They are finished.

I wasn’t complaining about my rating per se. I merely noted that: (a) there isn’t much factual basis for it one way or the other; (b) as a result, Avvo could be under- or overrating me; and (c) those who view the site have no way of knowing if either is the case. In short, my point was that my rating doesn’t actually seem to convey any meaningful information to potential consumers.

On reflection, however, I would be fully justified in “whining,” as you so politely put it, about my rating. Let’s take a concrete example. Compare me with New York attorney Lynne Feltham Stewart. Her rating as of 11:00 a.m on June 15, 2007 is 6.5. My Avvo rating is 6.2. Both ratings fall within the category of “good.”

You might recognize Ms. Stewart’s name, being that she was indicted and convicted by the U.S. Government for assisting terrorist organizations and making false statements. She has been stricken from the NY bar as a result. The opinion striking her name from the NY bar also notes her past disciplinary history, none of which is noted on the Avvo site.

Despite these very public facts, Ms. Stewart has a higher ranking than me. Even funnier, Avvo gives Ms. Stewart five out of five stars for “professional conduct.” To characterize Avvo as “far from perfect” seems like a bit of an understatement.

The problem is that, as near as I can tell, Avvo doesn’t do an “imperfect” job, so much as a completely inscrutable job. I’m ranked on the Avvo site as 6.20/good. But only God knows what that means or on what basis my rating is founded.

Based on my Avvo profile, it appears that the site has no more information on me other than that: (a) I’ve been licensed for almost 5 years and (b) have no discliplinary history. Obviously, that’s not much of a basis for assessing anything. The site could be understating or overstating my competence. How would anyone know?

What does it mean to be “good?” What exactly am I good at? Avvo apparently doesn’t know, as the site openly admits that 100% of my practice area is unknown (i.e., the folks who operate the site do not even know what sort of law I practice).

The site and/or its ratings also appear to be susceptible to “gaming,” as there is a section for peer endorsements. As a member of a medium- to large-sized firm, I am sure I could find plenty of folks to give me glowing endorsements. It’s surely in their interest to do so, though such incestuous endorsements have no promise of objectivity or accuracy. In the same vein, even poor lawyers likely have colleagues who would be willing to lend an endorsement.

In short, a cursory look at Avvo does not inspire much confidence. Perhaps it will improve over time. But its very premise (i.e., that lawyers can be comparatively rated via a mathematical formula) is bound to produce idiosyncratic results.

As an aside, I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a business model more likely to result in repeated litigation. Being that Avvo esteems me as being a “good” lawyer, perhaps it will hire me to defend them . . . .

I think that I’m like many people and refuse to give out my credit card information, even though they insist it won’t be charged. So my profile sits there….and it is incorrect.

Also, the rating system is too basic since it is primarily based upon time and disciplinary record. I’m a seven year attorney, but I have more trial experience than most 10-20 year lawyers. Yet, my rating is drug down by my “inexperience”.