Comments on: Beware New ‘Best Attorneys’ Site http://www.lawsitesblog.com/2010/03/beware-new-best-attorneys-site.html Tracking new and intriguing Web sites for the legal profession. Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:16:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Anonymous http://www.lawsitesblog.com/2010/03/beware-new-best-attorneys-site.html/comment-page-1#comment-35 Anonymous Sun, 04 Apr 2010 05:19:59 +0000 http://www.lawsitesblog.com/2010/03/beware-new-best-attorneys-site.html#comment-35 Robert, your article was forwarded to me regarding Jeev Trika and the BestAttorneysOnline.com website.<br /><br />My name is Edward Lewis and I'm the System Administrator for SEOConsultants.com. We too have a claimed Independent Authority in our midst, they go by the name of TOPSEOs.com with Jeev Trika being the lead partner.<br /><br />You can read more about our concerns here, they are very similar to those you have for your own industry.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.seoconsultants.com/topseos/" rel="nofollow"><b>TOPSEOs - Independent Authority on Search Vendors?</b></a><br /><br />Thank you Robert and have a Happy Easter if you're celebrating. Robert, your article was forwarded to me regarding Jeev Trika and the BestAttorneysOnline.com website.

My name is Edward Lewis and I'm the System Administrator for SEOConsultants.com. We too have a claimed Independent Authority in our midst, they go by the name of TOPSEOs.com with Jeev Trika being the lead partner.

You can read more about our concerns here, they are very similar to those you have for your own industry.

TOPSEOs – Independent Authority on Search Vendors?

Thank you Robert and have a Happy Easter if you're celebrating.

]]> By: John Bisnar http://www.lawsitesblog.com/2010/03/beware-new-best-attorneys-site.html/comment-page-1#comment-36 John Bisnar Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:11:08 +0000 http://www.lawsitesblog.com/2010/03/beware-new-best-attorneys-site.html#comment-36 Robert,<br />Just read your articles regarding BestAttorneysOnLine.com. I visited the website to check it out for myself. Most of the links didn't seem to be working even though the site was up. I did similar checking around, as you did per your previous article about this site. I never found any links working to check attorneys in my state (California) or in my practice area (personal injury).<br /><br />To evaluate...each attorney...based on several identified factors...by an...experienced research team...based upon...reviews of case histories and firm expertise...on the targeted field of practice taking into account specialized state variances...and then...analyzing the information provided by each firm and comparing that against the market of lawyers throughout the state...would be a monumental task alone. To then compile all that data and assign each firm (not lawyer) a ranking of any value would be a herculean task. I can just imagine the battles that will come from those evaluations, assuming that is what happens. Look at the struggles and litigation AVVO and SuperLawyes has been in over their rating systems. I can not imagine that BestAttorneysOnLine will be up to the task that they have set out for themselves. In theory, a great idea. Practically, impossible without enormous resources and exceptional talent.<br /><br />Thanks for your article. It was forwarded to me by Steven Fairley of The Rainmaker Institute (www.therainmakerinstitute.com). I believe he is a fan of yours.<br /><br />John Bisnar<br />jbisnar@bestattorney.com<br />www.BestAttorney.com Robert,
Just read your articles regarding BestAttorneysOnLine.com. I visited the website to check it out for myself. Most of the links didn't seem to be working even though the site was up. I did similar checking around, as you did per your previous article about this site. I never found any links working to check attorneys in my state (California) or in my practice area (personal injury).

To evaluate…each attorney…based on several identified factors…by an…experienced research team…based upon…reviews of case histories and firm expertise…on the targeted field of practice taking into account specialized state variances…and then…analyzing the information provided by each firm and comparing that against the market of lawyers throughout the state…would be a monumental task alone. To then compile all that data and assign each firm (not lawyer) a ranking of any value would be a herculean task. I can just imagine the battles that will come from those evaluations, assuming that is what happens. Look at the struggles and litigation AVVO and SuperLawyes has been in over their rating systems. I can not imagine that BestAttorneysOnLine will be up to the task that they have set out for themselves. In theory, a great idea. Practically, impossible without enormous resources and exceptional talent.

Thanks for your article. It was forwarded to me by Steven Fairley of The Rainmaker Institute (www.therainmakerinstitute.com). I believe he is a fan of yours.

John Bisnar
jbisnar@bestattorney.com
http://www.BestAttorney.com

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.lawsitesblog.com/2010/03/beware-new-best-attorneys-site.html/comment-page-1#comment-37 Anonymous Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:48:10 +0000 http://www.lawsitesblog.com/2010/03/beware-new-best-attorneys-site.html#comment-37 Not that it affects the general issues you raise with this site, but it does appear that [perhaps] the list in question is ranking the best firms for IP in Massachusetts rather than individuals, which would possibly explain the inclusion of Skadden and Bingham McCutchen with partner names listed that do not match the IP practice. Of course, that does not explain the individuals listed who do not practice IP law. <br /><br />That being said, the site gets more questionable when you click through to a firm description (from the "More Info" link next to each firm). For example, it lists Skadden as being founded in 1997, and having between $3 million and $5 million in revenue. Worse still, the firm overview is simply two paragraphs apparently taken from the middle of a description of the firm's Diversity Committee and provides no meaningful overview of the firm whatsoever. Other major firms have similar obvious errors in their profiles (I'm guessing most at Shearman & Sterling would be surprised to know that, according to this site, the firm was founded in the last two months and has only 14 employees). <br /><br />Seems that this site was launched before it was actually ready for prime time. Not that it affects the general issues you raise with this site, but it does appear that [perhaps] the list in question is ranking the best firms for IP in Massachusetts rather than individuals, which would possibly explain the inclusion of Skadden and Bingham McCutchen with partner names listed that do not match the IP practice. Of course, that does not explain the individuals listed who do not practice IP law.

That being said, the site gets more questionable when you click through to a firm description (from the "More Info" link next to each firm). For example, it lists Skadden as being founded in 1997, and having between $3 million and $5 million in revenue. Worse still, the firm overview is simply two paragraphs apparently taken from the middle of a description of the firm's Diversity Committee and provides no meaningful overview of the firm whatsoever. Other major firms have similar obvious errors in their profiles (I'm guessing most at Shearman & Sterling would be surprised to know that, according to this site, the firm was founded in the last two months and has only 14 employees).

Seems that this site was launched before it was actually ready for prime time.

]]>