Like Bob, I was originally skeptical of Avvo's goal of serving as a consumer resource by rating and profiling every U.S. lawyer. But as I have gotten to know Mark Britton, Avvo's CEO, and watched the site in action, there's no question Avvo serves as a worthwhile resource not only for people looking for a lawyer, but also for lawyers looking for a cost effective way to connect with prospective clients.

Bob provides a nice summary of the Avvo service.

The site operates by collecting information about lawyers from multiple sources -- bar records (including disciplinary sanctions), court records, Web sites and the lawyers themselves -- and assigning each lawyer a rating of one to 10. For lawyers for whom only minimal information is publicly available, Avvo provides no rating but labels them as either 'Attention' or 'No Concern.' Lawyers can 'claim' their own profiles and add information about themselves and also request peer endorsements and client ratings.

Avvo also includes Avvo Answers, a forum in which consumers can ask questions and lawyers can post answers with links back to their profiles. In addition to Massachusetts and Florida, its profiles now cover lawyers in Arizona, California, D.C., George, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington.

More than the Avvo ratings, reviews from lawyers and past clients posted to the site are a huge plus for consumers. I can't imagine buying a product or service these days without doing research on the Internet. I'm particularly interested in reviews of the service or product from people like me. Heck, that's why I thought Amazon was so cool when I first saw it 13 years ago.

Look at this review page of Kirkland, WA divorce lawyer, Araceli Amaya. In addition to the basic info on years of practice and emphasis of her work, look at these reviews by past clients.

• Araceli Amaya was a great relief to me after I had spent useless time and money for a previous attorney who did little for me overall. Araceli was always quick to respond to my question, was thorough and, in the end, saved me over $5000.00 that the previous attorney would have, undoubtedly missed. I would highly recommend her as an honest representative in any divorce proceeding.
• Araceli was very attentive to my case, worked hard, great results. Very responsive, well experienced, great leadership skills. I would most definitely recommend Araceli to any one needing a family law attorney.
• She is very professional and knows her law, especially dealing with the military. She is patient and can be trusted to not only get the job done, but done the right way with a first time go.

Each of her reviewers gave Amaya 5 out of 5 stars on the four areas Avvo seeks past client feedback.

• Trustworthy
• Responsive
• Knowledgeable
• Kept me informed

That type of information and review runs laps around the lawyer bio's on Marindale-Hubbell's consumer site, lawyers.com. And Avvo is a free service for lawyers.

People do not ask you as a lawyer where you want to law school and undergrad. They don't care what award you received 15 years ago. People looking for a lawyer want to know what you can do for them and whether you'll be trustworthy, responsive, and keep them informed. And they want that info from people like them.

I've heard the same bull crap for years. The outcome of one person's case is not indicative of the next so we cannot allow client review of lawyers. People are not knowledgeable enough to know whether a lawyer is any good. Past clients will just criticize lawyers so we cannot allow clients to speak up on websites like Avvo's. Bunk.

People are entitled to information on lawyers. They can take Avvo's info on a lawyer into consideration with any other info they have on a lawyer. The more information people have on lawyers the better - for both the public and our legal profession.

Look at the below example for the Super Lawyers lawyer directory.

Internet users would not need to go to the Super Lawyers website to search for a lawyer. If I'm looking for an environmental lawyer in New York who went to Harvard, I just enter 'environmental lawyer New York Harvard' in the 'search superlawyers.com' box at Google.

Here's the first three results displayed - right in the Google interface without going to Super Lawyers - and in a fraction of a second. When I click on the result I go directly to the lawyer's page in the directory, skipping the website home page and any interim search pages.

Expect the Martindale-Hubbell, Avvo, and FindLaw lawyer directories to be next in line for the Google treatment.

What's the implication? For Internet users, there may be advantages. No limited text fields or 'drop-downs' for search such as by practice area and location, the type of things Martindale-Hubbell requires.

Google's search will allow us to do a search for exactly what we want - like I just did for the Harvard environmental lawyer in New York. I could have added an association or two that I wanted the lawyer to belong to limiting my results further. I'm not sure searches at lawyer directory sites themselves would allow me to do that level of search.

For lawyers, it may be great. People can search for someone matching my background and find me immediately. That's impossible if I'm displayed in a Martindale-like directory as one of 165 lawyers in an area of practice in a locale.

For lawyer directories? I think they'll be uneasy allowing Internet users to search their data without going to the directory's website. No adds displayed. No fancy user interfaces with pictures and the like. No branding of the directory. Lots of confusion with lawyers asking directory salespeople questions.

Where do you see this headed? See advantages for people looking for lawyers? See advantages for lawyers?

For you readers employed at legal directories - Martindale-Hubbell, FindLaw, Avvo, & Super Lawyers - what do you think of the development?

That's the word from an

Since 1868, Martindale-Hubbell has provided the largest library of lawyer and law firm profiles and ratings. Law firms across the country reflexively and dutifully subscribe to the company's hardbound volumes, placing them prominently in their libraries, confident they have taken the most obvious step to ensure clients looking for legal representation will find them. Just as important to such firms is Martindale-Hubbell's peer review and rating system, touted by the company as an objective measure of a lawyer's ethics and abilities. Receiving a peer review rating is a singularly egocentric moment for a lawyer, suggesting he or she had 'arrived' in a professional sense.......Today's Web 2.0 business models have completed the paradigm shift by eliminating the barriers to global publication and distribution of client opinions. Companies such as Avvo.com now give clients, as well as lawyers, the power to publish opinions about lawyers easily, instantly and without cost, in a medium that reaches a global audience. Harnessing the concept of 'collective intelligence,' there is now a totality of information about a lawyer available. Consumers can easily search for a lawyer and read what other lawyers and clients think about that lawyer. Lawyers are able to provide far more information about themselves, their practices and their experience than has ever been possible before. Some features provide a way for lawyers to communicate and interact directly with the public and showcase their understanding of the law and legal issues.

The new paradigm is: clients and lawyers rating lawyers for the benefits of clients and lawyers. As with all change, this new paradigm creates a great deal of fear and uncertainty among lawyers, who are by training risk-averse.

......A collection of hardbound volumes cannot generate the sort of interactivity and real-world information about lawyers and law firms that is experienced, contributed and compiled on Avvo every day. Information about lawyers is being shared by those who have first-hand experience, resulting in a searchable database of information that is accessible to prospective clients around the country and the world. If information is power, then Avvo effectively shifts the balance of power away from lawyers and law firms to clients, prospective clients and every other user of its Web site.

Campos' firm, a 20 lawyer commercial litigation and corporate securities boutique, is embracing the Avvo concept.

A comment about a lawyer posted on Avvo has the potential to reach a global audience, whereas the letter of gratitude sent to a law firm requires action on the part of the firm to publicize it. We decided to take advantage of the opportunity. We now display 'Avvo badges' on our Web site profiles of each of our lawyers, which link directly to each lawyer's profile on Avvo. Rather than fear what clients have to say about us, we embraced the possibilities created by empowering clients to weigh in directly on their experience working with a lawyer or law firm.

And clients of the law firm are using Avvo to the benefit of future clients and the firm.

Though certainly not true in every case..., clients will often post comments on the Avvo Web site shortly after the conclusion of a particular matter. Such comments generally provide considerable detail about the specific matter handled by their lawyer and their overall experience. When a client posts a review about a lawyer, Avvo's system asks how long ago the client used the lawyer's services. This kind of information is an invaluable tool for prospective clients seeking to gauge the most recent experience others have had with a particular lawyer. Not surprisingly, one of the more common uses of Avvo by clients is vetting word of mouth referrals.

And it's not only smaller firms embracing Avvo. Davis Wright Tremaine, an AmLaw 200 international law firm, claimed the Avvo Profiles of all 225 lawyers in their Seattle and Bellevue offices.

The Avvo concept is here to stay. Consumers of legal services who can get online reviews on dishwashers are going to demand, through their behavior, that comments about lawyers be freely available. Whether comments come from other lawyers or clients, the information is just too valuable.

Martindale-Hubbell has been suppressing this concept for years. They want a monopoly on lawyer ratings. Money to made there. Plus when you're charging law firms 10's and 100's of thousands of dollars to display their lawyers in a directory, you don't want law firm customers walking when they don't like what another lawyer or consumer has said.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Martindale-Hubbell dismissed Google as a force in clients finding lawyers. Now their own studies find Google is viewed as an important source in locating counsel by almost 20% of corporate counsel. And Google didn't exist 8 years ago.

Avvo does have the staying power issue. Though VC backed, significant revenue generation will be necessary at some point. There's money via sponsorships, premium listings, and services, but will it be enough, and will it come soon enough.

And there's always the question whether LexisNexis will pay to just put a concept like Avvo's on the shelf. Though that's a little harder today with web based systems costing so little to develop and user generated content from all over continuing to flourish.

Related posts from elsewhere:

• Disrupting the Lawyer Ratings Paradigm from Avvo CEO Mark Britton
• Avvo: Dinner is Served from Scott Greenfield
• Why Not Web 2.0 Reviews for Law Schools? from Carolyn Elefant
• Finding the right lawyer for you from Heather Sunderman

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.

Commenting on last week's court ruling that there was no basis for cracking down on Avvo's lawyer-rating Web site because some lawyers didn't like how they were rating, the Wall Street Journal endorsed the concept of lawyer ratings.

At a time when the judicial system is under increasing scrutiny, the courtroom performances and verdicts of its practitioners would seem a reasonable object of public interest. For those shopping for legal counsel, an online rating service might at least provide some measure of transparency in an otherwise opaque profession.

The site, called Avvo, does for lawyers what any number of magazines and Web sites have been doing for other professions for years. Magazines regularly publish stories that rank an area's doctors and dentists. There are rating sites and blogs for the 'best' hairstylists, manicurists, restaurants and movie theaters. Almost any consumer product or service these days is sorted and ranked.

Professional ego aside, it's hard to see why lawyers or judges should be any different.

Though not mentioning Super Lawyers by name, the WSJ certainly seems to endorse Super Lawyers practice of selecting the best lawyers and publishing the lawyers profiles in magazines and now the Internet.

Like it or not, the Internet may bring transparency to our profession yet.

I showed up to the party to find out that federal class action law suit versus Avvo brought by Seattle Attorney Steve Berman on behalf of Seattle Attorney John Henry Browne was dismissed with prejudice this afternoon. Best guess is Judge Lasnik didn't time his decision to coordinate with the party, but it made for a nice gift.

Talked with CEO Mark Britton and VP of Marketing Paul Bloom, co-founders of Avvo, who pleased with the decision, seemed to take it right in stride without a lot of fanfare.

Though I was critical of the way Avvo executed its launch by including all lawyers, as opposed to only small business and consumer lawyers, Avvo serves a great purpose in allowing the public to comment on the service they received from lawyers. My guess it's that sense of a righteous cause that had Mark and Paul feeling pretty confident about the result.

Though nothing is assured until the deadline for appeal passes, Attorney Bruce Johnson, who represented Avvo, let me know this evening that Judge Lasnik's ruling is a very solid and thorough one.

I have not read the decision yet, but understand its basis is the First Amendment - the public should be free to comment on service providers - even lawyers. Based on the liberal reputation of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, it seems highly unlikely that a decision based on free speech is going to be reversed, assuming it's even taken up on appeal. And I don't see this thing being petitioned to the Supreme Court - unless Berman is handling the PR work for Avvo.

Updates

• Press Release from Avvo
• Court Decision to dismiss (pdf)
• Avvo CEO Mark Britton's blog post on dismissal

• Consumers, one hour session, Friday, 10/19. Only requirement? You've searched online for a lawyer, anytime, on any site.
• Lawyers, one hour session, Wednesday, 10/17 or Thursday, 10/18

Hey Mark and Conrad, if you're looking to help improve your blog and it's reach, I have an idea for you. ;)