Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 11 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

Minneapolis

New York

Silicon Valley

Washington, D.C.

<img style="max-width: 100%;height: auto;max-width: 100%;height: auto" loading="lazy" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-4091" src="https://www.thelawforlawyerstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/754/2018/09/Lawyer-ratings-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200">Making big news this summer was the shut-down of Avvo Legal Services just a few months after it was <a href="https://www.geekwire.com/2018/avvo-founder-mark-britton-4-top-execs-depart-internet-brands-acquisition-closes/">acquired by Internet Brands</a>.&nbsp; (A couple of the many reports are <a href="http://bernabepr.blogspot.com/2018/07/avvo-legal-services-is-dead.html">here</a> and <a href="https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/avvo-shuts-down-its-legal-services-52787/">here</a>.)&nbsp; Some <a href="https://www.responsivelaw.org/blog/after-repeated-attacks-by-bar-avvo-ends-popular-fixed-fee-legal-services-portal">speculated</a> that the new corporate owner had no stomach to continue to fight for that portion of Avvo&rsquo;s&nbsp;business model in the face of <a href="https://www.lawsitesblog.com/2018/07/avvo-legal-services-shut.html">numerous state ethics opinions</a> that found a wide variety of ethics problems with it.
The flat-fee service that Avvo offered&nbsp;through a network of lawyers&nbsp;required the lawyer to&nbsp;rebate&nbsp;a &ldquo;marketing&rdquo; fee to Avvo out of the fee that the lawyer received.&nbsp;&nbsp;As we&rsquo;ve <a href="https://www.thelawforlawyerstoday.com/2017/05/3303/">pointed out</a>, that raised&nbsp;issues of fee-splitting with non-lawyers; but other aspects of the model also troubled ethics boards.
Does &ldquo;processing fee&rdquo; = fee-splitting?
On another front now drawing notice, another&nbsp;on-line legal services provider is&nbsp;contesting&nbsp;charges in California district court&nbsp;that its own business plan violates false advertising and unfair competition statutes, including recently-filed allegations that it supports its business with spurious&nbsp;attorney ratings.
The suit is significant for highlighting that despite the demise of Avvo Legal Services, the ethics&nbsp;issues remain in light of the other players that continue to occupy&nbsp;the same&nbsp;space in the marketplace, and that litigation, not just regulatory action, sometimes results.
The plaintiff in the California federal case is LegalForce RAPC Worldwide,&nbsp;an IP firm.&nbsp; In an <a href="http://filehost.thompsonhine.com/uploads/LegalForce_v._UpCounsel_Amended_Complaint_1f6a.pdf">amended complaint</a>&nbsp;filed earlier this month, LegalForce alleges that it competes with defendant UpCounsel Inc.&nbsp;to &ldquo;provide individuals and small businesses with affordable access to attorneys,&rdquo; by using technology to match clients with&nbsp;lawyers specialized in corporate, patent and trademark law.
The allegations, which withstood an earlier motion to dismiss, include that UpCounsel&rsquo;s model features a &ldquo;processing fee&rdquo; markup that constitutes impermissible fee-sharing with non-lawyers.
The amended complaint says that UpCounsel tries to attract consumers by promising to provide lawyers in the &ldquo;Top 5%&rdquo; of specialized IP and corporate practice niches in&nbsp;cities across the U.S, and that the representation constitutes false advertising, as there is no ranking system that could provide a basis for the claim.
&ldquo;Reviews&rdquo; outnumber lawyers, says complaint
In addition, according to the allegations of the amended complaint, UpCounsel falsely advertised superior consumer ratings for the lawyers in its network.&nbsp;&nbsp;As an example, the plaintiff pointed to the rating given to IP lawyers in Cotati, California:
&ldquo;Cotati Intellectual Property Lawyers, 5.0 ***** Based on 5450 reviews.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp;&ldquo;It is impossible for Cotati Intellectual Property Lawyers to have 5,450 reviews on UpCounsel,&rdquo; says the amended complaint, because &ldquo;Cotati is a small town ... with a population of 7,455. There are only 21 attorneys in the city of Cotati licensed to practice law in California, and none of these 21 attorneys are listed on UpCounsel.&rdquo;
LegalForce alleges that this same pattern of &ldquo;perfect or near-perfect review scores&rdquo; based on thousands of purported reviews is duplicated&nbsp;as to lawyers advertised by UpCounsel&nbsp;in&nbsp;other cities, such as Tallahassee and Savannah.
More to come...
The ethics issues regarding on-line legal service providers have not gone away just because Avvo has withdrawn from that market.&nbsp; As Prof. Alberto Bernabe, a legal ethics professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago,&nbsp;has <a href="http://bernabepr.blogspot.com/search/label/Avvo">pointed out</a>, &ldquo;Where Avvo left off, someone else will pick up...,&rdquo; including, most recently,&nbsp;&ldquo;Text a Lawyer,&rdquo; an on-line platform where&nbsp;prospective clients can ask&nbsp;lawyers questions via text.
Regulators and litigation parties&nbsp;will surely continue to confront the ethical issues inherent in these platforms, although the ABA&rsquo;s <a href="http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/model_rules_on_lawyer_advertising_to_be_modernized">recently-passed revamp</a> of some of the legal marketing rules in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct <a href="https://www.thelawforlawyerstoday.com/?s=avvo">fails to address</a> on-line referral providers.

core/freeform

Ethics

Legal Ethics, Professional Responsibility and the Business of Law

LegalForce v. UpCounsel suit challenges on-line lawyer ratings, processing fees