Findlaw not playing fair?


ed. note: this piece was contributed by the anonymous (k) first introduced in this post. (k) is kreig mitchell, a tax attorney in colorado. here kreig sounds off about the business practices used by Thomson to prop up its Findlaw marketing channel. i’ll let kreig speak for himself though. in the meantime, my thanks go to krieg and everyone else with the courage to speak their mind. this blog’s for you.

The Internet is often thought of as the “wild west” because so many derive riches from doing semi-unethical [someimes just plain unethical] things. In this regard I feel compelled to relate my experience with FindLaw, a well known developer of legal websites. FindLaw targeted my websites recently and in my view jobbed the search engines in order to outrank me, with negative results for those actually searching for what I offer. I explain below …

RecentlyFindLaw accessed my sites and — traffic statistics revealed that they had used very specific searches like tax attorney to call up and estate planning lawyer in Denver for The sites were top results for such searches at the time. A few weeks later FindLaw visited my sites again using the same keywords: but this time my sites weren’t at the top results. Instead FindLaw was ranked highest and used a generic site containing primarily unrelated information and a prominent find a lawyer link at the top of the page. No longer would my sites be found right away by clients searching for services based on natural key-word searches: now they would see FindLaw’s dummy page and be herded over to those customers placed at the top of the Thomson pile based on who paid what. Simple pay for play.

In fact FindLaw is now soliciting me to buy a listing on their site to rank among the results from the very keyword categories in which I dominated. And of course, even if I agreed to pay for a listing I would now be one of hundreds accessed via a link on a generic page. If FindLaw didn’t exist and go out of its way to outrank my sites in the search engines clients looking for what I offered could actually find me. As it is now, who knows?

The irony is that search engines like Google were supposed to identify and index relevant websites via unbiased, mathematically derived, proprietary algorithms. Dummy sites like those put up by FindLaw undermine this function and produce skewed, ineffective search results — for example prospects looking for a “tax attorney” will now be directed away from real tax attorney sites such as mine in favor of FindLaw’s gateway page. Is that efficient? Does it even make sense? I think FindLaw is gaming the search engines to profit from unsuspecting lawyers by charging us for something we already get for free from search engines: results.

So my opinion (ed. note: this is just that — the author’s opinion, not that of the blog, its editor, or the bar association) is that

(1) FindLaw’s websites should be banned from the major search engines (if you know anyone at Google, please forward this post to them) and

(2) gaming a search engine to reduce the ranking of my law firm website so FindLaw can profit from listing me on their site is bad business, and maybe worse.

What do you think?

2 responses to “Findlaw not playing fair?

  1. Take a step back – if an only if the current paying clients of FindLaw understand what they are paying for and come too grips with the overpriced service, take responsibility and apply the correct efforts to their own site as Mr Mitchell did, and pay the market price which is less than your monthly fee too Findlaw, Findlaw will loose paying clients.

    The ranking game upon a search engine is constantly changing getting caught up on #1 ranking is highly over-rated. The focus should be first page. The focus should be how are people searching for your particular service, local representation is more important here. The practice of jumping over sites is standard. Monitor the competitors see what they have compared to you make the changes things change. What Findlaw adds to the weighing process is IN-BOUND LINKS. Something SOLO’s could not match if they try.

    FindLaw walks a thin line, their description between a Service Referral and Directory is key. But what would change everything is more individual listings by firms not using said services. Pick any possible legal search, list the Top 10, how many are actually directories?

    Don’t blame the Service Providers they are using your money to grow. From a business side, FindLaws aggressive style of contacting Mr Mitchell for a listing because their ranked above him, makes me laugh. Funnier yet is the numerous readers of this blog that still pay a couple hundred dollars a month for something that’s real cost is minimal.

    Like most sectors, things change when people STOP PAYING OR BUYING THE PRODUCT OR SERVICE. This case would bring forward the need too address a business issue with your firms marketing plan. Forgot, they didn’t teach you business in school it wasn’t required. Your not alone, University of Wisconsin – had a meeting over the last few days debating putting business classes in the Medical School requirements, because of FAILING CLINICS.

  2. Pingback: LawFiles.NET: Free Answers to a Law & Legal Questions

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s