Total Attorneys Being Sued for Violation of Legal Referral Rules
TotalAttorneys, a so-called marketing association of attorneys that operates legal referral web sites, such as TotalDivorce and TotalBankruptcy , is being sued in multiple jurisdictions by Attorney Zenas Zelotes, a consumer bankruptcy attorney, based in Hartford, Connecticut and Nevada, for violation of bar referral rules that exist in every state. The Connecticut Law Tribune just released a headline story about the pending Zelotes v. Chern et al .ethics investigations (wherein more than 500 bankruptcy practitioners face possible professional discipline for certain business transactions with Illinois Attorney Kevin W. Chern d/b/a Total Attorneys et al.). The story in Monday's Connecticut Law Tribune summarizes recent findings of probable cause in Connecticut that certain attorneys doing (or having done) business with Chern committed professional misconduct. The story (which is available on line now and which will be released in print edition on Monday) can be found by clicking on the following link: http://www.ctlawtribune.com/default.aspx .
One problem with web-based legal referral directories like the TotalAttorney directories is that the user doesn't see the qualifications of the law firm on the web site, Instead, the prospect submits information about their case which is then sent to a selected number of law firms who pay high referral fees for the leads. The consumer is really unaware of the identity of the law firm to which they are being referred. Placement in the directory is based on the law firm's ability to pay the "marketing fee" .
Other law firm directories are more transparent and let the consumer view the attorneys profile on line which enables the prospect to make their own judgment about which law firm they want to explore a potential relationship or engagement. These more transparent directories include Findlaw, Lawyers.com, Nolo.com, and AVVO. The more transparent and information robust an attorney directory is, the more consumer friendly it is. When a consumer provides information to an on line questionnaire when the identity of the law firm is masked by the web site, the consumer is assuming more risk that the attorney really meets their needs. Caveat Emptor !!
I find your article biased and inaccurate: You refer to Total Attorneys as a "so-called" marketing association but do not use that loaded term when referring to Findlaw et al. You state that the organization "is being sued...for violation of bar referral rules" as if a ruling has already been made, rather than inserting "alleged" "purported" or "supposed" before the word "violation". Since your intended audience is made up of lawyers, we already know that just because a suit has been filed does not mean that it is legitimate. You mention that participating law firms pay "high referral fees". High in relation to what? There is no reason for you to put the term "marketing fee" in quotation marks, other than to obliquely reveal your own skepticism. Also, the use of the word "masked" implies that information is being hidden from the inquirer, when the objective is to connect the potential client with an attorney, and then each can decide whether to go forward with an attorney-client relationship. Finally, I did not see any effort on you part to get a point of view from Kevin Chern or Total Attorneys.
It is wonderful that someone has taken the time to pursue this issue. Congratulations!
I think thatFindlaw/Thomson/Reuters/West (the law info monopoly) is just as complicit if not more so. Just think. Years ago Martindale-Hubbell was a respected publisher of lawyer bios and ratings. Now through Thomson, et al you have to pay for a rating.
If it's called advertising, which it is, no foul, as long as the posting indicates that it's advertising.
That's great, I never thought about Marketing On-Line Legal Services like that before.