Dallas Litigator Sues FindLaw Over 'Cookie Cutter' Firm Website
A Dallas attorney has lodged a fraud suit against the online legal marketing company FindLaw, alleging he was duped into thinking they would create a unique website for his new law firm but instead provided one that was “cookie cutter” and “unimaginative.”
May 22, 2018 at 02:01 PM
3 minute read
Rogge Dunn
A Dallas attorney has lodged a fraud suit against the online legal marketing company FindLaw, alleging he was duped into thinking they would create a unique website for his new law firm but instead provided one that was “cookie cutter” and “unimaginative.”
Rogge Dunn, a civil litigator and principal of the Rogge Dunn Group, alleges in recent petition filed in a Dallas County Court of Law that he was prepared to hire a different company to create a new website for his firm, but a FindLaw salesperson talked him out of it, claiming its competitor had created few websites for attorneys while FindLaw had created thousands of them.
“FindLaw also promised to develop a unique and individually customized website for Dunn and his law firm, Rogge Dunn Group P.C.” the petition alleges. “The website that FindLaw gave to Dunn contained basic, unimaginative images and stock language. FindLaw uses a generic 'cookie cutter' approach for hundreds of attorneys nationwide. The website provided is anything but unique, or customized to Dunn's law practice.”
Dunn also alleges in the lawsuit that once an attorney stops using FindLaw, the company “flips a switch” that essentially removes the benefit of the 12 months of search engine optimization (SEO) already paid for.
In an interview, Dunn said that he was forced to push back the launch date of his new law firm three weeks because the website FindLaw created for him was not acceptable.
“It had cartoonish images like a phone for scrolling information,” Dunn said. “I handle multimillion dollar cases, and it looked like a website for a solo practitioner who handles small cases.''
Dunn said he was later told by FindLaw the changes he wanted make to his website could take months.
“When you hire somebody and you have a launch date, and they provide a service that substandard and then say it's going to take 60 or 90 days to fix, that's unacceptable,” Dunn said.
Dunn said he found another web developer to create a website for his firm that launched on April 23, but is still paying on the $45,000 deal he made with FindLaw.
“I want them to do the right thing and refund me for the services they didn't provide and reimburse me for the expense I incurred paying another website developer for what FindLaw couldn't do and couldn't do on a timely basis,'' Dunn said.
A spokesperson for FindLaw did not return an e-mailed request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
5th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
5 minute read
Akin, Baker Botts, Vinson & Elkins Are First Texas Big Law Firms to Match Milbank Bonuses
4 minute read
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
