« Scooter Libby Gets 30 Months |
Main
| More Reaction to Avvo's Lawyer Ratings »
Avvo Launches With Mixed Ratings for Its Lawyer Ratings
As Kevin O'Keefe shared yesterday, Avvo is a new service that helps consumers find and choose an attorney, in part through use of Avvo's comprehensive attorney listings and "mathematical ratings system." Many in the industry are watching Avvo closely, because its managed to keep its product under stealth wraps for 16 months and because the company has received substantial VC funding. But as this article, Online rating system puts attorneys in the hot seat (Seattle PI.com, 6/5/07), shows, Avvo's ranking system is generating mixed reviews from attorneys.
Avvo's goal is simple: to provide a way for consumers to choose attorneys. And as Avvo's CEO Mark Britton describes, Avvo intends to distinguish itself from existing online directories and bar association listings by (1) creating an "established brand" that consumers can rely on to choose a lawyer and (2) by using a "mathematical model" based on information culled from attorneys' Web sites, state bar associations and other databases to determine which lawyers are best. And at first blush, Avvo is potentially useful for attorneys, because it doesn't charge for listings (at least now) and has an easy, online interface for lawyers to update their listing.
Naturally, lawyers are already arguing over the rankings. According to the Seattle PI.com article, one lawyer, Seattle criminal defense attorney John Henry Browne, a criminal defense attorney with 35 years of experience and who's taught at University of Washington, received only a 3.7 rating. Other prominent Seattle lawyers scored in the 6 and 7 range.
I gave Avvo a test run myself and came up with two listings, of a 6.3 and a 6.4, putting me on par with David Boies. But I also ran a search on a colleague of mine, a floundering solo who's had several bar complaints filed against him (which were eventually dismissed): He too achieved the same ranking.
I spoke with other colleagues as well. One, a recognized expert in his field (well, he's paid $300 an hour for expert testimony on the topic) ranked in the 5's, because he's a relatively junior attorney. Another colleague boosted her ranking to a perfect 10 by adding all of her credentials to her listing (at least in her case, the perfect 10 is well deserved!). I don't have a problem with sites that rank attorneys, but if Avvo is going to hold itself out as a "gold standard" for ranking, it either needs to straighten out the scoring system or clarify how the rankings are calculated.
There are other potential issues that I foresee relating to Avvo as well. For example, Avvo allows lawyers to include client testimonials, but some state bars prohibit lawyers from using testimonials. Avvo needs to point that out, or some clients might turn away from lawyers without testimonials, figuring that they're subpar, when in reality, they're just complying with their bar regulations. And of course, Avvo is potentially susceptible to gamesmanship, for example, where attorneys ask their law firm colleagues to all provide glowing testimonials of their service.
I think Avvo would potentially be more useful if it established a list of criteria that consumers should look for in hiring lawyers rather than concocting a ratings system. By putting together a list, consumers could examine an attorney's listing, vist the Web site and make a decision about whom to hire. Moreover, the ranking system may turn off well-qualified lawyers and deter them from listing an extensive profile, thereby reducing participation.
I see great value to aggregating attorney listings and making them available to the public. The more information that can be provided, the better. But once the information is out there and consumers have guidelines on what to look for, let them make the hiring decision themselves, free of a numerical ranking system, which, at least right now, doesn't work very well.
Update: My colleague Bob Ambrogi has this extensive commentary on Avvo at his Law Sites Blog .
Posted by Carolyn Elefant on June 5, 2007 at 02:21 PM | Permalink
| Comments (10)
Comments
Carolyn -- Good post. One other problem for avvo is that they list "specialties" -- a no no, at least here in New York.
Posted by: Alex Simpson | Jun 5, 2007 2:35:42 PM
Agreed, good to know. Do you think this "service," as skewed as it is, is attempting to fill the vacuum created by attorney attitudes about advertising as well as bar rules? With the rise of the internet, even transactional attorneys can be tracked through their deals like trial lawyers can be tracked through their trials, but results are verboten in attorney issued public information. Results count, to most clients, especially those that are referred by a lawyer.
Posted by: Rod Heggy | Jun 5, 2007 4:14:55 PM
Do you dislike the idea of being rated by the people who hire you? Don't you think people were already doing that?
Do you feel threatened by the prospect of public scrutiny? Don't you think that you were being talked about anyway?
How did you choose your mechanic? What about your builder? Are we so different that we cannot stand up to some good old fashioned competition?
As an MBA turned entrepreneur turned Lawyer, I am stunned. I spent years learning about how competition shaped our lives, weeding out inefficient competitors, rewarding service and quality with success, and raising everyone's standard of living. Then I became a Lawyer and found out that we are so threatened by the prospect of competition that we build walls to keep others off our turf. We had this coming and you know it.
OPEC could take lessens from us: what we belong to is a cartel, not a profession. Look at how we are opaque to public scrutiny, impenetrable to questions and, for good measure, hostile to each other. Reminds me of this story:
The Devil took a Lawyer to Hell and showed him a pit where bad Doctors were kept, with a steel grate to keep them in. Same with CPA's. Same with the Priests and so on. Then the Devil showed the Lawyer a pit without bars; the Lawyer peered down into the pit and asked why there was no steel grate over the pit. Then Devil just smiled and said 'Those are Lawyers. If one looks like he might reach the top the others pull him back down.'
Posted by: m hedayat | Jun 5, 2007 9:34:51 PM
You have nailed it. The biggest problem with the site is that it is easy for attorneys to juice it by adding to it. I started the day at 8.7 and then added my various publications and speaking engagements and, voila, I went to a 10.0, ranking me above the acknowledged absolute best trial lawyer in our state.
Posted by: China Law Blog | Jun 6, 2007 12:52:17 AM
Actually, Avvo does provide information on how to hire a lawyer. If you click on the "how it works" tab, you will see "Avvo Guide Overview" in the left sidebar, and you will also see "Check out our 3-Step Guide to Choosing a Lawyer" under How to Get Started in the right sidebar. Perhaps they should make "How to Choose a Lawyer" one of the main top-of-the-page navigation choices.
Posted by: Lisa Solomon | Jun 6, 2007 6:05:41 AM
Actually, if you read my post carefully, I do not have a problem with posting information on lawyers. I have some concerns about clients posting testimonials, yes, because sometimes clients confuse outcomes with attorney skill, and may criticize an attorney for a poor result when the facts dictated that result. However, I also believe that intelligent clients seeking attorneys can discern between appropriate criticisms in making hiring decisions.
My gripe about Avvo concerns the alleged "mathematical ranking" only. The ranking misleads consumers, because it suggests that it was accomplished through some type of formula and thus, is an objective and superior standard. And that is not the case. If you read the reviews, many lawyers have discovered that colleagues who've been on the verge of bar suspensions receive the same rankings at high profile lawyers. Or that younger attorneys with less experience de facto receive lower rankings, even though bar studies show that the bulk of malpractice actions and grievances are filed against lawyers with 8-15 years of experience. If newbies aren't typically grieved, why should their lack of experience warrant them a downgrade?
I knew that when I wrote this critique that I'd be vulnerable to this kind of "lawyers don't want to be rated" argument." Believe me, I don't fear that - search me on Google anytime and you'll see that I have nothing to hide. But my post is not about LAWYERS. It's about what helps CONSUMERS. I do not think that a confusing numerical ranking helps consumers. Empowering them and educating them to make smart choices does help them - and the site should focus on that.
Posted by: Carolyn Elefant | Jun 6, 2007 6:16:52 AM
The "Ranking Formula" I believe too be the key issue. As noted by previous post(s), manipulating the system, easy. The intent value to consumers is?
Understanding the business model of extending service to the masses on paper has merit, delivering the value to this un-targeted audience will be the challenge.
Flip side, profile of potential user? The thought of gathering millions of "SHOPPERS" begs the question what they look for. Considering the profile, would the best provider actually want to be listed here?
The benefit AVVO is bringing to the market reflects what the other current services are not doing with fees attorneys pay to "subscribe" you would expect better results. Most list service providers by who paid the most. Now if GE-Office of Corporate Counsel uses AVVO in support of "Outside Counsel"
AVVO makes the market talk. And we all know when marketing legal services NEW YORK WILL HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY AND SAY THEY WILL. For the time being we already have way to many "Need a Lawyer" sites. AVVO has the brass they will succeed at levels no others have.
From a business point, they make money how? Free, that famous four letter word, Legal services is not Free
Posted by: John Feeney | Jun 6, 2007 10:59:42 AM
Carolyn,
Only a great fool would choose a lawyer based on a numerical rating provided by a proprietary black-box algorithm.
Fortunately for avvo, there are a great many great fools looking for lawyers.
Mark "9.8/10" Bennett.
Posted by: Mark Bennett | Jun 6, 2007 4:11:55 PM
Carolyn,
Only a great fool would choose a website based on a numerical rating provided by a proprietary Google black-box algorithm.
Fortunately for Google, there are a great many great fools looking for websites.
Posted by: anony mouse | Jun 9, 2007 3:58:00 PM
At the risk of sounding like shameless self-promotion, we feel our new system addresses many of the concerns expressed in this post and the comments to the post.
Neil Sandhu
CEO, HireTrade
Posted by: Neil Sandhu | Oct 5, 2007 8:44:30 AM
Post a comment