It’s unclear why it just came to light, or how it managed to get through the review process, but one lawyer on Avvo received an anonymous review by a purported client, and it wasn’t pretty. Since it’s likely that the review will be removed soon, after having been up for about a month at this point, here’s what was said:
There is now a long list of lawyers flagging this comment as wrong, primarily on the basis that the reviewer was anonymous, precluding the lawyer from responding, or even knowing which client was dissatisfied. Obviously, I’ve eliminated the lawyer’s name from this post since there’s no way to know whether this complaint was legitimate or some variation on the Andy Nolen astroturfing scheme.Good but fishyPosted by: anonymous, 2009-08-03 about 1 month ago.Client Review:She responded to me promptly, but when it came down to getting the case filed in court she was not there for me as initially promised. She lied about the reasoning for not wanting to help me and this made me think twice about her as a lawyer!
The problem posed is what to do about negative reviews. Clearly, the entire point of reviews is lost if only positive ones can be offered. So much for the claim of providing useful information for consumers when it’s only one-sided. But then, it’s hardly a stretch to understand why a dissatisfied client would want to post a negative review anonymously. Wars have been fought on the internet over anonymous posting and commenting, from the neo-Publius to the no-weenies to the Ned Beatty Rule. Each position has its merits.
This situation defies solution. It doesn’t matter what frilly words are used to describe the wonders of client reviews, or the wonderful benefits it offers the consumers of legal services. It is inherently flawed, and this is why. If only positive reviews are posted, then it’s not only unhelpful to consumers, but misleading. But if clients can’t review lawyers anonymously, then it will have a significant chilling effect on negative reviews, and it’s completely understandable why people don’t want to identify themselves when calling out a bad lawyer.
The benefits of the concept is easy to understand. Law consumers would have a resource to use to determine whether the lawyer behind the smile lives up to his rap. The detriments are also easy to understand, and aside from the illegitimate complaints and the astroturfing, there remains the fear that clients will review a lawyer poorly because of dissatisfaction with the outcome of a case, refusing to recognize that lawyers aren’t plumbers and can’t guarantee that they’ve fixed the leak. Let’s face it, clients aren’t concerned with the effort or the process, but the result. That’s a fact of life for lawyers.
I was asked yesterday if I was for or against anonymous reviews. Neither is my response. I don’t think the system can work. The good intentions of Avvo aside, it is an inherently flawed concept that at best misleads and at worst wrongly harms.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Of course, save with sophisticated consumers with specific details, layperson reviews of lawyers are of limited utility to begin with.
A non-lawyer can report that a lawyer was responsive to calls and letters, didn’t run off with money, and achieved a satisfactory result. But it’s difficult for most non-lawyers to determine whether the good result was because of, coincidental with, or despite a lawyer’s competence level.
Scott, too long for comment here, but I addressed the Avvo perspective on anonymous client reviews on Avvoblog today:
I can understand why the “aggregate” works from the Avvo perspective. I can also understand why Avvo’s perspective is meaningless from the perspective of the individual attorney who has been falsely anonymously maligned. It’s your business model versus the harm to a lawyer. That other lawyers received “rave” reviews, which may as well be false, means nothing to the lawyer who has received one terrible false review. Lawyers aren’t concerned with the aggregate, as they aren’t a single entity, but with the wrong done to them personally.
My point is that the aggregate benefits a lawyer individually. More reviews of a lawyer will flesh out what the real experience of working with that lawyer is, good, bar or indifferent. If a lawyer feels maligned by a client review in any forum, the most effective response is to have other voices provide their input.
So your solution to an attorney maligned at Avvo is for the attorney to become more involved with Avvo and solicit other clients to become involved with Avvo by posting favorable reviews? You’re kidding, right? The solution to all problems is to send people to Avvo? Great solution for Avvo, but worthless for anyone who isn’t a fan of Avvo.