Rating and Review Professional Association

Posted Feb 21, 2008 - 12:44 pm:

I am an attorney in Brockton, Ma., We have had nothing less than a nightmare with LawyerRatingz.com. Over the past everal months, what clearly appears to be a single and somewhat disturbed individual write "review" after "review," anonymously on this website. This person has also set up several different listings for my office using the names of different employees to write repeated and defamatory "reviews" giving the falese appearance that hordes of clients are unhappy with our services. We have done everything possible to work with the web administrator to resolve this problem. While they have deleted some of the defamatory and somewhat bizzare reviews and some of the repeated listngs for my office, they have not been able to stop what we are sure is a single person from defaming the good name of this lawfirm. While one of the founders of the website, John Swapceinski, has touted in the media the advantages of permitting individuals to anonymously review professionals claiming that their anonymity is advantageous by making them free of being held accountable for their statements, it should not be a surprise that such a position has significant detrimental effect. That detrimental effect is to permit individuals to freely post, in a very public forum, for reasons other than those for which that web site is intended, defamatory and false remarks leaving those who are injured by them with little or no recourse. This makes the website operator or administrator the proverbial “goal keeper” or screener. LawyersRatingz.com's failure to identify those who wrongfully use its site and to take corrective action destroys the credibility of that website. Ltigation and domestic relations attorneys often make enemies (the opposing party). Generally speaking, when an opposing party in a acrimonious domestic relations matter expresses hatred of their opponent’s attorney, that attorney has done a good job. When such persons employ LawyerRatingz.com's website to seek vengeance or act with other unethical or unscrupulous motives, not only is the credibility of that site damaged, but it allows the reputations of hard working professionals or business enterprises to be victimized as well. Allowing persons to post anonymous reviews is the functional equivalent of informing the public that at a supermarket, there will be no security measures present; most people will still behave ethically but some will not and will shoplift. Such a failure to “police” its website makes it nothing more than a place in which those who are unhappy with the legal system or who seek vengeance against opposing counsel can anonymously vent their personal issues or hatreds. The reviewers’ anonymity encourages and protects their misdeeds. Our experience with this website has been nightmare to us. We can tell you with certainty that like all attorneys, not every client is happy and we can accept that a genuinely dissatisfied customer has the right to complain. The LawyerRatingz website, due to the way that is is strutured adminstered, in our case, has allowed one person an unfettered opportunity to defame my office and give the appearance that numerous clients are unhappy and mistreated; something which is simply not true. The LawyerRatingz website, in permitting such conduct to occur, in our opinion, has absolutely no credability. Due to the anonyminity of those who post so-called "reviews." One cannot determine whether the review is accurate, made by an angry opposing party, a stalker,etc. - Brad Greenberg, Esq.

Posted Feb 22, 2008 - 3:46 pm:

The Rating and Review Professional Association encourages all users to submit useful and responsible reviews to its member sites. Clearly, review sites are sometimes abused by anonymous posters.

The complaint by Mr. Greenberg fails to recognize or acknowledge the ability of READERS to filter useful information from abusive posts.

We strongly support a free and open Internet, where readers can decide for themselves what is useful and what is not.

Posted Feb 25, 2008 - 6:32 am:

Of course I, stand for a free and open internet. However as do most of my breathern in the legal profession. However, freedom entails personal responsibility so as to not harm others. There is an old legal adage which defines freedom as "the right to swing one's fist ends where the nose of another begins." The Rating and Review Professional Association's approach to a "free and open internet" results in becoming and instrumentality by which those with malicious intent can cause great harm to others and/or the repulatation of others. Why should the internet be any different than any other printed forum? How can "readers" decide that is useful and what is not" if they have no basis or information which than can use to evaluate a review? At least in a defamation lawsuit, the claims and counterclaims are tested. As previously stated, what is clearly one malicious person posted hateful and untrue comments simply making up facts as she or she went along. What potential client would want to take the time to evaluate such comments when looking for an attorney? The answer is obvious. So long as Rating and Review Professional Association are entirely anonymous, to a greater or lesser degree, it is more a website in which persons can anonymously vent against the legal system, opposing legal counsel or air other personal "issues" having no relationship to the compentency or professionals which they are allegedly "reviewing." Creating such a situation under the guise of being honest "reviews" is not only a disservice to those professionals being "reviewed," but to the public who has no factual basis for determining what is "useful and what is not." In my case LawyersRatingz.com allowing what clearly was an individual to post numerous posting making nearly every negative allegation about a lawyer there ever was, some of which were bizarre. To LawyersRatingz.com's credit, it removed some of them, but the same individual continued to repost them and even create new listings by using the names of individual attorneys in the office and by changing the name of the office by rearranging the names. Nevertheless, in the end, LawyersRatingz.com allowed the good name of my office to be tarnished and the malicious "reviewer" continues knowing that that are shielded from any responsibility for their misconduct by LawyersRatingz.com.

Posted May 17, 2012 - 1:53 pm:

At least in a defamation lawsuit, the claims and counterclaims are tested. As previously stated, what is clearly one malicious person posted hateful and untrue comments simply making up facts as she or she went along. What potential client would want to take the time to evaluate such comments when looking for an attorney? The answer is obvious. So long as Rating and Review Professional Association are entirely anonymous, to a greater or lesser degree, it is more a website in which persons can anonymously vent against the legal system, opposing legal counsel or air other personal "issues" having no relationship to the compentency or professionals which they are allegedly "reviewing." Creating such a situation under the guise of being honest "reviews" is not only a disservice to those professionals being "reviewed,"
http://facebookemoticoncode.blogspot.in/p/emoticon-code-of-facebook-2012-new.html