AVVO Making Trouble Again, This Time in DC
Excerpted from the March 9, 2009 Washington Post:
[Note: AVVO, the controversial lawyer directory, is up to its tricks again, this time trying to impose directory listings on 90,000 lawyers in Washington, DC. The District of Columbia Bar wants AVVO to cease and desist, arguing that posting information about Washington lawyers for commercial purposes violates copyright laws and privacy rights. ]
It's not too fond of the feature that allows consumers to rate a lawyer, either.
"This has nothing to do with obstructing access to information," said the bar's spokeswoman, Cynthia Kuhn. "It has to do with a commercial company taking this information without authorization and in some cases perpetuating misinformation" by not updating the data frequently enough.
Avvo.com, the site posting the profiles, says it's simply using public data to help consumers find lawyers and their track records.
"There's no reason why lawyer-licensing records should be treated any differently than records for any other profession," said Joshua King, general counsel for the Seattle start-up. "The bar doesn't like the fact that the information is out of its control."
The dispute is the latest in an escalating debate over how private Web sites can use public information. It also underscores the tension around a growing number of sites that allow clients to publicly critique any professional, from doctors to plumbers.
For example, a dentist and a chiropractor in California recently sued patients who posted negative reviews of them on Yelp.com, a consumer review site. In separate suits, they said the reviews were false.
Some school systems have blocked the site RateMyTeachers.com from campus computers in response to less-than-positive notes posted by students, and law enforcement groups have voiced concern about RateACop.com, a year-old site on which users can leave comments about police officers.
Days after its 2007 debut, two Seattle lawyers sued Avvo, saying that the ranking system was flawed and that it allowed accomplished lawyers to score lower than those with disciplinary sanctions. The suit was dismissed by a federal judge, citing First Amendment rights.
Review sites often skew toward negative ratings, said Michael Fertik, chief executive of Reputation Defender, an group that advocates for online privacy.
"Some of the sites that began as restaurant review sites are becoming repositories for professional reviews, as well," he said. "Now five negative reviews are reducing their client growth by half, even though there's not enough data on these review sites to get good results."
Avvo lists lawyers licensed in the District, including the number of years in practice, disciplinary history, and ratings on a scale of one to 10. The site also lists lawyers in 22 other states, including Maryland. Virginia lawyers are not yet on the site.
Kuhn said the bar's members alerted it to Avvo's directory last year. In a Jan. 27 letter, the association demanded that Avvo "immediately remove the improperly acquired information regarding members." If Avvo does not comply, the letter said the bar would "pursue any and all available remedies."
Avvo founder Mark Britton, who is licensed to practice law in the District, said the site does not remove profiles, although lawyers can modify or add information and appeal reviews they consider unfair or untrue. Avvo will delete personal information, such as home addresses, upon request.
But some local lawyers say Avvo's profiles and ratings can be misleading. And Avvo profiles often appear high in the list of search results as consumers increasingly turn to the Web to find bankruptcy, foreclosure and divorce lawyers.
"I'm not trying to hide from anyone, but if people want to find me, they can look me up through the bar," said Bruce Familant, who is licensed in the District and Michigan, but not in Virginia, where he owns a home. He was upset that he was listed on the site.
"That's a privacy issue," Familant said. "I don't want people soliciting me."
Joseph Cerroni of Annandale said he is considering filing a suit against Avvo unless it corrects information on his profile, which says he has been cited for professional misconduct.
"That was resolved years ago, but the site makes no reference of that," he said. "Either put in all the information, or take it out completely."
These people need to be removed from the internet. This is a marketing scheme. They posted a negative review from someone I had never represented and then refused to provide proof this person was a former client. They did agree that if I had some of my real clients submit reviews, they would push the false review further down the list. What a scam. These people are a fraud.
I just wanted to make it clear that when I say "these people" I am referring to the Avvo website personnel. It appears obvious from their website that not many people post there and I would suspect that not many people pay attention to their website anyway. Still have not figured out how they are shaking people down for sponsorship of their shoddy and deceptive practices.