Avvo, the company behind the lawyer-rating Web site, has successfully fought off a suit brought by two lawyers unhappy with their ratings. A federal district judge in Seattle dismissed the case Dec. 18, finding Avvo.com's rating system is protected by the First Amendment and cannot serve as the basis for liability under state law.

Avvo.com uses ratings by lawyers and consumers as well as factors like disciplinary history, references and awards to provide “the Avvo Rating.” The site purports to help consumers find quality attorneys.

The suit, brought by Seattle attorneys John Henry Browne and Alan Wenokur, said the Avvo Rating was deeply flawed and easily manipulated and was a scam that could harm consumers and damage legal practices. The plaintiffs also alleged the ratings system was biased, alleging that acquaintances and colleagues of Avvo's founder and CEO Mark Britton tended to garner very high ratings–they pointed out that Britton himself was rated 8.0 out of 10, while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg only ranked a 6.5.

“To the extent that [the plaintiffs'] lawsuit has focused a spotlight on how ludicrous the rating of attorneys (and judges) has become, more power to them,” Judge Robert Lasnick of the Western District of Washington wrote in a 10-page opinion. “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.”

Lasnick also found the plaintiffs could not file a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, noting that “the damages claimed … are so remote that they were not proximately caused by defendants' publication of the offending attorney profiles.”

“As I have said from the beginning, this was a case that never should have been filed,” Britton said in a statement. “We are gratified that the court agrees.” In a post at Avvoblog.com, Britton called the case “preposterous.”

Avvo, the company behind the lawyer-rating Web site, has successfully fought off a suit brought by two lawyers unhappy with their ratings. A federal district judge in Seattle dismissed the case Dec. 18, finding Avvo.com's rating system is protected by the First Amendment and cannot serve as the basis for liability under state law.

Avvo.com uses ratings by lawyers and consumers as well as factors like disciplinary history, references and awards to provide “the Avvo Rating.” The site purports to help consumers find quality attorneys.

The suit, brought by Seattle attorneys John Henry Browne and Alan Wenokur, said the Avvo Rating was deeply flawed and easily manipulated and was a scam that could harm consumers and damage legal practices. The plaintiffs also alleged the ratings system was biased, alleging that acquaintances and colleagues of Avvo's founder and CEO Mark Britton tended to garner very high ratings–they pointed out that Britton himself was rated 8.0 out of 10, while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg only ranked a 6.5.

“To the extent that [the plaintiffs'] lawsuit has focused a spotlight on how ludicrous the rating of attorneys (and judges) has become, more power to them,” Judge Robert Lasnick of the Western District of Washington wrote in a 10-page opinion. “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.”

Lasnick also found the plaintiffs could not file a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, noting that “the damages claimed … are so remote that they were not proximately caused by defendants' publication of the offending attorney profiles.”

“As I have said from the beginning, this was a case that never should have been filed,” Britton said in a statement. “We are gratified that the court agrees.” In a post at Avvoblog.com, Britton called the case “preposterous.”