Eric Turkewitz, The Turkewitz Law Firm, New York, NY
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Avvo Rating System: Thanks, But I'll Pass
The Avvo web site for rating lawyers came on line last year to the sound of widespread derision. I won't re-invent the wheel, just point you to Scott Greenfield's most recent post on the subject at Simple Justice, where he goes through some of his past criticisms, which Avvo has been working on from the beginning. The last time I checked it out, they wanted my credit card number just to write a review of another lawyer. Thanks, I thought, but I'll pass.
Since Greenfield said today that many improvements had been made, I went back for a visit. After all, the days of lawyers or clients finding appropriate counsel from books is rapidly going the way of the dinosaur, and potential clients may find such websites that will replace Martindale-Hubbell. So this is the nightmare I found when I tried to create an account to update the profile they created for me:
A "terms of use" document that I started to read, before I realized it didn't have an end. Or at least it didn't have an end any rationale human being would ever see. After reading the part about giving them the right to change the terms at any time without my agreement, and this could be to take my first born for all I know, I knew it was unlikely I would agree to their terms of use.
It then went on to assert that they had the right to send me as many junk emails as they want from whoever they sell their lists to. You can't opt out. I mean, really, are you guys kidding with this crap? [Edit: Apparently you can opt out of commercial emails, but not "service or account-related emails." See the comments.]
Quickly disgusted, I copied and pasted the terms of use into a Word document, ran the word count, and found their 15-page magnum opus to be 4,983 words long. And some of it, for reasons known best to people who apparently don't deal with actual humans, is IS WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS IN BLOCKY PARAGRAPHS FILLED WITH WRETCHED LEGALISTIC MUMBO JUMBO making it almost impossible to read. Is this where you put stuff when you really don't want folks to read it?
I quickly left the site. Thanks, Avvo, I'll pass again.
Addendum 3/27/08: More on lousy legal drafting using all caps at The Legal Satyricon, wth many links: Seven sixteenths of one inch… Maddox meets contract drafting
Labels: Odds and Ends
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Wow, that is likley going to cause a lot of lawyers to pass Eric.
Made me run and do a word count on LexBlog's agreement. 892 words on one page. ;)
Made me run and do a word count on LexBlog's agreement. 892 words on one page. ;)
As GC for Avvo, I can't believe you didn't like our terms of service - I thought everyone read them with breathless anticipation!
Seriously, though, I think you should take a closer look:
1) Yes, our terms give us the right to make changes at any time at our sole discretion. You will find this is the case for virtually any set of website terms of use, including those of your blogging service. There's nothing underhanded about it - we're providing a free, dynamic service that will invariably require changes in the future (and we've got our hands full with our own children, thanks).
2) The terms don't give us the right to inundate you with 3rd party e-mail. You can select whether to receive commercial e-mail from third parties. The only thing you can't opt out of is receiving service-related messages.
3) Although there are some sections written in all caps, those are for emphasis. This is a common convention in both commercial documents and website terms of use. You'll see just as many sections of all caps - if not more - if you check Google's terms of use.
Finally, you don't need to enter a credit card to get signed up. While that's one way (and it's strictly an identity verification step - we don't charge anything or keep any credit card info), you may also be able to sign up via e-mail. Alternatively - and because I feel bad you didn't like the TOU - just send me an email (josh at Avvo) with your authorization and I'll get you signed up.
Josh King
VP, Business Development & General Counsel
Avvo, Inc.
Seriously, though, I think you should take a closer look:
1) Yes, our terms give us the right to make changes at any time at our sole discretion. You will find this is the case for virtually any set of website terms of use, including those of your blogging service. There's nothing underhanded about it - we're providing a free, dynamic service that will invariably require changes in the future (and we've got our hands full with our own children, thanks).
2) The terms don't give us the right to inundate you with 3rd party e-mail. You can select whether to receive commercial e-mail from third parties. The only thing you can't opt out of is receiving service-related messages.
3) Although there are some sections written in all caps, those are for emphasis. This is a common convention in both commercial documents and website terms of use. You'll see just as many sections of all caps - if not more - if you check Google's terms of use.
Finally, you don't need to enter a credit card to get signed up. While that's one way (and it's strictly an identity verification step - we don't charge anything or keep any credit card info), you may also be able to sign up via e-mail. Alternatively - and because I feel bad you didn't like the TOU - just send me an email (josh at Avvo) with your authorization and I'll get you signed up.
Josh King
VP, Business Development & General Counsel
Avvo, Inc.
Josh:
I'm not going to wade through 15 pages of legalese to sign up. I don't wade through that kind of nonsense for anything unless I have to.
As to the all caps, telling me it is "convention" is a really bad response. If you want to re-invent the wheel, then re-invent the wheel.
The fact that others have engaged in bad writing is no reason for you to copy them.
I've placed many things in emphasis before. But I limit it to a word or small phrase, not a block paragraph. What you have done is an insult to the eyes and mind.
Would you ever, ever, do such a thing for an appellate brief? For an op-ed in a newspaper? For something you want folks to actually read?
I'm happy to sign up and try it out, but I'm not reading through 15 pages of nonsense with a view toward being forced to accept its terms.
I'm not going to wade through 15 pages of legalese to sign up. I don't wade through that kind of nonsense for anything unless I have to.
As to the all caps, telling me it is "convention" is a really bad response. If you want to re-invent the wheel, then re-invent the wheel.
The fact that others have engaged in bad writing is no reason for you to copy them.
I've placed many things in emphasis before. But I limit it to a word or small phrase, not a block paragraph. What you have done is an insult to the eyes and mind.
Would you ever, ever, do such a thing for an appellate brief? For an op-ed in a newspaper? For something you want folks to actually read?
I'm happy to sign up and try it out, but I'm not reading through 15 pages of nonsense with a view toward being forced to accept its terms.
What, no mea culpa for the parts of the TOU you got wrong?
Sure, it's a lengthy document - but we're running a complex web service, involving lawyers, that many of them don't like. We may be doing a lot of other things unconventionally, but you'll have to forgive us for sticking to convention in our TOU - we were sued just 9 days after we launched, after all.
In defense of placing certain paragraphs in all-caps: No, I would never do that in a court brief. However, ask any transactional attorney if they'd do it in a contract. Check any website TOU or consumer service agreement for a credit card or cell phone service. It's a convention of transactional drafting used to emphasize limitations of liability and warranty provisions. Ask yourself if there aren't some conventions you use in your practice - and see above for why this is one area we don't want to reinvent the wheel in.
Finally, I think you're being a bit tough on us re the word count. Did you review all the TOU terms before signing up with Blogger? With their incorporation of Google's TOU they've got us beat by a mile . . .
Sure, it's a lengthy document - but we're running a complex web service, involving lawyers, that many of them don't like. We may be doing a lot of other things unconventionally, but you'll have to forgive us for sticking to convention in our TOU - we were sued just 9 days after we launched, after all.
In defense of placing certain paragraphs in all-caps: No, I would never do that in a court brief. However, ask any transactional attorney if they'd do it in a contract. Check any website TOU or consumer service agreement for a credit card or cell phone service. It's a convention of transactional drafting used to emphasize limitations of liability and warranty provisions. Ask yourself if there aren't some conventions you use in your practice - and see above for why this is one area we don't want to reinvent the wheel in.
Finally, I think you're being a bit tough on us re the word count. Did you review all the TOU terms before signing up with Blogger? With their incorporation of Google's TOU they've got us beat by a mile . . .
No. No mea culpa from me. The whole point is that it made my eyes glaze over b/c it was so tedious.
And I think you make a big mistake in comparing yourself to Google Terns of Use, because my website is an important part of my business. Your site is not. It will never be as important as my site or my blog.
While it may have value in the future if you gain a foothold, your chances of gaining that foothold are decreased if you chase people away.
As to the all caps crap, I'm not interested in anyone's "conventions." If it is bad, then it is bad, regardless of how many other people do it. And since all caps is very difficult to read it is therefore very bad. Claiming that others do it is lazy. It is not a defense.
One final note, back in 1994 or 5 I drafted the first ever terms of use for The Motley Fool, a very heavily visited financial forum. We called them Fool's Rules. I drafted from scratch. It was designed to be readable and impart knowledge and warnings. It was written in plain English. And there certainly weren't any caps.
You folks can do better.
And I think you make a big mistake in comparing yourself to Google Terns of Use, because my website is an important part of my business. Your site is not. It will never be as important as my site or my blog.
While it may have value in the future if you gain a foothold, your chances of gaining that foothold are decreased if you chase people away.
As to the all caps crap, I'm not interested in anyone's "conventions." If it is bad, then it is bad, regardless of how many other people do it. And since all caps is very difficult to read it is therefore very bad. Claiming that others do it is lazy. It is not a defense.
One final note, back in 1994 or 5 I drafted the first ever terms of use for The Motley Fool, a very heavily visited financial forum. We called them Fool's Rules. I drafted from scratch. It was designed to be readable and impart knowledge and warnings. It was written in plain English. And there certainly weren't any caps.
You folks can do better.
The internet was a kinder place in the mid-90's. Today's "Fool's Rules" clock in at nearly 3000 words, including what they refer to as the "Obligatory Capitalized Disclaimers of Liability."
Today's "Fool's Rules" clock in at nearly 3000 words, including what they refer to as the "Obligatory Capitalized Disclaimers of Liability."
You may rest assured that didn't come off my keyboard! That version of Fool's Rules is vastly changed.
Linked below, however, is the current version of the Disclaimer that I wrote many moons ago. I still see much of my work in it, though it has been updated many times.
You can see how casual language is used and interspersed with minimal legalese that is designed to protect the user of the site. For if the user is protected from injury, then so too is the owner.
Motley Fool Disclaimer
You will note that it is written in plain English, with language used that makes the reader want to go on, not turn them off. I'm pleased to see that it stands the test of time.
Post a Comment
You may rest assured that didn't come off my keyboard! That version of Fool's Rules is vastly changed.
Linked below, however, is the current version of the Disclaimer that I wrote many moons ago. I still see much of my work in it, though it has been updated many times.
You can see how casual language is used and interspersed with minimal legalese that is designed to protect the user of the site. For if the user is protected from injury, then so too is the owner.
Motley Fool Disclaimer
You will note that it is written in plain English, with language used that makes the reader want to go on, not turn them off. I'm pleased to see that it stands the test of time.
Links to this post:
<< Home
The New York Personal Injury Law Blog does not accept advertising banners, pop up ads or other distractions from its content. But since The Turkewitz Law Firm is the sole sponsor, it may be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.)
Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.
Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.
Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.
Subscribe
|
Home
Subscribe by Email
About the author
Eric Turkewitz has litigated New York personal injury and medical malpractice cases for 20 years, and is the founder of The Turkewitz Law Firm in New York. His firm's website is at www.TurkewitzLaw.com.
View by Label
Welcome New Visitors
General Legal Research Links
National Law Blogs ("Blawgs")
New York Law Blogs
Law Blog Directories
Tort "Reform"
Personal Injury / Litigation
Legally Humorous
Medical
Archives
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Kevin OKeefe //
March 03, 2008 12:00 AM
Josh King //
March 03, 2008 12:52 AM
Eric Turkewitz //
March 03, 2008 6:23 AM
Josh King //
March 03, 2008 9:43 AM
Eric Turkewitz //
March 03, 2008 9:59 AM
Josh King //
March 03, 2008 1:42 PM
Eric Turkewitz //
March 03, 2008 2:11 PM
Legal News
Copyright © 2007 Eric Turkewitz & The Turkewitz Law Firm
About the New York Personal Injury Law Blog:
An attorney's blog on New York personal injury law,
medical malpractice, the civil justice system
and cases of interest.
