AvvoReviews of avvo.com

This lawyer gave me no advice, but used the consultation I had paid for to try to sell me a 2 thousand dollar representation packet. Stay away!

Waste of money.

After browsing through a few pages of the site that allow individuals to search for lawyers in their area, I took to the forums to gauge the helpfulness of their lawyers. Initial responses were from lawyers out of state, but eventually one local attorney replied to the thread. The responses were not only tangential but almost completely ignored my question at hand. Instead of replying in a relevant and helpful manner, the local attorney's language was both pedantic and completely offensive. He ignored my question on legal recourse for what happened and chose to shove an insult in my direction instead. After I called him out with neither profanity nor any ad hominem content, my entire thread was deleted. I initially posted a similar review on BBB, but it was deleted because I hadn't actually engaged with a lawyer - a decision I made based on my interaction strictly on Avvo.com, and a technicality they chose to use because it would remove a negative review. Do you want to hire someone who's supposed to fight on your side through a website that engages in this behavior?

The woman I spoke with told me I needed to look at the local rules- not very helpful

Tried to rush me off the phone. Generic answers. Would never use this service again

She has very limited knowledge about Employement based immigration issues

I submitted an un-bias factual review of how bad a public defender was (with evidence of the actual court case transcript) , and they kept throwing my review out. What's the point of having a review site if they throw out factual information that would HELP others so they don't get screwed over?

The premise is a good idea, but thinking logically - if an attorney has time to troll the internet to develop his business, how good is he? I was blind-sighted by a situation on a Friday night regarding consumer rights and a credit reporting agencies control under the FCRA to release that info to my bank at my request to complete a business transaction. The backstory is that I had sued that specific credit reporting agency for mixing my files and won. It was a long/complicated suit but there was a employee at the CRA who made a threat to block future large business transactions as retaliation, I still have that recording just in case something ever popped up. I received a response right away from an attorney who was rude, accused me of "lying" for having a suit with the CRA (guess he didn't know who to look in public records). He seemed very short sighted demonstrating an inability to understand basic finance and the impact of higher interest rates on business deals of size and lifetime loan expenses. The unprofessional-ism was shocking so I looked the guy up to see if he was even an attorney - the guy's specialty is defending DUI's. I am thinking this guy is a moron and wants to just see his name in print. I gave him a "me thinks not" review because he was demeaning and unprofessional working outside his field of expertise because Avvo refused to allow me to remove the question. It's OK for a consumer to be demeaned publicly. So in defense, I write my opinion and Avvo refuses to publish a bad review. Double -standard. Good news is that Monday rolls around, I had time to think over the weekend - I called a real attorney who was retired, but specialized in FCRA to get an email and phone number for the key executive of the CRA. After one 10 minute phone call, the problem was resolved no muss/no fuss. The Executive I spoke to apologized they missed lifting the block the woman had placed on the file. I was dead on target with what happened. No abusive language, no public demeaning, no nonsense. Since Aavo would not allow the question be deleted or at least updated as resolved, a second attorney who deals with bankruptcy in another part of the country feeds of the first moron and continues the belittling of the question. It just seems like the attorney's at Avvo are the bottom of the barrel/ambulance chasers that have a very light caseload. I have to wonder if the number of questions answered and the fact that only positive reviews are allowed... work with the ranking algorithm - why would attorney's who do not specialize in the field where the question lies? Sounds like the psychiatrist conducting open heart surgery. Both are doctor - why can't they do the same thing?