Did you ever think that you would be judged like a contestant in a slam dunk contest? Given a score from 1 to 10? Your career reduced to a single number between 1 and 10?
Avvo is not the first company to rate attorneys. Martindale Hubbell has been doing it for many years. Martindale Hubbell gives attorneys ratings of CV, BV or AV, depending upon the results of surveys sent to attorneys. There are many other examples of ratings by publications that select “Super Lawyers” or publish “Best of” lists. An important difference is that Avvo, and websites like Avvo, rate attorneys without their permission, and attorneys cannot opt out or remove themselves from Avvo’s website and rating system.
Today, Avvo rates about 85% of all lawyers in the country. Avvo collects public information about lawyers and their careers and applies a proprietary algorithm that converts the information into a numerical rating system. Ratings range from “1,” which signals to potential clients “extreme caution,” up to a rating of “10,” which is supposed to mean that the attorney is “superb.”
The apparent purpose of the numerical rating system is to assist consumers of legal services to better evaluate attorneys. The theory is that the more information potential clients have about attorneys the better. But does a numerical rating really help consumers make well-informed decisions about which attorneys to hire? Is there really any meaningful difference between a 6.9 rating (“Good”) and an attorney with a 7.0 rating (“Very Good”)?
To what extent consumers actually rely on the Avvo rating system is unclear. The Avvo website is probably a good place to get background information on lawyers, so long as the information is accurate and up-to-date. But a number rating from 1 to 10, created by an algorithm, doesn’t seem to fairly evaluate the professional skill levels and ethical traits of lawyers.
There are innumerable examples of ratings that just don’t make much sense. Lawyers with long and distinguished legal careers somehow end up with lower Avvo scores than new or less-experienced attorneys with less than prominent reputations.
To Avvo’s credit, it does provide a disclaimer, cautioning the use of its numerical rating system:
Keep in mind that these ratings speak to a lawyer’s background. They do not evaluate a lawyer’s actual knowledge of the law, past performance in individual matters, personality or communication skills. These are items that the Avvo Rating cannot evaluate.
But you can easily see how Avvo’s numerical rating could be misunderstood or even misused. Some lawyers, for example, have begun putting their Avvo ratings in their ads, on their websites or even on their résumés.
Avvo’s ratings seem to reflect a lawyer’s willingness to provide Avvo with additional information about his or her legal career that is not already available from public sources. Ratings also seem to depend on lawyers’ participation in Avvo programs, like its free legal advice service, and by writing articles on legal topics, which are then made available on Avvo’s website.
There is no shortage of critics of Avvo. In 2007, John Henry Browne, and others, filed a class action lawsuit against Avvo in the Western District of Washington.1 Browne’s chief complaint was that Avvo’s rating system was an inaccurate and invalid method to compare attorneys. Among other things, Browne pointed out that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a lower Avvo rating than Avvo’s chief executive officer. Browne argued that the rating system was inherently defective and that it forces attorneys to provide personal information in order avoid poor ratings. While acknowledging the obvious flaws with Avvo’s rating system and describing the rating of attorneys as “ludicrous,” Judge Robert Lasnik ruled that Avvo’s rating system is protected speech under the First Amendment.2
Although it has not yet filed a lawsuit, the District of Columbia Bar Association has threatened litigation against Avvo for the unauthorized use of information on its members and inclusion in the Avvo site. The D.C. Bar Association believes that Avvo has breached the terms of use for its website and claims copyright infringement. No doubt, the D.C. bar’s threatened litigation is fueled by the same criticisms that served as the basis of Browne’s lawsuit, but it is relying on different legal theories to attack Avvo’s rating system.
I tend to agree with Judge Lasnik that systems like Avvo’s are ludicrous. I cannot envision any numerical rating system that relies on an algorithm to fairly judge attorneys. Such rating systems are necessarily overly simplistic. Simplicity is substituted for thoughtful judgment.
Regardless of the obvious criticisms, it seems clear that rating systems like Avvo’s will become a permanent part of the public’s database on lawyers. So long as people access lawyers’ ratings on the Internet and so long as websites like Avvo make money, lawyers will continue to be rated. Love it or hate it, ratings are not going anywhere soon.
Daniel Gandara is a shareholder with the firm of Vandeberg, Johnson & Gandara in its Seattle office. His practice includes real estate and business transactions and commercial and tort litigation.
1 Browne v. Avvo, Inc., c07-0920RSL (W.D. Wash. Dec. 18, 2007).
2 Id. at 6.
Go Back