedged its bet. It didn’t, and has now firmly established itself as an antique. The books still look good on the library shelf, but there’s no reason to ever buy a new, and very expensive, set.
Campos notes that Avvo embraced, while Martindale-Hubbell rejected, the notion of client reviews. M-H was always about lawyers rating other lawyers. Clients could watch from afar, but could never get in the door. Avvo welcomed clients. This cause massive initial fear by lawyers, because of the concern that the only clients who would be inclined to make the effort to review would be the dissatisfied ones. Dissatisfaction is a much stronger motivator than satisfaction.
This fear has yet to be realized. The has been no mass attacks against lawyers at Avvo, which either reflects Avvo’s promise that they will vet reviews to maintain their integrity or that clients don’t hate lawyers nearly as much as lawyers think.
Avvo has also generated much anger from those who promote solo practice, because it is viewed as discriminating against younger solo practitioners. The basis for this is Avvo’s Big Number. The Big Number gives a value to legal experience, and to the various accomplishments that come with legal experience, such that a more experienced lawyer will have a higher Avvo rating than a new lawyer. Conversely, a new lawyer will be lower rated by Avvo, which will hurt that new lawyer’s chances with clients who check out Avvo ratings when selecting counsel.
I’ve had numerous discussions with Avvo co-founder and VP, Paul Bloom. He’s open to learning about problems, and open to doing something to fix them. He wants Avvo to succeed, and he views his success as contingent upon Avvo’s acceptance by the legal community as a legitimate source of information. While the basic issue with Big Number is itself immutable, since this is the foundation of Avvo’s rating service, Paul and Avvo CEO Mark Britton (who I don’t believe has ever stopped by to say hello. Maybe he doesn’t like me?) have made many tweaks to address the issues and problems raised.
A few comments about some of the newer tweaks on Avvo:
- On the Avvo blog, they list the top ten lawyers viewed in the past week. While I can’t prove it that this is just a scam by the lawyers to up their profiles. It doesn’t pass the smell test, particularly since I know one of them and know full well how desperately he markets himself. I don’t judge him for doing so, but it does undermine the integrity of this top ten list.
- They have added the Avvo Track Record, where attorneys can list cases and outcomes. Aside from the problem with claiming false outcomes, and the fact that a successful outcome in one case has no bearing on any other, this new feature is rife with ethical issues. By the lawyer posting the details of a case, he inherently reveals client confidences. This would require a whole post in itself, if you don’t understand why this is so. But it is, and it’s wrong.
- Lastly, they have a new feature called Lawyer’s Avvo Answers. These are answers by lawyers to questions asked by potential clients. This is awful. Beyond the fact that the questions don’t provide sufficient information to formulate a meaningful answer, it is dangerous, seriously dangerous, to provide generic, sometimes erroneous, answers about complex legal issues. The lawyers who contribute to this feature get the benefit of self-promotion, but do so at the expense accuracy and credibility. One such question asked how to get away with a crime. The lawyer explained how to dance around the law. Is this the what we should be doing? This is a bad feature, and any lawyer who participates should be ashamed of himself.
These present issues, which bring some Avvo initiatives into disrepute. Avvo ought to be careful about skirting the lines of ethics and credibility. Just because they are playing the game well doesn’t mean that they can’t do something awfully foolish to lose whatever credibility they are gaining.
What Campos’ post says to me is not just that Avvo has arrived, but that M-H has left the building. The boat sailed and Martindale-Hubbell wasn’t on it. It’s unlikely that this makes Avvo the top dog in lawyer ratings just yet, since lawyers by definition and nature take a very, very long time to accept change. But it does indicate that the change has happened and lawyers will eventually figure it out. There may be other challengers to Avvo and M-H that ultimately displace both of them, but now that the paradigm has changed, it appears that Avvo represents the future as much as M-H is perpetually mired in the past. Dinner is served.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Scott – Regarding the top 10 list count: this is calculated based on unique users, not sessions – so a single lawyer hitting the site over and over to electronically primp their profile will only count as one user (unless, of course, said lawyer hits the site from multiple IP’s – like their home and office, which would count as two UU’s). Most of the people on the list fall into one of the following categories:
– newly claimed lawyers who are promoting their profile
– lawyers in the news, like the Britney Spears/K-Fed divorce attorneys
– attorneys participating in Avvo Answers
-Conrad from Avvo
Hey Conrad. Not that we don’t love you here at SJ, but no Mark? Not even Paul? Are we just chopped liver?
As for the pump and dump, com’on. Unique users is easy to game, whether by using various computers or just deleting the cookie. It’s a no-brainer. I understand why lawyers in the news get hits, but don’t think those inclined to pump themselves aren’t trying. Mind you, they have all day long to play, because they have no business which is why they’re doing it in the first place.
And nothing about the Avvo Answers ethical issues? That one is a real stinker.
By the way, make sure you check at the Turk’s thoughts about Avvo. He’s still not convinced.
I’m accustomed to being the ugly duckling to Paul and Mark’s Cinderella.
I’ll agree UU’s are easy to game; but at the volume we’re seeing, it would take a very concerted effort to have an impact. I’m not saying it can’t be done, or hasn’t been tried, but I suspect the return on the effort required makes it fairly unlikely.
I read Turk’s article – my biggest issue was the “send and sell your email address”. This is just flat out untrue.
As I don’t have a JD, I won’t weigh in on the ethical question you raised, but too allay your chopped liver concerns, I will ensure that we do . . .
What’s that saying? How do you soar like an eagle when you’re surrounded by turkeys.
Turk’s point is worth noting. Promises without transparency makes lawyers suspicious, unless they are desperate enough to click on their profile 100 times a day. And Conrad, some are that desperate. Or desperate enough to post “Avvo Answers” even though they know what garbage they’re posting.
I need to have a talk with Paul about some of this. He should give me a call.
Scott –
We love Avvo Answers – even Avvo employees (including me) have used it to get guidance on legal issues. And that’s the key thing: Guidance. People posting questions on Answers aren’t seeking an all-in-one legal solution. Consumers want to know if they’ve got a legal problem, or whether they need hire a lawyer, or even some high-level ideas about how to address an existing legal concern.
Think about it this way – Avvo Answers provides an on-line version of something we attorneys do every day: Answering casual inquiries about legal problems. “Yes, you need to comply with that subpoena.” “You should really hire a lawyer to deal with that divorce.” “Write to the insurance company and make a demand.” There’s no attorney-client relationship, and no ethical issue. It’s simply lawyers giving consumers legal guidance. We’re greatly expanding the reach of that casual guidance with Answers, and we think the vast majority of attorneys are smart and ethical enough to understand the parameters of the guidance they are giving.
Josh King
VP, Business Development & General Counsel
Avvo, Inc.
Josh, I have some other ways to describe “Answering casual inquiries about legal problems.” Incompetence and malpractice.
Since you’re the GC, some marketing advice. Know your audience. This is a law blog. Nonsensical crap like this tends to make Avvo look bad. Frankly, given your description, it strikes me as being potentially the worst and most dangerous thing Avvo has come up with.
Hopefully you’re a better General Counsel, though you statement that you use “Avvo Answers” makes me wonder, than salesman. Don’t try to sell snake oil like this to lawyers. It’s embarrassing.
I thought you wanted Avvo’s perspective on Answers. If I’d known you wanted a sales job I would have gone on about what a great benefit Answers can be for client development.
Truth be told, I don’t know whether it is or not. However, I do know that consumers appreciate having a place to go to get some preliminary legal guidance. While attorneys are always capable of committing “incompetence and malpractice” in any forum, I fail to see how Answers is somehow more susceptible to that than the myriad cocktail parties, barbeques and lawyer office visits in which such guidance is otherwise rendered (and then only to those who happen to know a lawyer).
Hey Scott,
Not ignoring you, just wanted to give others here at Avvo an opportunity to interact with you 🙂 And or course I’d be happy to chat.
I do have a question about your Track Record comment. How is a lawyer posting information about a case on Track Record different from the information on “Operation Golden Pill” that you describe on the White Collar Crime page of your web site? With Track Record all sides in a case have the opportunity to present their perspective on the case, and therefore there is some accountability. Not the case on most lawyer web sites, where only one side of the story is told.
Well, that’s much better. At least it isn’t a canned spiel. An authentic reply is always going to generate a better reaction.
So here’s the problem. Of course consumers like Avvo Answers. It’s free legal advice as far as they’re concerned, and everybody likes something for free. You use it because it’s a consumer draw. Consumers use it because it’s free. Attorneys answer because it raises their profile. Simple, right?
And that’s the problem. Consumers aren’t getting legal advice. Just as I’ve made very clear here, as have others on their blawg, we cannot give viable legal advice in this way. It’s impossible. It would be misleading. It’s dangerous.
When we talk with people in person, we ask questions to get to the salient facts before offering advice. We don’t accept clients representations at face value. We don’t let clients tell us only the parts they want us to know. Good lawyers don’t practice law at cocktail parties and barbeques, and this bears no similarity to an office consultation, where we ask the right questions to find out exactly what we’re dealing with and then respond in a thoughtful and meaningful way, or tell them that we can’t give them an answer there and then and do our research.
But it gets worse. I read one “Avvo Answer” where the question was how the client could be a prostitute and get away with it. The lawyer explained (not well, mind you) how he thought it might be accomplished. Was this what you were trying to create, a “how to” to commit crimes?
And that’s why.
Hey, there’s my buddy. Good to have you back, Paul.
The issue isn’t with the “acountability” of the track record feature, but (1) trying to “explain” the case and outcome in the format and (2) that many (particularly some that I read when I was cruising Avvo the other day) wrote some very revealing information about their clients in order to show how great they did. My own description of the Golden Pill reveals absolutely nothing about the specifics of the case or my clients’ confidences, because of my extreme caution in not doing so. You read it, and you can’t tell me what a single item of conduct my clients were alleged to have committed.
I was shocked to read some of the track record comments, like “defendant sold 2 kilos of cocaine and was given a plea to 1 year probation.” Did the lawyer just say that his client sold cocaine! Why yes, he did. And the client is named and identified. I want to be the agent cruising the lawyer’s profile to collect 404(b) evidence against his clients.
Avvo Sues Jersey to Share The Wealth
While
Unique users is easy to game, whether by using various computers or just deleting the cookie. It’s a no-brainer. I understand why lawyers in the news get hits, but don’t think those inclined to pump themselves aren’t trying. Mind you, they have all day long to play, because they have no business which is why they’re doing it in the first place.
Avvo Update: We’ve Fallen and We Can’t Get Up
For a while, it appeared that Avvo was doing so well.
Avvo Update: We’ve Fallen and We Can’t Get Up
For a while, it appeared that Avvo was doing so well.
Avvo’s Really Bad Answers
Here’s the moral right up front: