U.S. District Chief Judge Robert S. Lasnik in Seattle, WA, declared in a 10-page opinion that lawyer ratings are “nonsense” and “ludicrous.” Specifically criticizing Avvo, the judge said, “the rating itself cannot be proved true of false.” John Henry Brown v. Avvo, Inc., No. C07-0920RSL (Dec. 18, 2007). The judge railed against Avvo, adding, “Consumers who were misled by the information and ratings provided by Avvo are the direct victims of the alleged wrongdoing.”
Lawyer ratings have proliferated in recent years. The judge reserved special scorn for Lawdragon, which ranks the 500 “leading” judges in the US. “What can one say about such nonsense? As my parents would tell me when I informed them of some of my amazing achievements as a child in Staten Island, NY, ‘that and five cents will get you a ride on the ferry,’” he wrote.
The accuracy of Super Lawyers was also blasted. The judge recalled imposing $40,000 in fines against a “supposedly ‘Super Lawyer’” for engaging in unreasonable and vexatious litigation tactics. Despite the fines, the lawyer was re-elected a Super Lawyer.
For the rest of the article, visit the LawMarketing Portal.
Larry:
I labor to respond to this incredibly poorly researched and highly biased blog post. You have taken a federal court decision DISMISSING a case against Avvo and attempted to twist it into something negative. Would the fact that you are attempting to launch JD Supra, a competitor to Avvo's™ Track Record, have anything to do with the ferociousness of your negative commentary?
Irrespective of your intentions, the selective quotes you pull from Judge Lasnik's decision are so misleading that any judge would find them to be the 'nonsense.' Let me offer the following thoughts to correct the record:
You claim that the judge is "specifically criticizing" Avvo by saying 'the rating itself cannot be proved true or false.' Let us add a little more responsibility to this analysis and look at the entire quote: Citing Ninth Circuit precedent, Judge Lasnik says that a key part of protecting free speech is 'whether the statement in question is susceptible of being proved true or false.' Judge Lasnik says, '[D]efendants' rating is not only defensible, it is virtually impossible to prove wrong. Defendants fairly describe the nature of the information on which Avvo's ratings are based and make it clear that (a) there may be other relevant data that the rating does not consider and (b) the conversion of the available information into a number involves judgment, interpretation, and assessment. It is apparently defendants' view that a relatively recent admonition by the state disciplinary authority weighs heavily against Browne's experience and a generic attorney endorsement. One may disagree with defendants' evaluation of the underlying objective facts,*but the rating itself cannot be proved true or false*.' (Emphasis provided)
Similarly, you offer the following quote as evidence that the judge 'railed against Avvo': '*Consumers who were misled by the information* and ratings provided by Avvo are the direct victims of the alleged wrongdoing.' (Emphasis in original Bodine article) Again, you've shamelessly twisted this out of context. Let's look at the entire quote: In assessing whether two attorneys who did not like their Avvo Ratings could sue Avvo for their alleged damages, Judge Lasnik said, 'Despite the fact that a causal link can be alleged, a claim for damages will fail if the damages are too remote from the asserted cause. [Judge cites Ninth Circuit test for remoteness.] All three evaluative criteria suggest that the damages claimed by plaintiff Browne are so remote that they were not proximately caused by defendants' publication of the offending attorney profiles. *Consumers who were misled by the information and ratings provided by Avvo are the direct victims of the alleged wrongdoing* . . . Allowing attorneys who were not hired by consumers to seek damages would add unnecessary complexities to the claim.' (Emphasis provided).
Furthermore, as a former attorney I'm sure you're aware that the judge, in ruling on the motion to dismiss, must assume that all allegations made by the Plaintiff are true, including those of misleading information and ratings. And speaking of misleading, Larry, what you've done is pull two pieces of the Judge's legal analysis and attempted to twist them into some sort of judicial damnation of Avvo. I'm sure you knew better '"what possible reason do you have for deliberately propagating misinformation in this way?
And, finally, if you had done any homework on this one at all, you would have seen that, on December 24, 2007, the editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal wrote a very supportive piece of Avvo and the benefits it offers to the legal marketplace. I would certainly rely on the well-researched commentary of the Wall Street Journal rather than this self-interested stink bomb you dropped on your readers.
You can find a copy of the WSJ editorial, as well as a similar editorial from the Seattle Times, via Mark Britton's blog post entitled, 'Wall Street Journal and Seattle Times Editorials Support Avvo' at www.avvoblog.com.
Josh King
VP, General Counsel
Avvo, Inc..
Think this Judge has ever had the need to look for a lawyer when his house was being forcelosed on after losing a job or was being thrown out of a house with a few small kids as the victim of spousal abuse. Nope, he has no idea whether an Internet resource which includes personal info on lawyers, testimonials, answers to questions by the lawyer and more - all items I do not see on other websites - would help a consumer find a good lawyer.
Think this judge after hanging out a shingle after law school needed a place where consumers could share their opinions on how he did in representing them. Nope. He has never held a professional job in the private sector. He has no idea what it's like to pay the mortgage and the office overhead while respresenting consumers.
Shame on you Larry for using a cheap sound bite like this.
Only a small portion of Avvo's information on lawyers has to do with ratings. I didn't like the way they launched their site by including all lawyers whether they represented their consumers or not. That was a cheap PR stunt. But a website designed to help consumers pick a lawyer and lawyers who choose to represent consumers and small business people should be lauded.
Kevin,
I think it's noteworthy that a federal judge thinks that Avvo's ratings are worthless, and that's why I wrote about the overlooked parts of the judge's opinion. Of course the judge won't need Avvo personally, but it's newsworthy that he thinks Avvo doesn't help consumers.
Josh,
I included a link to the judge's opinion in my article, so that anyone can read the quoted sections. Anyone can see that he said what he said:
* Avvo's rating can't be proved true or false.
* Avvo misled consumers.
* Just like Hustler magazine, Avvo has the right to publish information that is worthless.