Commentary

Now It's Lawyers' Turn To Fight Review Sites

Time was doctors and lawyers rarely had to deal with public criticism. Unlike the case with books, movies or restaurants, newspapers didn't "review" professionals. Even the strongest complaints about doctors and lawyers rarely saw print, unless dissatisfied patients/clients filed lawsuits.

But the situation is different now that the Web has enabled consumers to post their own critiques of professionals. Sites like Yelp and RateMDs.com allow people to publicly describe their experiences with professionals. And those on the receiving end of reviews aren't happy about it. To date, reviews on Yelp have spawned at least five lawsuits, including two by dentists and one by a chiropractor.

Meanwhile, doctors are attempting to put the kibosh on sites like RateMDs.com by having patients promise to refrain from publicly complaining and/or sign away the copyright to reviews they might write in the future -- regardless of the likelihood that a court would enforce such a contract.

And now, lawyers are trying to hinder the attorney ratings site Avvo.com by barring the site from posting directory information that's publicly available online.

Today's Washington Postreports that the District of Columbia Bar is attempting to claim that the information on its site about lawyers' names, addresses and public disciplinary records is copyrighted -- even though a fundamental principle of copyright law is that information itself isn't copyrightable.

Some objectors to Avvo argue the site violates their privacy. It doesn't. The courts and or legislatures in jurisdictions like the District of Columbia have already decided when state disciplinary records are public and when they're confidential. Anything the D.C. Bar posts on its Web site is public information by definition.

D.C. isn't the only jurisdiction to push back. Avvo had to fight to obtain access to information in New Jersey. Additionally, state authorities in Illinois have so far refused to provide the site with some of the data they've compiled about lawyers.

The best argument that one lawyer quoted by the Post could come up with was that he objected to being listed because he didn't want people "soliciting" him. If he's referring to receiving junk mail, wouldn't it be easier to simply throw it out than attempt to shut down a Web site where consumers can review attorneys? Besides, marketers are quite good at finding out where people live for the purposes of sending them solicitations, without any help from ratings sites.

Doctors, lawyers, and everyone else need to face it: People have opinions about them and are going to share those opinions. Asserting dubious copyright claims won't stop this.

1 comment about "Now It's Lawyers' Turn To Fight Review Sites".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Larry Bodine from Larry Bodine Marketing, March 10, 2009 at 9:13 p.m.

    Avvo is a weasel organization that imposes bios upon lawyers unwillingly. It's the "Tony Soprano" school of marketing. You get a bio whether you want one or not, and then you must "claim" your bio to correct it -- after you enter your credit card number.

    The bios are easily gamed. Just add a speaking engagement and voila! Your rating just went up.

    Bloggers nationwide have debunked AVVO -- see AVVO Has Lost its Credibility at http://www.lawmarketing.com/pages/articles.asp?Action=Article&ArticleID=841

    The courts have compared AVVO to Hustler magazine, hiding behind the First Amendment to make money.

    Larry Bodine, Esq.
    Apollo Business Development
    Lbodine@LawMarketing.com
    http://www.LarryBodine.com
    http://twitter.com/LarryBodine

Next story loading loading..