Website Attorney Ranking Is Protected Speech
A website that ranks attorneys is publishing only protected opinions, not facts, a Washington federal district court found.
Two attorneys who were ranked by Avvo, Inc. claimed they were damaged by the website’s rating and that the ranking violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act. They also alleged that because of the ranking, clients may not hire them but rather go to higher ranked attorneys.
“Rather than seeing the Avvo ratings for what they are-‘that and $1.50 will get you a ride on Seattle’s new South Lake Union Streetcar’-plaintiffs Browne and Wenokur want to make a federal case out of the number assigned to them because (a) it could harm their reputation, (b) it could cost them customers/fees, or (c) it could mislead the lawyer-hiring public into retaining poor lawyers or bypassing better lawyers. To the extent that their lawsuit has focused a spotlight on how ludicrous the rating of attorneys (and judges) has become, more power to them,” the court wrote. “To the extent that they seek to prevent the dissemination of opinions regarding attorneys and judges, however, the First Amendment precludes their cause of action.”
The court found that the website describes the ratings as an “assessment” or “judgment,” words that imply some sort of evaluation process. “Neither the nature of the information provided nor the language used on the website would lead a reasonable person to believe that the ratings are a statement of actual fact,” the opinion stated. The court noted that defendants’ rating “is virtually impossible to prove wrong,” so it is protected by the First Amendment.
As to the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), the court found that since the website does not accept payment for the inclusion of an attorney on the site, “Avvo’s publication of information and ratings based on available data is not ‘trade or commerce’ and cannot form the basis of a CPA claim.” The court found that although the website accepts advertising, the “program is separate and distinct from the attorney profiles that are the subject of plaintiffs’ complaint.”
Browne et al. v. Avvo, Inc., W.D. Washington at Seattle, No. C07-0920RSL, filed Dec. 18, 2007.