Ratings for Lawyers - Should they exist, what should be included, and who should do the rating?

There's been a lot of buzz in the blogosphere about Avvo, the new website that purports to be a service that provides an unbiased rating system to help consumers choose a lawyer. According to Avvo, their rating system is based on the number of years an attorney is in practice, disciplinary actions and professional achievements. Avvo says its information comes from state bar associations, court records, lawyer websites, and information the lawyers provide to Avvo. However, the specific method of calculation that results in the "Avvo rating" has not been revealed.

Although Avvo has only just launched (and isn't available yet in all states), many are already up in arms about the system. I've heard from numerous lawyers that have checked their own ratings and information on Avvo and found it to be seriously lacking - and sometimes downright inaccurate. At least one lawsuit has already been filed.

You can read more about comments from other bloggers about Avvo from: Susan Cartier Liebel at Build a Solo Practice, Chuck Newton, and Kevin O'Keefe at Lex Blog, among others. And there's much more to be discussed. But what I'm more interested in talking about in this post is the broader idea of ratings for lawyers.

As many have already pointed out, lawyers' services are inherently unquantifiable because they're so individual. Not only are the qualities that make a great lawyer intangible, but two people with the same problem may not agree that the same lawyer is 'great.'

Of course comparing many lawyers, even within the same geographic and practice area, is ultimately futile, because the lawyer-client relationship is just that - a relationship. That means that regardless of whether the client is a big business or an individual consumer with a problem to be solved, the interaction between both parties to the relationship, their individual personalities, styles, perspectivee and approach will all determine whether the relationship is successful. And the success of the relationship is what matters most.

But while I agree that many qualities of great lawyers can't be quantified, unfortunately, we live in a society in which we're obsessed by quantifying everything, whether that be using an A, B or C rating or a scale of 1-10, etc. Avvo isn't the first to attempt to create a 'ratings' system for lawyers, nor is it likely to be the last. There are other ratings systems, including the one most well-known to lawyers, Martindale-Hubbel. And with the increased participation and acceses to the internet, it is likely that more and more 'ratings' sites will crop up, whether they be sites like lawyerratingz, which creates a rating on a scale of 1-5 based upon comments by 'clients' in categories including communication and technical skill, or sites like Avvo.

So - the question of whether there 'should' be lawyer rating systems available may be a moot point - they're here, and they're probably here to stay, whether Avvo is successful or not. The broader question might be how should those rating systems be structured, who should determine the ratings, what factors should be considered, where the information should be obtained, and what should consumers of legal services know about the limitations of any such systems.

Among otheres, one concern is putting the burden on attorneys to police Avvo's site and enter their own information to boost their ratings - if a site like Avvo with millions invested can't mine the gamut of publicly available information to post complete and accurate profiles of attorneys, should it post anything at all? Should lawyers now be charged with the responsibility of policing the information posted about them by a site that holds itself out as the unbiased source of profile information about 'every attorney in the state'?

Your comments are welcome.