Bar Association Checking Out Ratings
In an effort to understand the implications and potential consequences of the growth in lawyer ratings on the internet, the American Bar Association has been holding sessions to hear from the publishers of these metrics. The “20/20” Commission is looking into a lot of the current Model Rules that provide state Bars with guidance on ethics and the Legal Marketing Association has an interested party in these discussions, as rules on what lawyers can say about themselves are of vital interest to us marketers.
I don’t know whether this effort will bear fruit. I have commented on ratings in other blog posts (here, for example). It’s a valid set of concerns, given the amount of energy our law firms put to getting good ratings (Chambers, for example) and to covering and proselytizing our accolades in these lists.
But I am not sure the ABA has a shred of a chance to actually “get” the ratings or the internet. Two observations to that hypothesis:
1) I receive the ABA Daily Journal in my email inbox. That’s where I noticed the piece on the Commission. In an apparent attempt to track the origins of visitors to their website, the ABA link in the newsletter included this code: “?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily_email”. Well, I suppose that’s OK, doesn’t look like they are collecting my email address or other personal information (which I am sensitive to thanks to the Wall Street Journal‘s thorough “What They Know” series). BUT, when I am looking at the article and click on the “Share” tool that the ABA Journal has on the page, the link, including the tracking code, is published in the tool. Maybe I’m confused, but wouldn’t the place where this link is shared produce “dirty” visits, that were not actually from the newsletter, but would appear to be? And so how valid are these metrics?
2) The comments below the post itself are hostile and negative to ratings (and what would one expect). BUT the uniformity of tone and reaction suggests that there may already be an embedded attitude among members of the ABA about ratings and that it could be difficult for a Commission, no matter how lofty its aims, to give fair consideration to the risks and rewards of the existing systems and their recipients.
Rating lawyers is simply a way to aggregate testimonials from other lawyers and consumers of services. But, really, can any rating system substitute for the powerful question from lawyer to client “How are we doing?” In an internet world where opinions are as easy to produce and promulgate as, well, this blog, can any law firm or its marketing staff leave the public discussion of its reputation and experience up to a rating site?
