Back in August, New Jersey high court has order all parties involved in the lawyer advertising dispute until September 15th of this year to file their responses to the special master’s report. After that the court will then hear arguments before making a ruling that could effect lawyers from using the “SuperLawyers” logo and claims on marketing and advertising materials.
“Super Lawyers” is a legal publication and website that has expanded their business model through the 50 Untied States. The issue that is being challenge and could potentially effect ethics rulings in other states, is the idea that a “Super Lawyer” or “SuperLawyer” rating implies that a lawyer with said designation would be superior amongst other New Jersey lawyers.
In previous challenges, the court said that a lawyer may use the “Super Lawyer” designation along with other rankings or ratings such as the Martindale Hubble Peer Review Ratings. The pro-SuperLawyers side believes that the rating services provide the consumer with more information to make better choices about hiring a lawyer.
My opinion is that being a “Super Lawyer” is “super” misleading to consumers. The nomination process is flawed and you have to pay money to use the SuperLawyer designation. In my opinion, that alone loses it’s credibility.
Should an attorney decide to tout the “Super Lawyers” rating or award, they should do the right thing by explaining that they do pay a fee to belong to the organization.
James
Tags: lawyer ratings, martindale hubbell, super lawyers, superlawyers
