Ratings Slump for Lawyers

Last week, Martindale Hubbell revised their Peer Review Ratings system in a massive overhaul that includes eliminating the first (lowest) category of rating (CV) and adds numerical averaging to the other two (BV and AV), plus displaying details of the ratings by peers (although not by name). This was covered in their blog.

We found out at our firm Friday when ratings messages began arriving in the inboxes of attorneys at the firm:

Subject: Important message regarding the Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ changed methodology
Please add the domain @email.lexisnexismail.com to your address book.
**********************************************************************
Changes to the Martindale-Hubbell(R) Peer Review Ratings(TM) methodology provide greater depth, making ratings more valuable and understandable for all buyers of legal services

Dear [attorney],
We have facilitated the Martindale-Hubbell(R) Peer Review Ratings(TM) for more than a century to enable buyers and referrers of legal services to benefit from candid and objective lawyer peer-to-peer feedback. As the needs of those evaluating legal services evolve, the demand for comprehensive lawyer ratings is increasing.
Based on extensive research and feedback from the legal community, and to provide greater depth and specificity, we have changed the methodology by which Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings are determined, and there are some important changes of which you should be aware.
—–
About the changed methodology
Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings continue to reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the Bar and the Judiciary and attest to a lawyer’s professional ethics and legal ability.
The General Ethical Standards Rating still denotes adherence to professional standards of conduct and ethics, reliability, diligence and other criteria relevant to the discharge of professional responsibilities.
For lawyers rated with the changed methodology, Legal Ability Ratings will now indicate professional ability within a specific area of practice. Legal Ability Ratings will be based on performance in five key areas, rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest). These key areas are Legal Knowledge, Analytical Capabilities, Judgment, Communication Ability and Legal Experience.
A combination of the Very High General Ethical Standards Rating and a Legal Ability Rating determines the Peer Review Rating, which includes an average numeric rating, a rating term and may include a certification mark:
AV(R) Preeminent(TM) (4.5 – 5.0)
BV(R) Distinguished(TM) (3.0 – 4.4)
Rated (1.0 – 2.9)
The changed Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings methodology also allows reviewers to provide additional feedback on the lawyer under review, contributing qualitative depth and personality to the rating.
To showcase a lawyer’s sphere of influence with his/her peers, we also now aggregate and display reviewers’ basic demographics, including general position and geographic location.

—–
What do the changes mean for my Peer Review Rating?
Effective the week of September 7, 2009, lawyers rated AV under the existing Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings methodology will be converted to AV Preeminent 5.0, the highest numeric rating within the changed AV rating category.
—–
Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings–Existing >> XX(R) Peer Review Rated
Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings–Changed >> XX(R)
Preeminent(TM) 5.0 out of 5 Peer Review Rated
—–
Request to be re-reviewed
A lawyer’s converted rating will remain in effect until we complete a re-review of the lawyer using the changed methodology, to be scheduled by random selection within the next 10 years. However, we encourage you to request an expedited re-review so that you can take advantage of the benefits of the changed methodology–including area of practice specificity and peer feedback–as soon as possible.
—–
Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings are a comprehensive and trusted source
Participating in the Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings program provides a comprehensive and reliable indicator of your expertise, through a trusted source that helps reinforce and validate what your firm’s lawyers say about themselves. Leverage sound Martindale-Hubbell(R) methodology to promote your ratings, and ensure your firm and its lawyers are highly visible, as buyers of legal services increasingly rely on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings.
In order to expedite your re-review, please contact your firm administrator for the LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell Client Service Center (CSC). Your administrator can assist with nominating references to participate in Peer Review. For more detailed information on the changed ratings methodology, visit http://email.lexisnexismail.com/cgi-bin8/DM/y/el610IqVbp0LQj0z4ea0Ed

Sincerely,
Carlton Dyce
Vice President, Peer Review Ratings and Client Review Services
**********************************************************************

Now, I don’t know Mr. Dyce, he may be a fine fellow, but changing your ratings, then going public, then notifying rated attorneys, then advising the lawyer to contact their firm ratings administrator, without a word to the firm ratings administrator seems, well, exactly a**-backwards, if you ask me. The net effect is to make the folks in marketing who are supportive of the Martindale Ratings process appear completely uninformed because…they are. To the uninformed, it may appear this is Martindale’s attempt to make their system more relevent and “granular” in detail, to retain their own importance versus Avvo and other ratings sites.

A number of our attorneys gripe “One downside of this change is that folks like me, with a new rating under the new methodology, will have an actual avg score, while folks ranked under the old system will have an automatic top score until they are re-rated in the next 10 years! (Why would anyone want to have an expedited re-review when the default is the highest rating?)” It’s hard for this process to appear fair at the point of revision, but over time, will it be more accurate? meaningful? Your guess is as good as mine.