Imagine a lawyer rating system that assigns lawyers different categories of grading and purports to provide an objective way to assess a lawyer and through “third party validation of ethics and legal ability provides that extra level of confidence that the right lawyer or firm has been selected.” A ratings system that takes years of experience into account in issuing ratings and removes positive ratings where a lawyer has a negative disciplinary record. A ratings system that even generates enough profit to fund a fellowship. And a ratings system that includes some errors and omissions.
If you thought that the lawyer rating system that I just described would be the subject of class action lawsuits, you’d be wrong. But that rating system sure sounds like this one, which is the subject of a class action lawsuits. And indeed, many of the claims alleged in the class suit (which you can access here) would seem to apply to both ratings systems: such as complaints of arbitrariness of ratings or that the rating service makes deceptive and false representations that clients can rely on the ratings in choosing a lawyer.
So, one of these ratings systems is sued, while the other is not. And if you’re wondering about the reasons for the differential treatment, I can think of at least one: consider the ratings of the class action’s lead plaintiff by this ratings service and this one.
Note: for the record, I have criticized both ratings services for various reasons here and here and here. In my view, ratings systems aren’t worth much because choosing a lawyer isn’t like picking a restaurant or buying a house. So if we lawyers allow ratings system, we should explain that they’re one of many, many factors in picking a lawyer. But more importantly, if we allow ratings systems, we must tolerate all systems; we shouldn’t be able to pick and choose by filing class actions between those ratings systems that we want (because they grade us better) and those we don’t.