Posted by unregistered user at 6/14/07 11:15 p.m.

This one will go down as one of the worst and most horribly implemented ideas in the history of the web. Yeesh, even Kozmo and Pets made it a couple of years.

Business plan:

- Let's hop on the click-for-$ wagon.
- Come up with a half-assed rating system that will easily be jobbed no matter how you set it up.
- Apply it to professionals who simply cannot nor should not be judged in the same manner as a book or cafe.
- Slyly coerce your fellow lawyers into acknowledging your site in order to avoid a potentially erroneous and damaging rating.
- Hope said lawyers don't sue.

Brilliant!!!

Posted by unregistered user at 6/14/07 11:33 p.m.

[ Apply it to professionals who ]

You forgot the biggest one: can file a lawsuit as easily as falling out bed. Maybe the VCs forsaw this coming, who knows.

Posted by unregistered user at 6/14/07 11:44 p.m.

Ha, ha! That one was implied in my final sentence. Honestly, when Barry Scheck and Paul Clement garner a score 2 slots below this guy it's really not hard to blame many of them for wanting to sue given the hit their reputation and livelihoods may take.

Posted by unregistered user at 6/15/07 12:24 a.m.

One undergraduate statistics class would give anyone enough knowledge to know that this ranking system will not work.

All inputs need to be equal and balanced before applying any forumals. EVERY lawyer would have to be ranked on the same number of variables (and considering the complexity of this subject matter, the number of variables would be infinite). Plus the integrity of the data would need to be analyzed too.

If they do not have the exact same number of variables for EVERY lawyer in their database, this whole ranking system is garbage. Now they are just comparing apples to mopeds.

Posted by unregistered user at 6/15/07 12:28 a.m.

I forgot to add that in addition to the exact same number of variables, they would have to also be the exact same categories too.

Posted by unregistered user at 6/15/07 12:37 a.m.

I mean, if they meant for this to be a defensible ranking system. Thats why i suggested the "hot or not" concept. Then its totally subjective and everyone knows that so they come for laughs and giggles and maybe avvo can salvage something that they built. Or maybe literally turn it into a myspace for lawyers. you can still stream ads and no one is being deceived.

Posted by unregistered user at 6/15/07 12:47 a.m.

last thing, the difference between googles algorithm as it related to their business is different than avvos. Google serves up the content and says here you go. avvo assigns a value to a person under the guise that it is "official" when really its a subjective mish-mash of web pages and credit card limits.

Posted by unregistered user at 6/15/07 7:49 a.m.

If lawyers sue lawyers, does anyone hear it?

Posted by Saffoula at 6/15/07 7:52 a.m.

Avvo is "social software" site, like MySpace, which makes money by cashing in on banner ads paid for by the lawyers whom it claims to "objectively" rate. Avvo disingenuously claims to be "consumer-focused" and intent on helping lawyers gain clients, yet Avvo has admitted that it did not even CONSIDER providing personal notice (email or otherwise) of the site to the lawyers it rates before it went live. I learned about it in the PI To me, this lack consideration by those with such acclaimed "legal expertise" at Avvo is highly unprofessional. Avvo knows that a lawyer's reputation is everything. Avvo clearly has our contact information, so there is no excuse for Avvo's profile-by-ambush, especially if the intent really is to inform the public.

Avvo went live relying on 7-month old information for WA State. My office had notified the state bar that it had moved, but this was not reflected on my Avvo profile. Avvo admittedly is using a Beta system, which still lacks functionality, such as the ability to merge multiple profiles. If you look at jobs at Avvo you will see that they are seeking IT developers, and of course, advertising/marketing personnel!

Since I do not oppose a well-designed effort to educate the public about selecting a lawyer, I reluctantly entered my information into Avvo, surprised that I had to enter a personal credit card number to do so. As promised, my score did increase. However, my name did not appear on the search result list for my practice area even though my score was higher than many on the result list and it was a greater percentage of my practice than for others on the list. Only after I asked Avvo about this, did my name suddenly appear in the search results. This makes me highly skeptical of the technology and the assumptions behind Avvo.

Avvo has placed a priority on attempting to make profits before fully vetting a product upon which livelihoods are at stake. Again, I find this highly unprofessional given the "legal expertise" behind Avvo and give the fact this site has potential to affect reputations, a lawyer's bread and butter. Avvo needs to quickly fix the many bugs and make their ratings system and search results transparent to both the public and the lawyers whom they claim to "objectively" rate.

Posted by unregistered user at 6/15/07 12:08 p.m.

"but we were not expecting this visceral of a reaction," he (Britton)said."

Really? He hangs many of his fellows out to dry with one of the lamest and misguided systems ever devised and now he is taking the 'trail of tears' approach? How long before we hear what is on his iPod?

Posted by unregistered user at 6/17/07 8:45 a.m.

A large percentage of lawyers are slimy and sleezy and want to keep their numerous failures to deliver for clients and dirty laundry under wraps. Bravo to Avvo!!! Consumers definitely need this and the fact that lawyers are the ones whining about Avvo is a sign that they're on the right track.

Posted by unregistered user at 6/20/07 1:15 p.m.

Amen! Go Avvo! What makes lawyers think they are the only profession on the planet immune to community feedback???????

Posted by unregistered user at 10/14/07 6:41 a.m.

I simply typed in three names of attorneys I've worked with in the last 6 months. AVVO was accurate. I was quite surprised to learn this is a NEW beta system. I thought consumers should/would be able to find info like this, for years.

Posted by courtwatcher at 4/20/08 5:03 a.m.

Opps. Did my comment get posted? Expect more from me later. Lawyer rip-offs are one of the worst things happening in the United States today. People need help!
(Go AVVO!)