sam-glover-avvoI am awesome. You know it, I know it, and Avvo knows it. That’s why there is a big, shiny 10 next to my smiling self on my Avvo profile.

Some lawyers have over-inflated egos. They have a reputation, but it is full of hot air. Avvo knows about them, too. Here are 7 of them, from Eric Holder to Abraham Lincoln, who don’t measure up to my lawyering prowess.

Eric Holder: 9.4

Just between you and me, I don’t think the Attorney General‘s interpretation of the “public safety exception” to Miranda v. Arizona stands a very good chance once the Supreme Court gets a whiff of his not-10 Avvo rating.

Larry Tribe: 7.9

Professor Laurence Tribe may have a Wikipedia page and an impressive catalog of accomplishments, including an important role in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas and Bush v. Gore cases, but his Avvo rating is an embarrassment.

Bryan Garner: 7.2

Somebody let this guy edit a law dictionary? With a 7.2 on Avvo, I would be surprised if he could figure out how to refill his own fountain pen. (I bet he uses a fake.)

Marcia Clark: 6.7

No wonder Marcia Clark couldn’t convict OJ Simpson. A 6.7? I bet the jury took one look at her Avvo rating and realized there was only one possible verdict.

Walter Mondale: 6.7

The former senator and VP may get invited to speak at every function in Minnesota and many beyond its borders, but I bet he wouldn’t get so many awards if anyone saw that 6.7 when making a list of potential candidates. Although you might call his 2002 defeat by Norm Coleman (6.5) an upset, based on Avvo ratings.

Alan Dershowitz: 6.6

Maybe “Dersh” should spend less time on legal billing startups and more time practicing his oral arguments. His weak-sauce Avvo rating means I could probably wipe the courtroom floor with him.

Abraham Lincoln: no rating

More like Abraham Loser. No rating? Give me a break. What, America’s greatest president couldn’t be bothered to add a speaking engagement besides “Gettysburg Address” (whatever that is) to boost his rating?

  • Oh. You were looking for greater meaning? Look, if you want to use this post to say that Avvo is everything wrong with online marketing, go for it. I just thought it would be funny.

Because consumer ratings are here to stay, like it or not. Avvo is doing as good a job (or better) than older lawyer-rating services like Martindale-Hubbell, which makes lawyers pay to get a rating, and keeps its rating algorithm is a big secret. Or SuperLawyers, which uses standards just as inscrutable. At least Avvo is relatively transparent about the Avvo rating. And if you want Avvo to rate you more accurately (according to its algorithm, anyway), you don’t even have to pay to claim your profile.

Oh, and since none of the lawyers above have claimed their profiles, Holder’s 9.4 is obviously way more significant than my 10. In fact, all their ratings are. I was a 6.5 before I claimed my Avvo rating a few years ago.

** Mostly dudes, I know. Many women lawyers who are as well-known as Dershowitz and Tribe are judges or public officials, which means they don’t have Avvo ratings. Or else they are just rated “No Concern” by Avvo, which isn’t any good for mockery. But, if I’ve made an egregious omission of a famous woman lawyer who has an Avvo rating lower than mine, please let me know. I will mock her accordingly.

12 Comments

  1. Aaron Street Aaron Street says:

    You beat this guy, too. He’s even got a misconduct citation!

    Bill Clinton Avvo

  2. It’s obvious, Mr. Glover, that you have not followed my advice to attract clients by using a crappier Avvo rating. We recommend maintaining a 6.7 rating, and Mondale, Clark, and Dershowitz are spot on, having obviously taken our advice. Holder, Tribe and that Garner fellow are known overachievers.

  3. Gregory Luce says:

    You also fared a bit better than this guy.

  4. Leo says:

    Avvo is stupid, but I am also rated a 10 — so can I now ethically post on my website “BETTER THAN LINCOLN!*” “<> *according to Avvo”.

  5. Gregory Luce has won the thread.

  6. Carlton Dyce says:

    Interesting exchange, but I would like to make a correction with respect to the comment “…than older lawyer-rating services like Martindale-Hubbell, which makes lawyers pay to get a rating.” This is simply not the case. A lawyer cannot pay to get a Martindale-Hubbell rating.

    In 140 years of providintg lawyer ratings, Martindale-Hubbell has never charged for a rating. The ratings process is considered a tried and true objective indicator that a lawyer has the highest ethical standards and professional ability. Martindale-Hubbell ratings provide that extra level of confidence for someone looking for a lawyer, whether that lawyer is part of a small firm or large firm, and whether or not that lawyer is one of our paying subscribers. A lawyer’s Martindale-Hubbell rating was, and is, achieved based solely on merit.

    Carlton Dyce, Martindale-Hubbell

    • Archibald_Haddock says:

      Martindale-Hubbell is a better system, but no one should take a reference from a website rating service. For the Avvo thing, there is a lawyer I regretfully had to let go for incompetence despite a really strong resume and pedigree. Kept him at a big loss for a few years as a lateral from a Wall Street Firm he left after 2 years. I didn’t like that but we had a need. Happens. I kept him employed a few years until it became intolerable and he could find a new home. He has a strong Avvo rating and can’t tell his ass from his elbow. Blunt. In just a glance through I also saw other lawyers whom I know to be among the very best with mediocre ratings. Avvo as a rating system is worse than useless.

  7. I love the quote from Dershowitz highlighted on their website. Apparently clients want transparency but don’t care if you can’t spell transparency:

    “The essential basis for a positive attorney-client relationship is trust. This can only be achieved with mutual trasparency.” – ALAN DERSHOWITZ

  8. Archibald_Haddock says:

    I happened on Avvo tonight. Ratings are wacky (really wacky) and seem to be based mostly on attorneys’ own self promotion.

Leave a Reply