Perhaps the least persuasive argument offered in defense of allegations of rape against Bill Cosby is that he’s never been convicted. Sure, no one gets convicted until they’re convicted. Yet, this is the explanation offered by Avvo General Counsel and Chief Marketeer Josh King in explanation of why Avvo’s latest scheme, imaginatively called Avvo Legal Services, is perfectly ethical.
Avvo has designed Legal Services with the ethical obligations of lawyers in mind. Avvo Legal Services has a similar structure to Avvo Advisor, which has been operating in many states since October 2014 without complaints. And, like Avvo Advisor, we believe Avvo Legal Services does not violate any ethics rules.
My bet is that Avvo designed Legal Services to make money, because Avvo is a business and if it doesn’t make money, my buddies in Seattle will have to get real jobs. As for Avvo Advisor, the situation is a bit different, given that the putative client and lawyer both know going in that there is only $39 at stake for some cheap talk, no matter what.
Fee splits are not inherently unethical. They only become a problem if the split creates a situation that may compromise a lawyer’s professional independence of judgment. We believe that Avvo Legal Services fees, like credit card fees, would involve the sort of technical fee split that would not create such a potential for compromise. Nonetheless, we have tried to keep things simple and clear by making the per-service marketing fee a separate charge.
Calling a horse a cow doesn’t mean you can milk it, and unlike Avvo Advisor, this new angle involves Avvo selling fixed fee legal services at varying prices, with commensurately varying “marketing fees” taken out. Legitimate marketing fees would be the same regardless of what the fee for services was, and that ain’t what’s happening here.
Not that much of anybody cares these days. Lawyer referral scams have been happening for years, and it’s surprising that Avvo decided to dirty-up its brand by wallowing in the gutter. But where there’s money to be made, businesses appear.
The scheme revolves around a few practice areas, where basic services are offered at fixed rates, and lawyers on Avvo can sign up to participate. As it requires the lawyers take cases by text message, those of us over 12 years of age are unlikely to leap into the mix. That’s generally not a problem, as the fees offered fall below what any experienced lawyer who doesn’t run a mill would accept.*
- Document review services: $199 client payment, $50 marketing fee.
- Start a single-member LLC: $595 client payment, $125 marketing fee.
- Uncontested divorce: $995 client payment, $200 marketing fee.
- Green card application: $2,995 client payment, $400 marketing fee.
So you’re hungry and the phone is silent, and Avvo isn’t nearly as god-awful as the obnoxious kid who calls you three times a day asking if you can find time in your busy schedule to take a billion dollar case, cuz they got tons of them. For a reasonable fee. But when the client calls for the 25th time, the first day; the story he told you up front ends up being total malarkey; the shit hits the fan as it so often does, the quick, dirty and cheap inexpensive fee becomes a chokehold ripe for anger, screaming, a grievance or a loss leader. And you didn’t get into this gig to lose money.
Or, if your mill is well-oiled, perhaps you can make some money by cranking out routine work and, should things go south, closing your eyes and screaming “lalalala” at the top of your lungs. It works for some lawyers.
But then, criminal law is not among the practice areas promoted on the front page of Avvo’s scheme. They’ve got business, family and immigration, all of which appear geared toward filling out forms. While crim law has long tended to be an up-front fixed fee practice, it seems inconceivable that anyone would sign on without an assessment of the details of the case. If they offer DUI defense for $999, would that cover trial for the defendant with 37 priors on his rap sheet? And yet, of the three lawyers willing to put their names, faces and reputations at risk by giving their testimonials, this one caught my eye:
Jason Beahm
DUI and Criminal Defense lawyer
Avvo Legal Services have changed the way that I think about providing legal services. I am now able to maximize my time by providing short paid consultations to clients on the go, often having them retain my firm for additional services later. It has revolutionized my practice.
Much as I hate to be a wet blanket at Avvo’s new beach party, but it’s slightly unconvincing that this new scheme has “revolutionized” his practice before it even rolled out. And if it starts out with a marketing lie, its ethics opinion, which is slightly self-serving as well, is just a wee bit underwhelming.
But unlike its competitors in the lawyer referral space, Avvo has way more cred, and way more money, and way more people who believe that it’s the real deal. Where so many others have failed, Avvo may have the juice to pull this off.
All of which gives rise to a very sad and unfortunate question, will this suck the opportunity out of the room for new lawyers who need business to rise above the cheapest possible fees? Does this mean that the new lawyer will have no choice but to split fees with Avvo if he wants to have something better to do than play Spider Solitaire all day?
And will somebody, someday, find it worthwhile to grieve this fee-splitting scheme and put an ignominious end to Josh’s “we ain’t been convicted yet” ethics pitch? As the race to the bottom continues, we’ll see. After all, trying and failing is all part of the entrepreneurial game.
And if you want a criminal defense for $999, don’t call me. But then, I won’t be on the list of available lawyers, if for no other reason than I’m not splitting fees with Avvo. Sorry, Josh.
*Yes, you are a wonderful lawyer and find these fees totally reasonable in the ordinary course. You’re the ginchiest. Spare us the bullshit.
H/T Bob Ambrogi
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In addition, if Avvo is merely a marketer and not providing legal services, the emails with sensitive information that it receives are not subject to the attorney-client privilege.
No more than the dreaded Avvo Answers, where people are induced to confess online in the hope of getting a free answer that will save them from life in prison.
Turk:
Shit, that’s one that I didn’t even think of. I blame a late night of practicing crooked poker moves and Lucha Underground.
When will the “In House Counsel” for these groups start actually being “counsel” and stop trying to “disrupt” shit by twisting the Model Rules of Ethics to suit the flavor of the month?
I suspect never. But I’m turning into a miserable bastard these days because the Jedi Council demands that reason and logic trump all else, the client comes first, and that technology be damned, the Rules are always followed and followed by erring on the side of caution.
Stop bitching! If you need some money you should write the guy who created Strong Bad (the Web comic series) and convince him to sue Lucha Underground for copyright infringement of Strong Bad’s signiture wrestler’s mask.
Better hurry up before Strong Bad discovers Avvo.
Sometimes I wish I had a clue what you were talking about. This is not one of those times.
Strong Bad:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/83/Strong_Bad.png
Lucha Underground:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Lucha_Underground_Logo.jpg
Avvo:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Avvo_logo.png/440px-Avvo_logo.png
Just trying to expand CLS’s mind a little more while figuring out a way to gently piss him off. Someone has to figure out a way to stop him for being so “thankful” for this that or the other thing in every comment he leaves. Even under his own posts.
That and I decided to take the day off so why not stick my nose in the middle of a comment thread and remind you that you should write more posts about why everyone should have a Lawyer before they need one and why you should never have a lawyer who doesn’t know when to get you in touch with the lawyer you need depending on the circumstances.
It’s a twofer with the extra added bonus of being able to bring up Strong Bad. As I wouldn’t want the kids in your audience to miss out on some of the trail blazing original talents of the web comic series genre.
P.S. no one answers emails better that Strong Bad.
In fact, SJ or fault lines could even do its very very own impression of Strong Bad Emails to pile on Avvo a little bit more and as a relief valve.
You could even have a contest to figure out a cleaver name for the “I get emails” segment.
Have a good weekend. February is coming.
Unfortunately Avvo Advisor isn’t the only hand in the game. This looks to be the big con in the online legal services world at the moment, with several companies going to “DIY” or “A La Carte” services though “partner channels.”
It’s sold as a “return on investment” very similar to the line fed by Mr. Beahm (who I’m sure is a real, live attorney and in no way shape or form a “worked” profile and testimony).
Most of these other folks are actually charging flat fees up front for their “marketing.”
As an old trial hound said recently regarding use of free email services for attorney-client conversations through one of these damn CLEs we have to sit through each year, “This is going to be part of a formal ethics opinion one day, and I’m damn sure not going to be a part of it.”
As noted in the post, there have been tons of players in the lawyer referral biz, and I’ve taken many to task over the years. My all-time favorite is campus lawyer, because who doesn’t love a scam that takes advantage of kids?
A flat fee up front has the virtue of not being contingent on the amount paid for legal services, which would seem to be the obvious aspect that implicates fee-splitting. But that said, they also claim to have vetted lawyers for their mad legal skillz, which is an utter lie. Deception is deception, whether we do it directly or pay others to lie for us. As the Turk explained long ago, outsource your marketing and you outsource your ethics. Still true.
SHG:
In addition to violating Ethics rules, this would seem to violate two of the Five Hustler’s Rules of Ethics:
1. Never cheat an honest man.
2. Don’t take more than they can afford.
Con artists pride themselves on the ability to take from someone who has the questionable morals to sign on for a “scam” or a “con.” Said artists get away with it because most cons are designed to exploit someone’s greed or other moral failing, and if you reported your loss to the appropriate authorities it would implicate you directly in questionable activity.
Second, you don’t want to completely “rob” a mark, you want to take enough to get you to the next stop on your respective circuit as a con artist. That’s why you don’t take more than they can afford. You want them to keep coming back.
As noted in your above post, this venture carries with it the potential to cheat honest attorneys who are hungry, no phones ringing, and need the dough to feed their families. The fee splitting issue could potentially take those who buy into the con more than they can afford and more.
Therefore, in the realm of the rogue, Avvo Legal Services gets a one star rating. Would not recommend. Would not use again.
Thank you for explaining how cons work. I can’t tell you fortunate I am to have a young lawyer willing to explain such things to me. You are very kind.
> Never cheat an honest man.
Does Avvo do that directly? Arguably, they cheat the lawyers who are [blank] enough to use them, and it’s then up to those lawyers whether or not they cheat the customers.
From Avvo:
For example, a lawyer who successfully completes 3 $149 document review services in the month of February will see 2 separate transactions on their bank statement in March: a deposit of $447 ($149/service x 3 services) and a withdrawal of $120 ($40 marketing fee/service x 3 services).
Holy shit. Three “successful” document reviews, a/k/a “three complete rewrites of shitty documents off of the internet.” Three conflict checks. Three sets of stuff to retain for malpractice reasons. Three accounting entries. Three retainer letters and ‘matter close’ letters. All for a whopping $327.
“We’re losing money on every transaction, sir. But the volume is high!”
I think you need more personal information to keep writing such articles. Please sign up and let us know what happens.
I considered doing that with Avvo Advisor, but it requires texts. I don’t text (and I have no clue what the emojis mean).
Emojis are ☢
I am sort of surprised that some magazine hasn’t run an expose. It would make for an interesting read.
1) Spend a bit of time to draft a few contracts which are known to be atrocious.
2) Spend a bit of time setting up some scenarios which are known to be problematic or filled with liability traps (easy to do civilly.)
3) Sign up and submit them to Avvo and see what happens.
4) Write on it.
I bet someone of your stature could get one of the monthlies to fund and publish it. You would have no problem getting helpers to write contracts/scenarios.
But the Avvo guys are my pals. I would never do that to Mark and Josh. And it’s very nice of Mark to send me wine.
Can’t comment on the signing up, but I can say that I contacted the Chief Ethics Counsel of the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility regarding this particular venture Avvo’s launched.
When I spoke with Ms. Chastain, she referred to the Avvo Legal Services as “the damnedest thing [she’d] ever heard of” and cautioned against any business “referring” clients to attorneys that weren’t licensed to do so in Tennessee.
After our conversation, she attempted to sign up and register and was ejected in short order.
I have recently received an email from Ms. Chastain that notes Avvo is not a registered entity licensed to refer clients to attorneys in the Volunteer State.
Anybody who is looking into this as an attorney needs to promptly check in with their Board and ask whether Avvo is registered in their state, otherwise it’s a violation of Ethics rules to do business with them, no matter how much Avvo “believes” it to be otherwise.
The New Normal in the Ethics Free Zone. Welcome.
> All for a whopping $327
The green card fees seem an order of magnitude higher. Is that because those are normally paid by corporations, or is it just enough money to assuage the guilt (and extra phone calls and emails) of the lawyer who won’t actually be able to get the green card, or have they really gotten that much more complicated since I got my wife’s 30 years ago?
Did EH say something to make you think he was an immigration lawyer and particularly knowledgeable about green cards?
Well, duh — green card applications are “documents”, right?
If I were to point out you can indeed milk a horse, would that be considered pedantry or just perverse?
You are a sick and twisted person. Just sayin’.
See your horse and raise….
From “Meet the Parents:”
Jack: You must’ve had vegetables fresher than that, growing up on a farm, Greg.
Pam: Dad, uh, Greg grew up in Detroit.
Jack: He told me he grew up on a farm.
Dina: Do they have many farms in Detroit?
Greg: No, Dina, no, not a lot. In fact, Jack, I should clarify this. I didn’t actually grow up… on a farm per se. The house we grew up in was originally erected…in the early Dutch farm, colonial style. So that, plus we had a lot of pets–
Jack: Which one did you milk then?
Pam: Dad!
Jack: Honey, he said he pumped milk. What have you ever milked?
Greg: A cat.
Pam: A cat?
Greg: I milked a cat once. You wanna hear a story?
Jack: Sure.
Greg: My sister had a cat, and the cat birthed a litter of kittens. Must’ve been 8 of them, and there was this one little runt… this little sweet little… little-engine-that-could runt… who wanted to get up there and couldn’t really get access to the– to the– to the– to the– to the teat.
Jack: Teat?
Pam: Dad.
Greg: What have you. I went in and just simply, you know, just– into a little saucer, then took the saucer and fed it to Geppetto– that’s what I named him.
Dina: I had– I had no idea you could milk a cat.
Greg: Oh, yeah, you can milk anything with nipples.
Jack: I have nipples, Greg. Could you milk me?
You just can’t find this level of commentary in most places.
I think the program squarely violates the fee splitting prohibition.
I think Avvo has built enough cred in the profession (I mean what state bar leader can’t love Mark Britton? He’s a lawyer, mild mannered, enjoys great wine, and makes a lot of sense – especially after the wine) to make this attempt.
Lawyers (most) look at the Rules and say, “I don’t think I can do this.” Avvo is not a lawyer. Avvo looks at the Rules and says, “fuck that,” let’s see if this works.”
What’s the downside? That they shut down the program and try something else?
Avvo takes the “cold, dead, hand” approach.”
Lawyers find themselves cold and dead before the fight ends.
I love Mark too. Need more of that Washington State wine, Mark. Obviously, so does Tannebaum.
The fee-splitting in this would, I believe, constitute a straight-up violation of my state’s ethics rules. Yet I see no evidence of an attempt to correct or exclude a Maryland ethics violation for my sisters or brothers in the Maryland Bar.
Sometimes Admiral Ackbar is right; it’s a trap, especially since the “marketing fees” are self-evidently proportional to fees charged, not services rendered. My state’s Bar Counsel Glenn Grossman not only could have a field day with this, but should.
Avvo’s mouthpiece’s claims that it’s only the professional independence of an attorney that’s at stake is wrong; an attorney puts other clients’ cases at risk if he jeopardizes his own law license and good standing at risk by the flat violation of black-letter ethics rules, which Avvo has invited my state’s attorneys to do without so much as an attempt to clear it with Bar Counsel in writing, the securement of an advisory ethics opinion from my state’s voluntary Bar or a declaratory judgment in a competent court.