Legal Marketing & PR

Federal Judge Calls Lawyer Ratings "Nonsense"

By Larry Bodine, Esq.

U.S. District Chief Judge Robert S. Lasnik in Seattle, WA, declared in a 10-page opinion that lawyer ratings are “nonsense” and “ludicrous.” Specifically criticizing Avvo, the judge said, “the rating itself cannot be proved true of false.” John Henry Brown v. Avvo, Inc., No. C07-0920RSL (Dec. 18, 2007). The judge railed against Avvo, adding, “Consumers who were misled by the information and ratings provided by Avvo are the direct victims of the alleged wrongdoing.”  

Lawyer ratings have proliferated in recent years. The judge reserved special scorn for Lawdragon, which ranks the 500 “leading” judges in the US. “What can one say about such nonsense? As my parents would tell me when I informed them of some of my amazing achievements as a child in Staten Island, NY, ‘that and five cents will get you a ride on the ferry,’” he wrote.

The accuracy of Super Lawyers was also blasted. The judge recalled imposing $40,000 in fines against a “supposedly ‘Super Lawyer’” for engaging in unreasonable and vexatious litigation tactics. Despite the fines, the lawyer was re-elected a Super Lawyer.

For the rest of the article, visit the LawMarketing Portal.

Full post as published by Larry Bodine's LawMarketing Blog on January 03, 2008 (boomark / email).