Amazon offers lawyer ratings
Sound off the wall that Amazon will be offering lawyer ratings alongside Martindale-Hubbell? It's been rumored around here in Seattle for years. Well, A9, an Amazon owned search engine, has launched in beta form its own yellow pages (Seattle search for optical) that, among a ton else, allows users to review and rate service providers.
Once you click on the results of your yellow pages search you can submit additional information about businesses displayed, including giving the business or service a review. Amazon user ratings will be a real value add compared to the yellow pages. I loved Amazon from the get go because I wanted to know what others like me thought of a book I was thinking of buying.
Martindale-Hubbell is working hard on its local search so as to provide greater value to its lawyers.com small and medium law firm customers. Expect them to improve their offering in that regard. At the same time, look for Amazon to give Martindale-Hubbell a run for their money in the ratings of lawyers for consumers and small business people.
Probably would have shocked leaders of Barnes & Noble and Borders if someone told them in 1995 that a stock broker named Jeff Bezos was going to sell books on the Internet and dwarf them in a few years. It should not shock anyone to think of Amazon being the source of ratings for small and medium sized law firms within a few years.
Kevin, Amazon is not alone in recognizing the need for ratings of professional services. Our own company, Ratingz Inc, was formed to build on the market success of RateMyProfessors.com, and extend our rating system for all sorts of services. One of our first sites is http://www.lawyerratingz.com
You might also be interested in adding your blog site to BlogRatingz.com!
LawyerRatingz.com is a farce - they are actively censoring valid ratings - don't bother to post there if you really want to rate a lawyer.
Lawyerratings isn't bad, but I use FatLaw. I think it gives a lot more information, and has more Attorneys listed. The ratings seem to be more open and sometimes brutaly honest, plus they show you the Attorneys address, website and phone. You can look at it here: http://fatlaw.us and see what you think
This site is an absolute sham and so are its owners. The owners remove and insert at whim. There is no fairness, no plan, just whoever pays them the most money. They are being investigated for pay off's and unfair dealings. The owners could not get a job until they started LAWYERRATINGZ. LAWYERRATINGZ.COM - Ratingz - John Swapceinski - Robert Nicholoson SHAM COMPANY OF LOSERS DOES NOT POST ALL RATINGZ TAKES OFF RATINGS OF CERTAIN PERSONS AND COMMENTS MADE BY DYSFUNCTIONAL PEOPLE Sunnyvale California
LAWYERRATINGZ.COM - Ratingz - John Swapceinski - Robert Nicholson, 645 Chesire Way
Sunnyvale, California, 94087
U.S.A.(address for lawsuits)
, This site should be sued. THE ADDRESS ABOVE IS THE CALIFORNIA ADDRESS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS OF RATINGZ, INC. File C2721780, filed 2-10-05. That is the master company of lawyerratingz.com
The two (2) owners were failures in school and started the site. Could not follow rules then and cannot follow them now. Waiting for a huge lawsuit to hit, but I am sure these 2 will do a bankruptcy to avoid payment of creditors. The owners take off the screen name of repeat posters to prevent the public from seeing that the same person is posting a rating about a doctor, lawyer, or real estate broker over and over. SITE DOES NOT VERIFY, UNFAIRLY TARGETING SMALL BUSINESSES AND WOMEN AND REMOVES RATINGS OF SOME AND ADDS TO OTHERS. No proof that the person was ever a patient of a doctor or client of a lawyer. The poster could be a nutty neighbor or an adverse party. WHAT A JOKE! SITE GIVES NUTS, DEADBEATS, AND THE UNEMPLOYED who have nothing to do with their time, their 30 seconds of fame. Boo! GIVES PUBLICITY TO THE CORRUPT.
State bar associations should find a way to shut down lawyer rating sites. In litigation, there is always one disgruntled party who would love to hurt the opposing attorney - this is especially true in family law matters. Without a mechanism to check whether someone is a client, or whether the person has posted more than one comment under multiple profiles (perhaps a single client who owes a large bill), the sites are an invitation to slander and of no benefit to the public.