Of all of the amazing things that have happened to me because of this blog, perhaps the most interesting (and hardest to explain) is my relationship with LegalMatch.
Back in April 2004 I wrote a short post titled Why I’ll Never Use LegalMatch, in which I took the company to task for its sales tactics. I’d been writing this blog for a few months and thought nothing of the post or the title. The post attracted (and continues to attract) dozens of comments about LegalMatch — some positive, but most negative. I followed up the original post with several more, including some interesting give-and-take with LegalMatch executives. Ultimately, I received an offer from LegalMatch CEO Randy Wells to meet him in New York. The result of that meeting was this Apology from LegalMatch posted on my blog.
LegalMatch next asked me to come to San Francisco to visit their offices and meet with their people. I got a peek inside LegalMatch’s technology, met some of the company’s people, and extended an invitation to Randy Wells to come to LexThink.
After LexThink, Randy asked if we (my LexThink partners Dennis Kennedy, Sherry Fowler and I) would do a “private” LexThink event for LegalMatch in lieu of their traditional management retreat. We agreed, and I facilitated their management retreat last weekend. LexThink, Inc. charged LM $5,000.00 for the event.
At the retreat, I saw forty LegalMatch managers brainstorming about how to make their company better. I also engaged many of them in (sometimes heated) discussions about how their methods had alienated folks like me and countless other potential customers.
Gullibility Break: Look, I know my post and the resulting comments have cost LegalMatch hundreds of thousands of dollars (this figure comes from someone outside of LM). Just Google LegalMatch, and you’ll understand why, though I’m a bit concerned because at least once a week, someone Googles “LegalMatch” over and over and follows each link back to my blog posts — perhaps to keep my year-old post high up on Google’s first page?
I’ve also learned that many of the internal policies (and people) that led to the things I complained about have changed. If my experiences with LegalMatch are part of some sort of “grand plan” to sucker me in to coming over to the LM “dark side,” I’ve got to admit that it has been masterfully planned, acted, and executed.
Starting today, I’m changing the title of my original post to “Don’t Sell Like This.” The comments will remain active, and the content won’t change. The titles of the rest of my LM posts will stay the same, and I’ll keep the LegalMatch category alive.
Full Disclosure Break: While a part of me thinks I’m an idiot for not demanding that LegalMatch pay me $XXX,000.00 for removing all of the LM posts from my blog, I’ve not gotten anything personally from LegalMatch for writing this post or doing what I’m doing. The only compensation I’ve received from the company is the value of two airplane flights, a few nights in a hotel room, a couple of lunches and two dinners for the meetings in NYC and SF. I’ve received no promises and have no expectations.
I’m ultimately doing what I’m doing because I think it is right, and because I’ve gotten to like a lot of folks at LegalMatch. Will I work with LegalMatch in the future? Possibly. Will LegalMatch be involved with LexThink in some way? Maybe. Is this some horrible violation of blogger ethics? I’m sure you’ll tell me so. Thanks for your time, and now back to regular blogging.
Speaking of thorough background checks that Legalmatch and Casepost claim to do, I know of one lawyer with Casepost in Oregon who has been plublicly deciplined twice including a short suspension!
Posted by: Jack | July 17, 2006 at 11:57 AM
http://sev.prnewswire.com/multimedia-online-internet/20060607/SFW11007062006-1.html
For those 1 or 2 attorneys who know who the Federal Trade Commission is, above I provided the link to what they think is best for the consumer.
For the rest of the legal profession. You are vendors of a service. Nothing more. Whatever helps the mass consumer make a better choice, regardless of how you are affected as the merchant, is seen as a good thing in our society. By being quite against this change, even after it is endorsed by state bars and the FTC, all you are saying to your future clients is, "I am still god in this profession and screw you for looking for optional ways of finding us."
To those attorneys who do not like getting called by salespeople: tough!
You are a publicly advertised business (although most are not very professional) vending a service like a masseuse or a call girl, whoever can pay that comes through the door. Am I wrong? If you are against B2B Telemarketing, fine, but don't hate a company based solely off of their use that marketing tactic.
Lastly, using LegalMatch, CasePost, LegalFish or any of the other findanattorneyquick services, is approved by the government and WILL NOT GET YOU DISBARRED. Behaving like you are all knowing will.
Posted by: DwayneIndividual | June 11, 2006 at 12:18 PM
LegalMatch's Biggest competition is CasePost.com
On their About Us page here:
http://www.casepost.com/ourteam.php
ADVISORY BOARD
Matt Homann, President of Lex Think and author of the [Non] Billable Hour Blog
Now why would someone sitting on the advisory board of a company that is anti LegalMatch allow a complaint forum of undocumented anecdotes about LegalMatch to remain high in the organic search engine results?
Do you get paid by CasePost Matt? If so, souldn't you list that in your credentials when you talk about LegalMatch? I think it conflicts you out of hosting this discussion, but I am not a lawyer and not therefore not slimy enough to even consider doing what you are doing.
Oh, by the way, here is what Consumer Reports (a source that does not think itself lord over a service industry the way attorneys do) says about LegalMatch:
http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/web-credibility-investigation-law-and-disorder.cfm
One alternative approach lets consumers look before they leap. LegalMatch.com of San Francisco and CasePost.com of Irvine, CA, both match clients to lawyers, who then bid to take a case. Clients can review the proposals – all from attorneys who meet certain standards – and decide which, if any, they want to hire.
The approach has been controversial in the legal profession because it competes with non-profit referral services certified by the national and state bar associations. In June, the Utah State Bar set off a national debate when it decided to replace its referral service with LegalMatch.com. "We did due diligence, and it was very impressive," says Toby Brown, a Utah Bar spokesman. "It may be a leap of faith."
Consumers should also perform as much due diligence as possible before hiring a lawyer found online. Find out if disbarred lawyers have been weeded from online listings and whether the site requires attorneys to meet certain education or professional standards to be listed.
So pick a side Matt. Either online attorney/client matching or against. You are obviously pro, based off how this comment began. At least explain you work for LegalMatch’s competition.
Please stop the mudslinging festival against your personal interests and start considering how undermining the legal profession sounds when a non lawyer stumbles onto Blawgs.
Posted by: Truth | June 11, 2006 at 12:01 PM
I used legalmatch for a period of time. They talked me into signing a multi-year contract at a very steep cost. They promised that I would get business from using their service; however, I didn't get any business from legalmatch and so I ended up wasting my money. The cost almost put me out of business. When I asked them for a refund -- due to their not living up to their bargain -- they simply stopped taking my calls. I sent them a demand letter -- which they didn't answer.
Looking into it further, they included an arbitration provision in their agreement which would have requried me to travel to San Francisco and cost me several thousand dollars to dispute. I opted not to fight them, but to just pay off the large debt (financed through their company at 10% interest).
It is unfortunate that con-artists like legalmatch are out there.
Posted by: joni | June 04, 2006 at 01:39 PM
I used legalmatch for a period of time. They talked me into signing a multi-year contract at a very steep cost. They promised that I would get business from using their service; however, I didn't get any business from legalmatch and so I ended up wasting my money. The cost almost put me out of business. When I asked them for a refund -- due to their not living up to their bargain -- they simply stopped taking my calls. I sent them a demand letter -- which they didn't answer.
Looking into it further, they included an arbitration provision in their agreement which would have requried me to travel to San Francisco and cost me several thousand dollars to dispute. I opted not to fight them, but to just pay off the large debt (financed through their company at 10% interest).
It is unfortunate that con-artists like legalmatch are out there.
Posted by: joni | June 04, 2006 at 01:39 PM
I agree. It is one thing to risk losing your law license by using LegalMatch.com, but it is quite another to support a company with such a poor track record.
I used to get calls from them, and they would spend the time trying to size me up. To see how much they could charge me. After telling them that I found this site and others that outline the numerous complaints and unethical practices, they kept trying to just reduce the price. It was as if they thought that their unethical past could be overcome by providing a reduced price (which was still really steep -- much much more than anything I would have paid -- even for a company with a good track record). After a while their calls just seemed humorous to me. I guess they sensed that they were not going to take my money, so they stopped calling. I could use a laugh; I kind of wish they would call back.
Posted by: Lisa | May 15, 2006 at 08:32 PM
I agree. It is one thing to risk losing your law license by using LegalMatch.com, but it is quite another to support a company with such a poor track record.
I used to get calls from them, and they would spend the time trying to size me up. To see how much they could charge me. After telling them that I found this site and others that outline the numerous complaints and unethical practices, they kept trying to just reduce the price. It was as if they thought that their unethical past could be overcome by providing a reduced price (which was still really steep -- much much more than anything I would have paid -- even for a company with a good track record). After a while their calls just seemed humorous to me. I guess they sensed that they were not going to take my money, so they stopped calling. I could use a laugh; I kind of wish they would call back.
Posted by: Lisa | May 15, 2006 at 08:32 PM
Research before use. Tons of materials in archives. Using them in this
state, or a similar service, will result in disciplinary proceedings.
============================================
Darrell G. Stewart
Law Office of Darrell G. Stewart, PLLC
8531 N. New Braunfels, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78217
210.826.3063 Phone
210.826.3069 Fax
mailto:[email protected]
Posted by: Darrell | April 26, 2006 at 09:24 AM
And somehow legalmatch.com is still ripping people off, blatantly violating state lawyer referral service statutes, and getting rich off of poeople in the meantime.
Posted by: Name | March 31, 2006 at 06:13 PM
I have decided to add a follow-up post to update everyone on my experience with LegalMatch since my prior post. I think that it is important for me to write this post so that others who are contemplating working with LegalMatch get a feel for LegalMatch.
As you can read from my prior post, I had some questions about LegalMatch's services. Do I think LegalMatch could have initially done a better job in setting expectations? Yes. However, I have to say that they have really gone out of their way to try to remedy the deficiencies. The marketing management staff has been really responsive. They reformulated how the cases were assigned to me (how cases are listed, key words, and other misc. computer nerd stuff) and it now looks like LegalMatch is going to work out for me. Time will be the best test, so perhaps I will write to give you another update in a few months.
I am not one to write an endorsement for any company (and I am not doing that
here); however, I do think that LegalMatch's response says a lot about their
company. They may not be perfect, but at least they are willing to work with
their attorneys. I can't say that many companies would do that these days.
Posted by: Kreig Mitchell | September 16, 2005 at 12:39 PM