Federal Judge Calls AVVO Ratings “Nonsense”

By Larry Bodine, Esq., a business development advisor based in Glen Ellyn, IL. He can be reached at www.larrybodine.com and 630.942.0977.

U.S. District Chief Judge Robert S. Lasnik in Seattle, WA, declared in a written opinion that lawyer ratings are worthless, adding, “That and five cents will get you a ride on the ferry.”

The Judge stated in a 10-page opinion that lawyer ratings are “nonsense” and “ludicrous.” Referring to Avvo, the judge said, “One may disagree with defendants’ evaluation of the underlying objective facts, but the rating itself cannot be proved true or false.” John Henry Brown v. Avvo, Inc., No. C07-0920RSL (Dec. 18, 2007). The judge added, “Consumers who were misled by the information and ratings provided by Avvo are the direct victims of the alleged wrongdoing.”

However, the judge concluded that freedom of speech allows Avvo.com to continue to operate, and granted a motion to dismiss a consumer fraud lawsuit against it.

Lawyer ratings have proliferated in recent years, including Super Lawyers and Lawdragon. Avvo.com was launched June 5, 2007, ranking lawyers on a scale of 1 (extreme caution) to 10 (superb). Initially it ranked a US Supreme Court Justice and a disbarred lawyer both as “good,” listed living lawyers as deceased, listed wrong street addresses -- and refused requests to remove profiles. (The errors were subsequently corrected.)

Meanwhile Avvo CEO Mark S. Britton is ranked as "excellent" with an 8.0 rating. "As I have said from the beginning, this was a case that never should have been filed," Britton said. "We are gratified that the court agrees. We can now get back to serving consumers rather than litigating with lawyers that want to stop our service."

Sued after 9 days of operation

Avvo was sued on June 14 in a class-action complaint brought by two Seattle lawyers unhappy with their ratings -- defense attorney John Henry Browne (average) and bankruptcy lawyer Alan Wenokur (good). Citing a case involving the porno magazine Hustler, the judge ruled that the First Amendment protected Avvo.

The judge complimented the lawyers who sued Avvo: “To the extent that their lawsuit has focused a spotlight on how ludicrous the rating of attorneys (and judges) has become, more power to them.”

“Neither the nature of the information provided nor the language used on the website would lead a reasonable person to believe that the ratings are a statement of actual fact,” the judge said about Avvo.

“A user of the Avvo site would understand that “5.5” is not a statement of fact. To the extent the numbers are tied to fuzzy descriptive phrases like “superb,” “good,” and “strong caution,” a reasonable reader would understand that these phrases and their application to a particular attorney are subjective and…not sufficiently factual to be proved or disproved.”

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.

Avvo is fortunate to operate in the US, where it can continue to conduct its funny business in the safety of the First Amendment.

Click here to read the comments by Josh King, VP, General Counsel, Avvo, Inc. and by Kevin O'Keefe.