Robert Clegg Paschal Jr.

Robert Paschal

This is obviously an untrue, phony “review” full of utter nonsense and defamatory untruths. [For anyone interested in reviewing the actual case on line, the file can be found in the public records as maintained by the Harris County Clerk’s Office, civil court records, under Cause No. 1050920, styled Emily H. Straughter v. Carmax AutoSuperstores, Inc., in the Harris County Civil Court at Law No. 4.] I have made AVVO well aware of the bogus nature of this review on multiple occasions, yet as can be determined from my correspondence with AVVO, the company has absolutely no interest in removing the phony information from their site UNLESS I ESSENTIALLY PAY AVVO TO DO IT (i.e., pay to gain control over “my page” and any nonsense the company allowed to be posted on “my page” that was created without my permission or input, all in an effort by AVVO to hopefully get paid some money). I provided AVVO with the exact case number and other information it would need to verify that the review was nonsense and needed to be removed from its site. AVVO, however, showed a total lack of concern about the attorneys who’s profiles it posts on its website, and chose not to take five minutes to research the issue and remove the “review.” Instead, AVVO chose to hide behind 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230, designed to protect entities that privately block and screen offensive material (e.g., child porn, obscene content, etc.), and in correspondence to me stated: “Please note that we do not verify the information in client reviews. All reviews on Avvo.com are the responsibility of the reviewers, and under 47 USC 230, Avvo, Inc. cannot be held liable for making Avvo.com available to the reviewers.” (Emphasis in original) Thus, AVVO – like some other social media sites – hides behind a law intended to prevent liability for blocking child porn/obscene internet material to do absolutely nothing about bogus reviews. AVVO chooses this route, in my opinion and the opinion of many other attorneys, to allow it to make its money by extorting lawyers into paying AVVO a fee to control the content of their pages – sadly, AVVO has every financial incentive to allow such defamatory content to remain on their site, and proudly state it doesn’t verify it and will not remove it if the person who originally posts it wants it to remain and asserts they were your client. Based on business practices like those described above by AVVO and other companies doing the same (e.g., Match.com, Twitter), who use 47 U.S.C. 230.in a way that was never intended, the tide is beginning to turn in favor of removing this protection. Recently, a major network even carried a program on its weekly in-depth news-based series about the unforseen consequences of letting companies like AVVO avoid all liability in situations that Congress never intended. Soon, efforts to overhaul this statute will hopefully succeed and force AVVO to be responsible in allowing the public to post of reviews on its website, and provide for liability against the company for treating the most valuable thing an attorney has – his or her reputation – from being sullied by bogus reviews without lifting a finger to make sure they are accurate. Given AVVO’s attitude, I will gladly promote in my state, and perhaps even propose to my representatives, legislation to remove any shield from liability, particularly when companies such as AVVO are put on actual notice of the falsity of the information on their sites, yet still refuse – as AVVO has done here – to lift a finger to investigate the truth or remove obviously phony “reviews.” One only need to search on Google “complaints against AVVO” to get a very good feel for the actions of this shady on-line company. Their practices and lack of concern for the attorneys whose data the company posts, without any permission from those attorneys, and with no verification whatsoever of the information the company posts, will astound you.