Larry Joe Davis was pissed.  He was rated 3.7 by Avvo.  3.7.  Bricks are rated higher than 3.7.  Well, that’s certainly not going to get him any business.  From the Courthouse News :

Davis claims Avvo misleads the public by failing to disclose that the attorney ratings on its website depend upon an attorney’s level of cooperation with the site.

Davis says he has been an attorney in good standing in Florida since 1992, and has been board certified in health law by the Florida Bar since 1999.

Davis says he does not challenge Avvo’s subjective opinions, but its misrepresentations of facts and material omissions of “so-called public information.” He claims, for example, that Avvo.com identified him and at least eight other board-certified attorneys in health law in the Tampa area as practicing “100 percent employment/labor law.”

Uh oh.  Misrepresentations of fact and material omissions are generally frowned upon.  So Larry Joe Davis sued.  What is Avvo thinking?  According to its Mr. Davis’ free Avvo Profile, which includes an editorial Avvo Rating of 3.7 “Caution,” is impacted by the fact that he was reprimanded and placed on probation by the Florida Bar in 2007 after twice being found guilty of willfully refusing to pay court-ordered child support, failing to appear for his court dates and willfully obstructing the Bar’s disciplinary process.

Oh, Larry Joe, you nasty miscreant.  You didn’t mention anything about a reprimand and being on probation by the Florida Bar.  Or did you?

Davis said he contacted Avvo and that initially his ranking on the site improved. But he says the details in his listing did not change. When he decided he had had enough and tried to delist himself, he says, his rating declined into the “caution” category.

While his Avvo profile at the moment seems pretty clear, it’s hard to say what it looked like before Larry Joe get angry.  Did Avvo retaliate against him?  Did Avvo dig a little deeper and find out that there was some additional information that needed to be addressed in his profile?  Who’s got transparency on their side?

If I had to take a wild guess about such things, I would tend to go with Avvo.  My experience is that they aren’t out to wreak havoc with the legal world, upon which they depend for their bread and butter.  If it was simply a matter of correcting an erroneous profile, I can’t imagine any reason they wouldn’t be happy to comply. 

Really, it’s no skin off their nose, not to mention that it’s all fairly easy to change by any lawyer who dedicates 47 seconds to cleaning up the mess.  Sure, Davis is right that it requires some degree of personal involvement by the lawyer to get things right, and it’s really not the victim’s duty to clean up the mess of the attacker, but then there’s a bit of a glitch in Larry Joe’s story in the first place.

Davis said he found out about the erroneous listing when he a potential client contacted him about an employment law matter. 

He says the woman told him he was he listed as an employment law attorney, and that he was lowly rated. She told him she had called higher-rated attorneys but none had returned her calls, Davis says. He says she told him she finally called him, believing that as a low-rated attorney, he’d be more eager for work and more likely to return her call.

So if this incredibly low rating and caution came only after Larry Joe complained about Avvo, but he first learned about Avvo from some gal who went to him because he had a god-awful crappy rating and would be more appreciative of her call then, say, good lawyers, we’ve got a bit of a conflict in Larry Joe’s story.

So how do we explain Larry Joe’s potential confusion?

Davis, who is representing himself, seeks punitive damages for libel.

Davis is representing himself.  Well, thanks for that clarification.  Carry on, Larry Joe.