Raise your hand if you had “two days” in the “How long before Avvo ran into legal difficulties?” pool. According to the Seattle Times’ blog, on June 7 — just two days after Avvo publicly launched as a lawyer rating service — a local criminal defense lawyer, John Henry Browne, threw the lawyer’s equivalent of a temper tantrum. An excerpt from his demand letter to Avvo:
I wanted to notify you that I have retained counsel and will be exploring a lawsuit against your corporation for the ridiculously low rating you gave my law practice and the practice of other well-known and competent attorneys. We have yet to determine whether it will be a class action lawsuit or not. However, your rating and the attendant publicity has damaged my law practice and will continue to do so. In an effort to limit damages, I request that you remove your profile of me from your website immediately.
You’ve got to love the claim that his law practice was damaged in a total of two days. It’s also questionable as to whether he has a cause of action in any case; Google regularly gets sued by those who want their websites rated higher, and regularly wins these suits (see, e.g., Mar. 1, Mar. 23, Nov. 2002.) These are likely constitutionally protected opinions, although it’s obviously early to judge the merits of a lawsuit we haven’t even seen about a website whose methods are unclear.
We first mentioned Avvo on June 8. In the comments, Ted noted some problems with his ratings under Avvo’s system — but surprisingly, did not threaten to file a lawsuit. (Full disclosure: Avvo apparently hasn’t yet figured out that I’m a lawyer. But I assure you that the state of New Jersey extracts annual dues from me right on schedule.)
7 Comments
Avvo has to fix a number of problems. One of the most glaring problems is a lawyer cannot claim their profile until they provide a credit card to “verify” their identity.
I think that I’m like many people and refuse to give out my credit card information, even though they insist it won’t be charged. So my profile sits there….and it is incorrect.
Also, the rating system is too basic since it is primarily based upon time and disciplinary record. I’m a seven year attorney, but I have more trial experience than most 10-20 year lawyers. Yet, my rating is drug down by my “inexperience”.
If I ran Avvo, I’d drop his rating 1 point for whining.
I’m a big fan, even though it’s likely that I will never use this tool. Few things satisfy me more than watching free enterprise punish scoundrels and reward the otherwise; even if it’s far from perfect.
Todd:
The problem is that, as near as I can tell, Avvo doesn’t do an “imperfect” job, so much as a completely inscrutable job. I’m ranked on the Avvo site as 6.20/good. But only God knows what that means or on what basis my rating is founded.
Based on my Avvo profile, it appears that the site has no more information on me other than that: (a) I’ve been licensed for almost 5 years and (b) have no discliplinary history. Obviously, that’s not much of a basis for assessing anything. The site could be understating or overstating my competence. How would anyone know?
What does it mean to be “good?” What exactly am I good at? Avvo apparently doesn’t know, as the site openly admits that 100% of my practice area is unknown (i.e., the folks who operate the site do not even know what sort of law I practice).
The site and/or its ratings also appear to be susceptible to “gaming,” as there is a section for peer endorsements. As a member of a medium- to large-sized firm, I am sure I could find plenty of folks to give me glowing endorsements. It’s surely in their interest to do so, though such incestuous endorsements have no promise of objectivity or accuracy. In the same vein, even poor lawyers likely have colleagues who would be willing to lend an endorsement.
In short, a cursory look at Avvo does not inspire much confidence. Perhaps it will improve over time. But its very premise (i.e., that lawyers can be comparatively rated via a mathematical formula) is bound to produce idiosyncratic results.
As an aside, I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a business model more likely to result in repeated litigation. Being that Avvo esteems me as being a “good” lawyer, perhaps it will hire me to defend them . . . .
This is hardly personal but if AVVO makes it off the launch pad, which is unlikely (IMO), it will be a fine service such as Angie’s List-if you have that in your city. While I certainly appreciate intellectual debate, I think you’re really whining on this one. If you do a job job, and try to be the best you know how, while you will encounter some negatives, you’re likely to do well with a device of this nature, at least in theory.
Todd:
I wasn’t complaining about my rating per se. I merely noted that: (a) there isn’t much factual basis for it one way or the other; (b) as a result, Avvo could be under- or overrating me; and (c) those who view the site have no way of knowing if either is the case. In short, my point was that my rating doesn’t actually seem to convey any meaningful information to potential consumers.
On reflection, however, I would be fully justified in “whining,” as you so politely put it, about my rating. Let’s take a concrete example. Compare me with New York attorney Lynne Feltham Stewart. Her rating as of 11:00 a.m on June 15, 2007 is 6.5. My Avvo rating is 6.2. Both ratings fall within the category of “good.”
You might recognize Ms. Stewart’s name, being that she was indicted and convicted by the U.S. Government for assisting terrorist organizations and making false statements. She has been stricken from the NY bar as a result. The opinion striking her name from the NY bar also notes her past disciplinary history, none of which is noted on the Avvo site.
Despite these very public facts, Ms. Stewart has a higher ranking than me. Even funnier, Avvo gives Ms. Stewart five out of five stars for “professional conduct.” To characterize Avvo as “far from perfect” seems like a bit of an understatement.
Steve Berman (one of the best in the country and one who has a very high rating on the site) is now going after this most horrid of ventures. How could they possibly not see that applying such a subjective and coercive system to professionals (especially lawyers of all people) would lead to nothing but difficulty? Easy – ad dollars.
They are finished.