Avvo bashing foolishness
Why does just the mention of Avvo get lawyers all worked up? (latest posts and comments here and here)
Based on the lawyer outrage about Avvo allowing consumers to comment on a lawyer's services, you'd think Avvo actually harmed someone looking for a meaningful way to pick a lawyer.
What's the danger in giving people more information in their attempt to choose a lawyer in a world that's been dominated by lawyer yellow page ads, sleazy TV advertising, and self-aggrandizing lawyer websites? If people want to use Avvo's lawyer directory which includes third party commentary on a lawyers services and ratings, they'll use it. If people do not believe Avvo is worthwhile, they'll choose not to use it.
I choose not to drive a Yugo. I wouldn't feel safe in such a small car next to a semi on the freeway. But I don't go around dissing Yugo telling the manufacturer their car is worthless and telling anyone who will listen to me that Yugo is just out to make money by selling worthless cars to the unknowing populous.
There are too many people in this country who believe people are too stupid to protect themselves. God forbid these poor souls who did not have the opportunity to go to law school decide to pick a lawyer in a method of their own choosing. We lawyers know better and we need to protect you from yourself.
Has any one asked the lawyers criticizing Avvo how much time they even spent on Avvo's website? Very little of the info provided in the completed lawyer profiles on Avvo has to do with the ratings causing all the lawyer outrage.
Much of the info provided on the Avvo lawyer profiles has to do with clients' and other lawyers' comments about their experience with the subject lawyer. That's good stuff. In a totally opaque industry, where else on the net do I get those types of third party comments about lawyers?
I didn't like Avvo at first. I found including all lawyers from 11 states in the directory, even many lawyers who would never take a consumer or small business client, a PR stunt. But the more I look at the profiles filling in on the site and the more I hear the shallow opinions as to why we must sink Avvo to the bottom of the sea, the more I like Avvo.
I should have expected Martindale-Hubbell to table forever my proposal to have consumers and small business people comment on lawyers and rate them on certain services related factors, but I never expected people who should have consumers' interests at heart to fight such a system.
Avvo execs are doing the right thing commenting on the Avvo dissing blog posts. But at the end of the day, Avvo is going to move on knowing if they create a service of value to consumers, their company will thrive. And it's not going to be lawyers who decide whether Avvo is of value, it will be consumers and small business people.
And a note to the Avvo nay-sayers. It's a well accepted start up philosophy that you should polarize people. When you create a service some people love, you can expect others to hate you. 'The goal is to catalyze passion -- pro or anti,' says Guy Kawasaki, Apple's first evangelist.
I'll refer you to my most recent in the comment section of my blog post:
http://susancartierliebel.typepad.com/build_a_solo_practice/2007/12/lawyer-rating-s.html#comments
Second, why is your opinion considered deep and those who oppose you or AVVO shallow? Legitimate criticisms 'bashing' and 'dissing' like a school yard fight? As far as your Yugo comparison, I have thousands of cars to choose from and numerous publications and websites to review. And, Kevin, it's just metal.
And the issue is and remains the algorithm used to rate lawyers. You claim those who are reviewing AVVO poorly feel the consumer is stupid? Not quite. That was AVVO's message..."We are going to shine a light into all the deep corners of the legal profession" because consumers are travelling blind in a deliberately opaque legal world confused and misled"...presuming they feel the way you do, that bus advertising is sleazy or a trusted friend's referral is inadequate. I think this message the legal profession is opaque is an incorrect or deliberately perpetuated assumption. And AVVO is operating on a false premise. (I've commented on this on my site, too.)
AVVO did a great job of branding themselves as a threat to lawyers. I didn't bring a lawsuit that garnered AVVO and any system that would propose to rate lawyers as 'ludicrous.'
Let AVVO be the premium aggregation service with all its other features of public commentary, profiles, etc. Toss the algorithm. I suspect you get rid of that and they will have an actual chance of getting lawyers interested in their site. After all, if lawyers don't participate in it in any meaningful way they can't succeed. And everyone knows this.
But the longer it takes them to acknowledge they made a mistake in its calculations and approach the harder it will be in the future to turn it around.
If you suggest criticism with valid points will make them work harder to prove their point and stick to their guns, that's not only not objective...it's bad business. If they want to ultimately win which is bringing a long-lived truly useful product to market and profit from it (no, profit is not a dirty word..I come from generations of entrepreneurs) they need to actually hear their critics, not just serve up the same tired dialogue.
Forget who is saying what they don't want to hear and ask yourself 'could there be something to what is being said?'
While I am neither an Avvo lover or hater, I find the comment suggesting that no one has been hurt by Avvo somewhat misleading. If Avvo serves the purpose it claims, then there are consumers out there selecting lawyers based upon Avvo. If this is true, then they are relying, to some extent, on Avvo ratings. If this is true, then they will select a lawyer with a higher rather than lower rating.
The lawyer with the lower rating will never know that I client picked someone else because of their rating, but will have been harmed if the rating was undeserved. Undeserved, in this context, goes beyond the relative merits of the Avvo algorithm, to the fact that Avvo does not measure (and cannot possibly measure) the skillsets of attorneys. They have no one to observe and assess a lawyer's ability to cross-examine a witness, or devise winning strategies. They create a number based upon questionable measures and assumptions, but it's all they can get so it's what they do.
So who is harmed? The attorney who lost a client because of dumb number, and a client who retained the wrong attorney because of a dumb number.
I agree with Kevin. Like it or not, Avvo is here to stay and compared to Martindale-Hubbell I think it is a dramatic improvement (and I say that despite the fact that my firm is rated AV by MH).
MH charged outrageous fees for the same type of information that Avvo now provides for free.
I like the social aspects of the Avvo site featuring client testimonials and peer endorsements.
Who can really argue with the fact that our clients are in the best position of all to judge the quality of our work? Client satisfaction should be of paramount concern to every attorney and any of us who recognize that fact should readily embrace Avvo as a great place for our happy clients to sing our praises. I have yet to educate my clients regarding Avvo (although I intend to in my next blog post and in my newsletter) and I have yet to draw any client testimonials in Avvo but I nonetheless think it is a site that should be embraced by all attorneys with happy clients.... "It is futile to resist...." :-)
Jim
>why is your opinion considered deep and those who oppose you or AVVO shallow?
Because it's my opinion.
Avvo's got ratings. So what? So does Travelocity, so does Consumer Reports. Both also allow customers to input their expereince so it can be reviewed by others. I'm sure I am with the majority who give more weight to other information provided than to the ratings alone.
What you're all saying is lawyers should be exempt from any ratings system because their is a special relationship of trust with a lawyer and that only another lawyer sitting by the lawyer's side could be capable of rating the lawyer. Hogwash.
If I'm a consumer with debt up to my eyeballs, the credit card companies suing me in small claims court, and the bank foreclosing on my family's house, I want a quick way to find a decent, caring, and experienced lawyer who works with debtors.
I'll gladly take a website like Avvo's who mixes a lot of information (ratings just one factor) and presents it to me in humanized feel. I'd like to know how someone else in my shoes who used the lawyer liked the experience with the lawyer - did they return phone calls? did the lawyer explain things to me in a way I could understand it? did I think I was charged fairly? was I treated with respect? would I reccomend the lawyer to a friend? what is the lawyer's personal philosophy?
Too many people quick to criticize Avvo, like the Judge in dismissing the law suit trying to shut Avvo down who labeled the ratings service as ludicrous, have never been a stressed out consumer's situation who has not a clue how to pick a lawyer - and is not about to start asking friends and relatives so they'll know about a possible divorce or bankruptcy.
Lawyers have too long held this image of themselves that we are above the rest. We're too good to be rated and commented upon by the simpletons. 'A lawyer's skill is so unique that no one but another lawyer can really tell if the lawyer is any good. We'll police ourselves.'
Well the walls are coming down folks, whether you like it or not. Will there be pain? Sure. Could one or two people pick a lawyer just on a rating perhaps have found a better lawyer? Sure.
But look around folks. This profession of ours could not have a worse reputation. Taking the wraps off of it can only help.
And BTW Mark, Paul and Conrad, where do I send the bill for my PR work for Avvo?
Kevin, AVVO's business model requires a double-ended close. Do you know what that is? In order for it to succeed both parties must come to the table willingly to offer up information. The way AVVO is proceeding, including your statements as "AVVO is here to say, get used to it" and "it's a done deal", and "the walls are tumbling down" has and will continue to keep the majority of lawyers away from the table and will ultimately render AVVO useless to the consumer because there will be no meaningful participation by lawyers. Then the advertisers will decline. This is not the direction to take. So, should AVVO pay you for your PR? Don't wait for the check in the mail.
Susan, tell this to the lawyers who are adding information to their free lawyer profile at Avvo.
Have you looked at the number of growing profiles? Someone sees value in this thing - and I'm not going to go out and be the lawyer directory policeman saving people from themselves.
This is a big debate about nothing as far as I can tell. You guys are all worked up about someone trying to do things differently. Time and consumers will tell us if it works.
Actually, the reason most lawyers would be "claiming" their profiles has everything to do with an effort to correct misinformation/misrating that the site is sending to consumers.
It's quite the catbird seat avvo has-- to have $14 million in venture cap funding to put out a site rating lawyers that uses a secret formula, makes many poor ratings based on limited or NO information, ensures that the site pops up close to any search of the lawyer's name, thus forcing the lawyer to pay attention. Come on, what do YOU think a client thinks when he searches his lawyer's name and finds a rating of 6? Even though his lawyer has practiced for 30 years, has a stellar reputation and not a whisper of unethical conduct? The lawyers feel forced to participate because of the "in terrorem" effect.
What concerns me is avvo believes it is acceptable to hurt a lawyer by rating him poorly, based on "unknown" information. At best, it is unprofessional; at worst, it is malicious.