The Ratingz Network

Posted Feb 21, 2008 - 1:04 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 false 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. I have read numerous review of various attorney's on this website, in my opinion, some "reviews" may be legitimate and some are the product of persons whose intent is to harm the reputations of attorneys with whom they bear a grudge by virtue of being an opposing party and for other reasons no related to whether they were satisfied with their services. Without a mechanism to determine the difference or at least to identfy the person making the reviews ("verificatin"), this method of "reviewing" or rating professionals has absolutely no credability and is a disservice to the public.- Brad Greenberg, Esq.