Judge rules in favor of Avvo's online rankings

Court Alerts

[##_1L|1021271636.jpg|width="110" height="113" alt=""|_##]Avvo won a key legal victory Tuesday in its quest to legitimize its online attorney rating service. The legal brouhaha erupted earlier this year when high-powered class-action lawyer Steve Berman sued the Seattle startup, claiming that the company's attorney ratings were a "flat-out scam" and could harm consumers. But U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik on Tuesday granted Avvo's request to dismiss the suit, writing in a 10-page order that the startup's attorney rating system is protected by the First Amendment.

Berman was traveling and could not be reached for comment.

Avvo Chief Executive Mark Britton declared victory, saying he had been confident that the court would reach that decision.

"This was a case that should have never been filed. It was aimed at chilling and censoring our opinions, the opinions of consumers and even the opinions of other lawyers," said Britton, the former general counsel at Expedia who founded Avvo last year. "We are gratified. We are very happy."

There is the possibility of an appeal.

The suit, which was brought by Berman on behalf of Seattle attorneys John Henry Browne and Alan Wenokur shortly after Avvo's launch last June, claimed that the attorney rating service was severely flawed since some accomplished lawyers scored lower than those with disciplinary actions.

For example, the suit noted that Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Alito received the same rating as an attorney in prison for conspiracy and other charges.

The suit also said that attorneys could manipulate the rankings by updating their profiles on Avvo, citing one example of a Bellevue attorney who boosted his Avvo rating by posting athletic awards on his profile page.

But Lasnik wrote Tuesday that the Avvo ratings -- which assign rankings of 1 to 10 on attorneys -- are "subjective opinions."

"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. To the extent that they seek to prevent the dissemination of opinions regarding attorneys and judges, however, the First Amendment precludes their cause of action," Lasnik wrote.

Lasnik also questioned why Browne would use his rating as a "Super Lawyer" by Washington Law & Politics magazine as evidence against his sub-par Avvo rating, noting that the court did not want to determine if one system was better than the other.

Avvo, which has raised about $13 million from Benchmark Capital and Ignition Partners, has attracted more than 4,000 lawyers who have claimed profiles on the site. About 2,000 of those are from Washington state.

Despite the legal action, Britton said that he spent little time on the case and most of the employees stayed focused on the job at hand.

"I think the team took it for what it was worth, rather than getting worked up by it or getting distracted by it," he said.

Related listings

  • Lawsuit Against Utah Ski Resort Revived

    Lawsuit Against Utah Ski Resort Revived

    Court Alerts 12/19/2007

    Skiers assume the potential for injury when they try to navigate a steep mountainside, but not all risks are inherent, the Utah Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, clearing the way for a lawsuit against a resort.William Rothstein suffered severe internal in...

  • Supreme Court Asked to Hear Zoloft Case

    Supreme Court Asked to Hear Zoloft Case

    Court Alerts 12/18/2007

    [##_1L|1102819931.jpg|width="130" height="94" alt=""|_##]Attorneys have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of a teen sentenced to 30 years in prison for killing his grandparents when he was 12, arguing that the sentence is cruel. Christoph...

  • Third Guilty Plea in Calif. Terror Case

    Third Guilty Plea in Calif. Terror Case

    Court Alerts 12/18/2007

    [##_1L|1258392267.jpg|width="120" height="88" alt=""|_##]A third man accused of plotting to attack Southern California military sites and other targets pleaded guilty Monday to a terrorism conspiracy charge in federal court. Gregory Vernon Patterson,...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

New York & New Jersey Family Law Matters We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights. >> read