Advertisement

Marketing

Chair's Column
The Ratings & Rankings Game: Lawyers and Law Firms Weigh In Regarding the Impacts

By Micah Buchdahl

This is the second installment of a two-part column on the hotly contested topic of law firm and lawyer ratings and rankings services. Part one dealt with the controversies over the upcoming U.S. News & World Report rankings and the related ABA resolution addressing the subject. This part details the results of the program and accompanying attendee survey from November’s ABA Law Firm Marketing Strategies Conference in Philadelphia, Ranking the Raters; Rating the Rankers: A Forum on Methodologies, Benefits and Value. To learn more about the program, see the Frontlines recap from the January/February Law Practice magazine or view the program online at the ABA Marketing Strategies Conference Web site.

Last November, when the major players in the U.S. law firm ratings and rankings business were asked to participate in the ABA Law Firm Marketing Strategies Conference in Philadelphia, a few thought they were RSVPing to a spot on the receiving end of a firing squad. Not only were they being asked to present their business models and methodologies, but the program’s audience would complete a survey, an in-house counsel audience would pepper them with questions, and they would have to endure a moderator with a style closer to Mike Wallace than Morley Safer (that would be me).

No person or business was harmed in the filming of the program.

For the first time, all of the major U.S. ratings providers sat side-by-side on the same dais to present their methodologies during Ranking the Raters; Rating the Rankers: A Forum on Methodologies, Benefits and Value. Presenting on behalf of their businesses were Mark Britton of Avvo, Carl Dawson of Best Lawyers, Katrina Dewey of Lawdragon, Alfredo Sciascia of Martindale-Hubbell and William White of Super Lawyers. The in-house counsel audience included representation from companies including GlaxoSmithKline, Toys “R” Us, Comcast, Boeing, Rita’s Water Ice and Realogy Corporation.

In this rapidly changing industry, November was a long time ago. For Best Lawyers, the company’s involvement in the upcoming U.S. News & World Reports rankings has made them the most visible rankings entity in lawyer circles. Martindale continues to grow its social networking-styled Connected program. Super Lawyers is now another product in the Thomson Reuters fold. And Avvo just recently received an additional $10 million in funding, as it increases its impact on consumer-driven practices.

Most of the debates that take place focus on two areas that tie into lawyers’ professional conduct and professional responsibility.

Impact on the Profession

In recent months, the primary focus of debate at both the national and state levels of bar associations has shifted from the appropriateness of use for advertising purposes to the concern that the profession as a whole could be impacted in both image and operation. The image concern does circle back to the reason lawyer advertising was banned until 30 years ago, as something we simply do not engage in (it is beneath us, or some argument along those lines). Either way, it is often couched as an ethics discussion.

The current hot buttons are tied to the concern that lawyers will be forced to change the way we do business based on the criteria that rankings determine are most relevant. It echoes a long-standing discussion in the world of academia: Should schools do a paradigm shift to score better in a ratings system that can’t help but be subjective?

Selection of Counsel

If you agree that the primary premise for rankings and ratings is to impact selection of counsel (and that is supposed to be the reasoning for participation, correct?), are these businesses helping out? Or is this simply muddying the waters for those states trying to protect the public through elimination of practices that can be deemed “deceptive and misleading”? The bottom line for most inquisitors participating in the conference boils down to whether or not being selected or highly ranked positively impacts business development opportunities.

Survey Says …

As noted in the aforementioned Frontlines article, the survey results provided some interesting insights in regard to impact and credibility.

• Most acknowledged that ratings services are here to stay but some also included notations of “necessary evil,” “popularity contests” and “most are missing many of the truly great lawyers.” Attempts to heavily regulate or do away with them are often met with legal roadblocks and an argument that loses out to the first amendment.
• Lawyer ratings’ potential impact is far higher when selling to a consumer audience. Avvo continues to pick up steam in this market.
• The use of client interviews is getting overrun and overblown. As one presenter noted, it is like asking your grandmother to give an evaluation—such a nice boy, such a good boy. Do all the positive statements really help anyone?
• The novelty of Chambers USA is being usurped by others, who are mixing the interview model into their methodologies.

Many of the respondents answered heavily positive or negative in regard to feelings toward the presenters and the companies they represent. Pro-rankings largely singled out Martindale, followed by Best Lawyers, as being “most helpful.” Super Lawyers and Law Dragon edged toward the “least helpful” category. Feelings were mixed in the non-participating ACC and Chambers business models.

Here is a further sampling of thoughts and feelings from those in attendance—in their own words:

In-House Counsel Perspectives

• “I very rarely use them. I do not believe the information provided is useful.”
• “We have a very formal competition for selecting attorneys and law firms. The ratings are a good source of additional background data. The natural tendency of people is to trust a rating that has a good track record (Consumer Reports). Prestige of any rating entity is directly proportionate to the experience of the user. They are here to stay. I have recommended using some of these services to consumers looking for a lawyer.”
• “They are necessary and valuable. But I also know that many great lawyers do not show up in these services. I might select a lawyer based on a rating if it was a small matter outside of a jurisdiction I’m familiar with. I would rate a lawyer based on peer reviews, client reviews and complaints.”
• “They are useful in providing some background information, but it would not be the basis for selection. I think the Best Lawyers model was most persuasive to me. They are most helpful to consumers. I would rate a lawyer based on client references, peer references, performance history and specialty bar references.”
• “Ratings are a good secondary source. But most valuable to consumers. I generally rely on word of mouth and recommendations of people I trust.”

Outside Counsel Perspectives

• “I see more of these coming down the pike. I rate attorneys by legal ability and client feedback, but see these ratings as having a negative impact. We need more transparency to the process.”
• “Ratings are somewhat helpful but potentially deficient if unsophisticated consumer/clients have distorted input. There should be a balance between client input and peer review. I’ve been positively ranked, but it has not had an impact on my practice. In the end, a client must like the attorney, and that is hard to measure.”
• “I think they are more helpful to larger law firms, in regard to gaining access. I also believe the lists of those named should be much smaller.”
• “For selecting a lawyer, I go by word of mouth. They are here to stay because large law firms like participating in them.”

Law Firm Administration Perspectives

• “They could be helpful, but there is still a feeling that ratings are dependent on money spent. They are businesses designed to make money. Martindale carries the greatest prestige.”
• “I don’t like them, yet I want my lawyers on the lists. The side-by-side presentations at the conference really helped take a look at the different companies. These are mostly just popularity contests. I would rate an attorney on performance and personality.”
• “They are so hard to gauge. Whether they are considered important depends on the individual attorney. Not sure any of it carries ROI. For me, I would look for a personal referral when seeking a lawyer. I would look to accessibility, use of billable time, success record, relationship with the client, knowledge and experience.”
• “These are popularity contests in an inexact science. Prestige is in your verdicts.”
• “I am opposed to them all because of the amount of time and resources that a firm must commit to participation, although I like the competitive spirit.”
• “I’m in favor of anything that can help potential clients make a buying decision.”
• “Our clients tell us they do not consult the ratings. I think the prestige of Chambers and Best Lawyers is fading; U.S. News might change the mix a bit.”

About the Author

Micah Buchdahl, Chair of the ABA Law Practice Management Section, is an attorney and President of HTMLawyers, dedicated to guiding law firms through business development strategies and implementation.