ABA Journal

I can’t wait to see the case of Ben Doe vs. Lenahan

By BL1Y on 2012 01 20, 11:31 am CDT

Are w sure the name isn’t Ben Dover?

By RRowleyTucson on Twitter on 2012 01 20, 12:36 pm CDT

If that is the only thing Mr. Doe wrote, this firm should be slapped with Rule 11 sanctions for this lawsuit.

By Another Andy on 2012 01 20, 2:11 pm CDT

I agree what an abuse of the legal system.

By Ben on 2012 01 22, 12:10 pm CDT

I found the reviews:  http://maps.google.com/maps/place?hl=en&safe=high&gs_upl=27151l27745l2l28120l6l4l0l0l0l0l391l391l3-1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1144&bih=595&wrapid=tlif132734348102310&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=lenahan+law+firm+review&fb=1&gl=us&hq=lenahan+law+firm&cid=4255055922633117869&ei=vKcdT82sKMTpgge2p-T8Cw&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=placepage-link&resnum=1&ved=0CEAQ4gkwAA

That is indeed all there is in the Ben Doe review.  I have to agree with the review that the other 2 reviews look like they were written by marketing people, not real clients - They are much too articulate.  It will be interesting to see during the litigation if, even if the reviews represent real clients, they were ghostwritten for the clients by someone at the firm.  Shame on you for trying to manipulate reviews!

By Dr Phun on 2012 01 23, 1:39 pm CDT

The firm does not like the bad review? Tough. Instead of whining about it, they should begin improving their business methodologies and practices to make the customer happy. Without customer’s they would not have a job.

By Scott on 2012 01 24, 11:51 am CDT

Good lord.  Someone at that firm should have googled “the Streisand effect” before tilting at this particular windmill.

By Carol on 2012 01 25, 7:54 am CDT

Is Lenahan’s main clienteles are movie/TV producers, distributors and stars, if so, the firm should do well.

By litttle ray on 2012 01 25, 8:14 am CDT

@ Carol: I was thinking the same thing!

By emjaycee on 2012 01 25, 1:25 pm CDT

If the link above is indeed the firm mentioned, then as of right now all of the reviews have been removed.

By Bill on 2012 01 25, 3:47 pm CDT

Pyrrhic victory at best.  The review continues to live and breathe here, and also here:  http://www.constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1425:bad-experience-with-this-firm&catid=42:news&Itemid=71, and likely in several other places I couldn’t be bothered to click on. 

If I were considering retaining an attorney in that area, and saw all this online, I would seriously wonder if the firm has any ability to appropriately weigh risks and benefits.

By Carol on 2012 01 25, 3:57 pm CDT

Well done!

Ben Doe over (Bend Over)

Good luck with the lawsuit, Lenahan!

By Ben Doe over (Bend Over) on 2012 01 25, 5:03 pm CDT

Ben Doe (-ver) indeed.
It’s what certain lawyers ask they clients to do on a daily basis.

By They Sure Are Snippy in Dallas, Aren't They? on 2012 01 25, 9:34 pm CDT

I thought they were against junk lawsuits in Texas.  Guess I’m wrong again.

By borisjimbo on 2012 01 26, 3:17 am CDT

Very few online “review” sites, like AVVO, offer any way for a lawyer whovhas been slammed by an angry client to either rebut false accusations or remove the post.  I had an ex-client who got mad at me because I could not get money that was paid to his wife right before he decided to divorce her.  His rant failed to mention that the money he was after was a Holocaust reparation for his in- laws, naturally.  A colleague came to my defense because the review was so off the wall—and AVVO removed the post because it wasn’t a review.  So I’m stuck with an awful review that I can’t get rid of—and it’s been 5 years.  Enough already!

By Goldcoaster on 2012 01 26, 6:28 am CDT

Online reviews should be taken with a grain of salt.  We bought furniture through eBay with a guy with thousands of transactions and a good reputation.  Then he never delivered the furniture.  We got our money back after a credit card dispute, but it just goes to show that all good evaluations aren’t necessarily correct or predictive of the future.  Likewise, a bad review isn’t necessarily proof that a business or lawyer does not do a good job.  (Ironic, though, because many businesses are very picky if not snobby about the background of those they hire even while the business itself may have its own reputational challenges or unhappy customers.)  Part of the solution should be to allow the reviewed party to post a response.  The other part of the solution should be educating consumers to consider severe outliers as just that and not make snap judgments.

By SL on 2012 01 26, 7:08 am CDT

Sorry, but I must disagree with most comments in this thread.  A lawyer’s reputation, especially regarding integrity, is important to marketing ability and credibility in work.  The review in question challenged both incompetence and integrity.  It appears that the insult was done both anonymously and negligently.  Perpetrators of such conduct should be held accountable.  Those of you who think this is sport will not think so when you are the target of unfair abuse.

By Curmudgeon, Esq. on 2012 01 26, 7:55 am CDT

As they say, bad publicity is better than no publicity.  Suing on the review sounds like a focused marketing campaign of bad publicity.  Perhaps the firm posted the bad review just so they could sue themselves.

Too strange for me.

By LeakyRoof on 2012 01 26, 8:30 am CDT

We have the same issue going as Lenahan Law Firm. Our company has several bad erroneous reviews from a poster who seems to have a grudge with several industry friends reporting we (all) are closed and have overcharged/stolen from their credit card. Google legal refuses to act and remove the post, siting to use the “Flag as Innappropriate” link which after 3 months was worthless. They have a obligation to correct these inaccuracies once notified, especially by multiple entities. Glad LLF is taking them to task!

By MichaelDDI on 2012 01 26, 9:21 am CDT

Huh.  So…according to Curmudgeon & Michael, expressing a negative opinion about a service should be actionable.  Good luck with that.

By Carol on 2012 01 26, 9:32 am CDT

The bottom line is whether or not the comment is opinion. Can it be proven true or false? Was it written with malice? What are provable damages?

Sounds to me like someone or some firm doesn’t have enough work to do.

By LHB on 2012 01 26, 9:39 am CDT

Curmudgeon and Michael do not seem to be suggesting that simply expressing a negative opinion about a service is actionable.  People ought not to be able to lie about a service and then remain anonymous. Is Ben Doe a competitor or someone who simply does not like attorneys or someone who has an axe to grind for some unrelated matter? Lenahan is not suing over the post per se, yet.

By Truthiness on 2012 01 26, 9:47 am CDT

The negative comment is pretty mild, and it may not be actionable as defamation.  But It also sounds like the negative comment may not be about the correct firm—the poster may have meant a different firm closer to his home.  If so, his post is pretty irresponsible.  Posts can have a significant negative impact on a business, and they remain up for a very long time.  Can’t blame the firm for taking action if they believe this is a case of mistaken identity or a comment that is wholly unjustified.

By Michael-17 on 2012 01 26, 9:51 am CDT

How is “Bad experience with this firm. Don’t trust the fake reviews here.” protected by the first amendment from a defamation suit?  It’s a comment about a business, implying that they write fake reviews.  It’s not a comment about a public person or a matter of public policy.  They are entitled to find out who wrote this just as much as the person who wrote it was entitled to post it.  Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, even “anonymous” comments.

By Saa on 2012 01 26, 10:05 am CDT

“Ben also gave a bad review to an Oregon cleaning company and may have intended to post the negative review about a different law firm closer to home,”

While this may be a red herring element, but if they honestly believe this person posted a bad review against the WRONG law firm; do they not have an interest in verifying that indeed this is first, directed at the right entity and then second that the substance of it is valid?

Would you like it if you got your reputation got drug through the mud because someone who can’t even put their real name didn’t go that extra minute of effort to verify they had the right place?

A tenant of customer service is to not just ask people who had a good experience what was done right but to also inquire as to those who had a bad experience what they could have done differently or better.

The firm might be trying to take it down true, but c’mon “legal minds” the obvious view is not always the correct view.

By Vance McCoy on 2012 01 26, 10:35 am CDT

But here’s the thing…as in any legal community, I’m sure that this firm already has an established reputation in its jurisdiction.  This story is now the first introduction to the firm for a significant number of other people.  That is, these folks will gladly use a cruise missile to kill a mouse.  No one will remember anything else about the firm but their extreme overreaction to a mildly critical comment.

I would wager a guess that most or all the folks commenting here who feel that the “perpetrator” should be “held accountable” for his or her mildly critical online commentary are either well over 50, or total Luddites, or both.  Welcome the internet gentlemen.  Your complimentary muffin basket should be arriving soon.

By Carol on 2012 01 26, 10:38 am CDT

Is this type of nonsense what the ABA Journal is about? Who cares? There are so many SERIOUS issues out there. why is the ABA wasting their time and ours with such drivel?

By citizen1 on 2012 01 26, 10:58 am CDT

This is definitely an issue that needs to be dealt with either through legislation or litigation. Businesses can’t just ignore bad posts that might even be mistaken. And if Google and/or other companies won’t provide an opportunity to rebut or remove then the business has no choice but to sue and subpoena. This sounds ripe for a fee shifting statute.

By Jim on 2012 01 26, 11:15 am CDT

Re #5, Dr. Phun: Doctor, how DARE you! Can the Lenahan Law Firm help it if has extremely intelligent, articulate clients who, while 100% actual and real, sound amazingly like overly articulate marketing people?

You’ve likely just bought yourself a lawsuit from the Lenahan Law Firm, and the ABA Journal Online may be subpoenaed to force them to disclose your email address.

By R on 2012 01 26, 11:16 am CDT

If you believe this is an unwarranted suit, then you people are truly foolish and utterly ignorant! The small family law firm I work for in California has almost been bankrupted by false and defamatory “reviews” online, and I have personally done battle with Yahoo, Craigslist, Yelp, and Google to fix the problem and have the reviews removed. Google was the only one who told us to ef off, and it has been so bad that we had to get a civil restraining order against the person defaming us.

You have to realize that if you win, the opposing side will often write false reviews to damage your firm and even disgruntled clients will go all over town smearing you when they legitimately lose. This suit would been a huge favor to lawyers everywhere if they one. Defamation law has been hugely eroded over the past few years, and we really need a victory to protect us from being damaged by these people…

By LawJake on 2012 01 26, 11:31 am CDT

“R” @ 29 is a marketing person from the Lenahan Law firm

HaHaHaHaHa

By SarahS on 2012 01 26, 11:44 am CDT

I think there should be a requirement that a review of any kind should require the name and e-mail address of the reviewer. A notice above the review should state that there is an express waiver of the atty/client confidentiality.

In this way a fair response can be made by the lawyers.

By Christopher Zoeller on 2012 01 26, 12:14 pm CDT

I was looking at my watch, waiting for a #29 to say what he/she said.

By NoleGrad on 2012 01 26, 12:24 pm CDT

As a documentary filmmaker, I was slammed with thousands of opinions and many of them were not favorable. The internet has become more of a forum skewed to those who wish to vent and state their claims. I am in favor of posters who wish to express their dissatisfaction as many lawyers and companies have PR firms and money to creatively manipulate THIS SAME MEDIA (The Internet) and the internet has basically levelled the playing field. I agree however that anonymous posts should be banned, and an IP address from the poster should be publicly viewed.

But to litigate as a fishing expedition? Please.

By Richard Bond on 2012 01 26, 12:28 pm CDT

So everyone who writes a review of a business on sites like Yelp & CitiSearch can now be sued unless it’s a positive review??  Kind of defeats the purpose of review sites.

By Jenny on 2012 01 26, 12:50 pm CDT

NoleGrad- me too!  We’ll see if he bites…

In order for the speech to be actionable if must be FALSE, and you have to be able to prove it’s false. The posting in question could only be proven false if the firm can prove that this Ben Doe character never had any dealing with this firm.  Likewise, a posting by a non-client pretending to be a client can also be proven false (as in the case with competitors, jilted spouses, etc). 

However, a negative comment in the form of an opinion from an actual former client, or from a non-client who has dealt with the firm and reveals in what capacity is protected speech.  Firms don’t have a claim against someone posting an opinion based on factual experiences, however bad it makes the firm look.

By SarahS on 2012 01 26, 1:11 pm CDT

First off, so let me get this right, a Texas firm is alleging that Ben did not mean to write the review about them, because he lives in Oregon? So are they admitting that he did not purposefully avail himself and have no minimum contacts with Texas? But they are suing him for 50k in a Texas court? Well, good luck trying to sue him, but if he finds a lawyer who is worth their beans, I am sure they will just quash the summons for lack of PJ.

With that being said, I really don’t like that they have these review sites that are so easy to say horrible things about professionals. When it is a company, or restaurant where hundreds or even thousands of people use the services every day, then reviews can vary based on many different aspects. So for reviews like about service industries, it is expected and what can someone really say that would be that damaging based on a couple visits and complaints about a rude waiter or stale coffee? I believe that people realize that and will take those types of reviews with a grain of salt. I also think that those types of reviews serve a beneficial purpose in that it lets the company know what’s going on or to maybe hire new staff and train them better. It is not necessarily a personal attack on someone (although they can be),

With attorneys, and other professionals where people assume that the client had a fiduciary relationship with the person - and they didn’t just serve them a sandwich or make them a drink, then these reviews are taken much more seriously. The attacks are personal. And it is about our competency and integrity and ultimately affects our livelihood. If people are allowed to be totally anonymous, people tend to be much more loud mouthed and can say untrue things and use colorful adjectives that can be very damaging. And it gives anyone the right to take a stab at them. What’s stopping the adversary from going on there and writing bad things just because they lost? I know several people who don’t have any problem with their own lawyer, but despise, for example their ex wife’s lawyer, and would love to post a horrible rant about how incompetent their ex-wife’s lawyer is just because they are really ticked off about losing the house in the divorce or some such a thing.

I believe that the anonymity for websites that review professionals like Avvo and Google, need to change it so they have a better screening process for discerning whether someone actually was a paying client, and have their identify somewhat verifiable. I also believe they should post a warning that all posts are at your own risk, and that any complaints of false posts will result in turning over their identity to the complainant, and that the website is not responsible if they are prosecuted for libel for defamatory statements. I think to ask these sites to put up some warning of some kind will help prevent people from being careless. I also think it would filter out a lot of the would-be-fake-ranters if they see the possible consequences if they say something untrue.

If these websites want to make money by making a account with my profile without my permission for people to just go on there and so whatever they please, they need to be accountable for the damage it can cause when people abuse it - which they definitely will and already do to people.

By Lisa on 2012 01 26, 1:24 pm CDT

Darn that pesky First Amendment, as well as truth as an absolute defense to defamation.

By AndytheLawyer on 2012 01 26, 1:40 pm CDT

There will be a lot more of these type of lawsuits.  Attorneys are especially vulnerable to bad reviews because there will be someone on the other side who doesn’t like them even if their own client loves them.  Since there is no way to verify that a reviewer is actually a client (and not the ex-spouse of a client or a competitor), a lawsuit is the only way to expose a false review.

By DWP on 2012 01 26, 1:40 pm CDT

Has anyone any information on whether the Service (Google in this instance) even tracks the IP or if it is subject to subpoena?  The Record Industry had similar trouble in getting user information from ISPs a few years ago.  Is this whole discussion moot?

By Bill on 2012 01 26, 1:57 pm CDT

I think the case will be interesting; anonymous postings of reviews does leave a difficult situation for attorneys. There is no ability to address the matter, or rebut when you do not know the other party.

By Mojo on 2012 01 26, 3:45 pm CDT

You can’t track IP addresses to a specific user. It will only give you a general area. This suit is stupid. What is the world coming to when you can’t express an opinion? This type of thing gives lawyers a bad name. So glad I got out of the legal profession.

By silly on 2012 01 26, 10:39 pm CDT

We should impose damnatio memoriae upon Ben when we discover his identity to deter others who would even consider impugning a lawyer’s reputation (integrity). As law practice goes more virtual, this issue grows in importance. Unlike other professions, impugning a lawyer’s integrity/credibility is severe. Lawyer’s are not “public figures” and require extra protection of their reputations.

Thus, our only solution is to eliminate every trace of Ben’s existence.

No. I am not being facetious.

By Damnatio Memoriae for Ben on 2012 01 27, 1:34 am CDT

#43. Your name wouldn’t happen to be Newt would it?

By Jim on 2012 01 27, 9:04 am CDT

#43- And while we’re at it throw the entire First Ammendent out the window, as we have never seen a lawyer with a lack of integrity. Your comments are so biased they are easily discredited.

Lawyers go to school and pass a test. That’s how they become lawyers. Beyond that there is no real criminal or “integrity” background check, like in the Law Enforcement or Security Clearance-related industries. If that were the case otherwise there would be no “jailhouse lawyers” or lifetime murderers who become attorneys. And you say we shoudl stick up for them? O.K. The next time someone comes up with a CarFax for an attorney or an attorney has to rise up to a “Top Secret” clearance standard (where you are polygraphed and asked questions dealing with ethics like “Have you ever made a decision knowing it was wrong, because you knew you’d get away with it?” It’s interesting to note that attorneys are some of the only “officers” of the Court who do not have regular and prescribed (and ongoing) background checks. And they enforce laws sometimes more than police do.

Lawyers should have that “Top Secret and Above” standard anyway, as they are asked to hold just a critical secrets for their clients and their clients expect that level of - as you say - “Integrity”.  But you and I both know that many would be out of the profession if they took that test- and perhaps they should. And perhaps that might not be a bad thing, and perhaps people may not have just cause to besmirch integrity as there is a baseline to test against.

So I’ll tell you what- Take the Clearance Test, show me the CarFax on the “Victim” and then you can chase down anyone who has unjust grounds to complain.

By Richard Bond on 2012 01 27, 10:29 am CDT

@Carol:  Not everyone over 50 believes everything they read on the internet.  Not all of us are dinosaurs.  I think most internet anonymous reviews should be ignored.  They are not worth the uh, bandwidth they’re written on.

By Over 50 on 2012 01 27, 11:19 am CDT

I would hope that LLF doesn’t advise its clients to use this caliber of legal strategy.

By Kelly on 2012 01 27, 11:36 am CDT

I don’t have time to run through the 47 comments, but I’d make a suggestion to the firm. POST a response, saying that they would sincerely like to discuss this with the poster to get information about the ways in which he/she believes that their efforts were insufficient. That the post is too vague to be helpful, and that they strive to be competent, professional attorneys and regret any shortcomings, real or perceived, in their service to Doe.

By Morell E. Mullins on 2012 01 27, 12:52 pm CDT

[In my opinion,] Oh c’mon, people (lawyers, really?), the First Amendment doesn’t cease to operate when we don’t like what someone else is saying.  In fact that’s when it’s most important.  Post a rebuttal if it really matters that much.  It’s obviously “Ben’s” opinion here.  Do we really now all need to add the explicit qualifier “in my opinion” before we write or say anything??

And [in my opinion], for those of you advocating that one must reveal his/her real name when posting online, you’re living in the wrong country.  Please move to North Korea or someplace else.

By Lex Luthor on 2012 01 27, 1:10 pm CDT

@Over 50:  My apologies :-)

By Carol on 2012 01 27, 3:29 pm CDT

Carol (#7) was right to mention the Streisand Effect.  This is a important consideration which my partner, Jennifer Ellis, emphasizes in her seminar entitled “I Am Begging You . . . Please Don’t Look Like an Idiot on the Web!, which has been presented to wave reviews by Bar Associations throughout PA. But I have to say that I don’t LIKE the advice which is associated with mention of the Streisand Effect—it’s tantamount to anonymous blackmail!  I agree very strongly with Curmudgeon, Esq (#17), Saa (#24) and Jim #28.  I happen to work for a Bar Association, and I can tell you that I get a calls at least every week from a distraught lawyer about a bad review.  Anonymous or not, the problem is that our “new normal” is evolving from a paradigm shift in communications of epic proportions.  A shift in which people will now often turn to the words of strangers (e.g. online reviews) at their first level of filtering information about who they might find suitable to do business with, rather than start with the formerly reliable circles of friends, family, business acquaintances, and service providers.  That’s why it’s so important. 

Let’s not have a repeat of the formerly “dirty little secret” where just a few knew that if their lawyer threatened to sue for fees, they count threaten back to counter-sue for malpractice, and the lawyer would run away in fear.  If the legal profession is cowed into silence by the threat of the Streisand Effect, the outcome will be no different.  Is the suit an abuse of process?  I don’t know.  I’m just not hoping not to have to keep recommending recommending to my Bar members that they ignore it, for rear of worse consequences.

By LPM-Maven on 2012 01 30, 8:59 pm CDT

Good luck getting past the wall protecting anonymous speech. I’ll be surprised if Google forks over the identity of “Ben” that easily.

By Tom on 2012 01 31, 9:36 am CDT

I would like to know the name of the Judge who might sign the subpoena against Google.  Or does Partner Black plan on signing same himself?

By Amy on 2012 02 03, 5:18 pm CDT

It is hard to believe that the negative effect of this one review is worse than the negative press that they are getting from this lawsuit. If the firm is that concerned about their image and strives to provide the best service, you would think that the other positive reviews would outway this one negative review.

By Allan Ziffra on 2012 02 06, 9:04 am CDT

Comment removed by moderator.

By marian ja on 2012 02 06, 12:51 pm CDT