I am in the process of hiring an attorney, and am using Martindale Hubbell as one of my tools. I'm down to two attorneys.



Attorney #1 has the following ratings:



Peer Rating - 4.6 of 5.0

Client Rating - 4.7 of 5.0

Rating: PREEMINENT





Attorney #2 has the following ratings:



Peer Rating - 4.7 of 5.0

Client Rating - 4.5 of 5.0

Rating: DISTINGUISHED



But, on the search page for people, her listing shows as Preeminent 4.5 out of 5.



It seems to me that given the second attorney's higher peer rating, and the fact that (according to the search page) her client rating meets Preeminent criteria, that her overall rating should be Preeminent.



(Yes, I have tried to read the Ratings Methodology, but when I click the link the only thing that happens is the webpage is greyed out. Yes, I've tried multiple browsers and, yes, popup blocker is turned off.)



Any thoughts about (what appear to me to be) seemingly contradictory ratings?

Follow up question...





Attorney #2 is also American Board of Certification in the specialty I need. Attorney #1 is not.





Should I, in your opinion, give Attorney #2 preference based on the certification in addition to the MH rating?





Thanks!

 

Martindale Hubble doesn't mean a terrible lot these days.  Talk to them both.  Ask questions relevant to the area of representation. Make your decision based on that.  You could also check for client reviews on Avvo.

Aimless - thanks for your replies.



Entirely possible that I'm overthinking -- I'm prone to that very thing. However, if I'm going to drop the money, I want to be sure I've done my homework.



One more question -- Avvo rating for #1 is 6.6/10, rating for #2 is 10/10. Any consideration given for that?



Any other suggestions about how to make the decision other than how they make me feeeeeel?  

davewvu86 - thanks for your reply.



Avvo client reviews: #1 has no reviews, #2 has two 5 star reviews. Not what I'd call statistically significant.

Interview.

Either phone or in person.

In multiple states i have always had at least an initial 10 to 15 minutes for free to interview.

They both have a free initial consult, although at least for #1 they want us to have all info when we go in.

Well, the retardation of Attorney #1's paralegal (or, in fairness, what he's told her to do...) has decided it for me. She won't schedule the preliminary appointment, or even tell me which office the meeting would be set up at, without a bunch of information. First of all, we already discussed all but one of the items over the phone. She has the information already. If she can't keep track of phone conversations, I want nothing to do with them. Secondly, it's simply a consult / preliminary meeting. It should not be like pulling teeth to simply get an appointment and address. I suppose it's your choice if that's what you want your first impression to be, but I'll find someone else. On top of all that, the paralegal's email address isn't even @thelegalfirmname.com -- it's a freebie email address. May not go to the skill of the attorney, but it's one more thing. Never mind that I can't be assured that she is using a secure password.



Attorney #2 was super easy to deal with, and seemed significantly more professional. Scheduled the appointment, gave me the office address without any drama, and gave me a list of questions / items as a starter for the meeting. Poof! Decision made.

Good professionals hire good staff.

When I was in business as  PE I had a very good lady answering my phone.

My number went to her phone also.

You would never know she was miles away.

You're better off asking on Avvo.


They don't try to sell shit like the other referral services.

I actually like that.
A nice subtle dig and you can blame the secretary.

I once dictated a report on a deposition, saying the witness had been in the Navy, serving aboard a small amphibious ship.  The report came back that he had been on a "small and vicious ship".  Perhaps it was.

Most rankings are BS these days. I get emails all the time from colleagues soliciting a ranking for Super Lawyers, Martindale, etc. In my opinion, they are no longer trustworthy and are simply a popularity contest. Further, just because someone represents big clients does not mean they are a good attorney.

I'll second what he said.