A law firm’s Internet alter ego
A web site called mymeso.org, looks like it’s probably run by a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) group devoted to providing dispassionate information about the dreaded, fatal, asbestos-linked cancer known as mesothelioma. Or possibly by a concerned citizen whose close relative has contracted the disease.
It’s neither. It’s an alter ego of Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles, a plaintiffs law firm in Montgomery, Alabama, that brings asbestos suits, among other things. (Somewhat ironically, another Beasley Allen specialty is consumer fraud class-actions.)
Anyone can obtain a “.org” top-level domain name from the Public Interest Registry, which promotes itself as “the registry of choice for organizations dedicated to serving the public interest.” Though its use ordinarily connotes a noncommercial outfit of some kind, the registry does not bar for-profits from using it.
As of this writing, if you closely examine the mymeso.org homepage, and scroll down a ways, eventually in the right-hand margin you’ll detect two light-gray-on-white boxes whose typeface is so faint that they almost look like watermarks.
One box says “POWERED by HOPE and Supporters Like You,” and the other says “PUBLIC AWARENESS web site sponsored by BEASLEY ALLEN.” (When the page is printed out, these messages are invisible, at least using my printer.)
If you click on the “POWERED by HOPE” box, you get to a “mission statement” that finally acknowledges that mymeso.org is not just sponsored by Beasley Allen; it is Beasley Allen, or, as BA puts it, “a community outreach effort” of that firm. The site was set up by BA on January 16, 2008, according to its Whois data.
Most of the posts on the site are signed by Wendi Lewis, who is not further identified. Some of Lewis’s posts refer to verdicts won on behalf of mesothelioma victims, and some of those offer links to Beasley Allen’s main web site for the “full story.” The site also has an email “contact” feature that provides no indication of where it leads.
For comment I called Thomas J. Methvin, a name partner at Beasley Allen, who also happens to be the president-elect designate of the Alabama State Bar.
Methvin acknowledges that Wendi Lewis is a Beasley Allen employee, but says that the identification of the site as “sponsored by” the firm is sufficient to avoid any confusion. He says that those who have written to the site so far have not been seeking legal assistance; it’s just been about “awareness.”
Ethics professor Stephen Gillers, of New York University Law School, says that he did not know whether mymeso.org met the Alabama’s bar regulations, since rules on advertising vary greatly from state to state. “The disguised nature of the web site would not allow it to survive challenge under the New York rules,” he noted, however.
Professor Robert Kuehn of the University of Alabama School of Law said that Alabama’s rules on lawyer advertising are “not very stringent” and that it was not clear to him that what they do require - primarily inclusion of certain disclaimer language - would come into play here, since the site does not outwardly appear to solicit clients. He also noted that the firm might have First Amendment protections that could override whatever regulatory provisions were implicated.
Assistant general counsel Samuel Partridge of the Alabama State Bar said that, under longstanding policy, he was not allowed to give an opinion over the phone as to the permissibility of a specific lawyer’s conduct.
Incidentally, when first asked to look at the site, none of the experts I contacted initially understood what legal ethics question I wanted to ask them, since none realized that the site was run by a law firm until I told them.
Beasley Allen is not the only law firm with a dot-org avatar. The New Haven, Connecticut, plaintiffs law firm of Early, Ludwick, Sweeney & Strauss also uses one, called the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center, at maacenter.org. The home page uses a popular symbol of medicine as its emblem - the two serpents wrapped around a winged staff - and its “about us” blurb says: “Our organization is staffed entirely by volunteer writers and other contributors who recognize the importance of building awareness.”
But at the bottom of the home page there is also a notice in faint gray typeface stating that the site is sponsored by Early Ludwick. It contains a hyperlinked disclaimer which, when clicked upon, finally does state, with refreshing candor, “Attorney Advertising.”
Jim Early, the New Haven firm’s managing partner, initially said he didn’t think his firm was associated with the Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center, and that he’d never heard of that group before. But then he added, “I’ve got people that do my Internet stuff and I’m not sure what they’re doing. I think we make it clear on all our web site stuff that we’re a law firm.”
I then used the “contact” device on the maacenter.org site, identifying myself as a reporter, and asking if the site was affiliated with Early Ludwick. Jim Early emailed me back as follows: “I have received the inquiry you posted on the web site our firm sponsors. As I indicated, I do not believe the web site is ‘deceptive’ as our name appears on the bottom of the home page as a law firm. . . . I am sorry I did not have complete familiarity with the name of the web site as you listed it to me yesterday as i was in the middle of several other projects and had not seen it beforehand. However I have since looked at it and compared it to other web sites and feel that it would be in compliance with appropriate attorney advertising standards. Emails to that web site do reach my office and we do sponsor that site.”
UPDATE: (March 28, 2008): As of this morning the mymeso.org web site had been revised. It now has a legible “Website sponsored by BEASLEY ALLEN” notice at the top, right-hand side of the home page, a second legible message at the bottom, and its “contact” device indicates that Wendi Lewis works at Beasley Allen. These seem like good revisions to me.
Let me point out to viewers at home who works for who:
“Francis NY” - Likely works for Maacenter/ELSS. Notice how he changes comments around to make it look like the previous commenter was agreeing with him.
“Hugh,” Alabama, and Eric are from Beasley Allen
“Dave Allen” works for one of the two
Roger Gold, competitor
Jay Pensacola, not sure
These men have mastered the art of deception.
Francis: I doubt you have experience considering you cannot read basic html code.
“a href=”http://mymeso.org” target=”_blank”"
rel=nofollow is not located in that code.
Seriously? Get a tool or something. Both the links in the article, and the links in the comments are no-followed.
And yes, Jay. I am aware of several instances where the firm doesn’t “rent” the site. I am very familiar with this niche.
The links in the body section (to mymeso and maacenter) do not have the rel=nofollow attribute but the link in the comments section does have that tag.
Basically as “dirty” as this article is, it gives them a boost in their search rankings which further compounds the problem.
Roger Gold. The links are no-followed. What are you talking about?
It’s funny that you write a column revealing these law firms tactics of concealing their identity to get links to their site, yet you still link to them in your article from a PR5 site! These guys will love all the negative publicity because it will generate more links for them, thus increasing their rankings in the search engines.
You could of at least made the links non-hyperlinks or used the nofollow tags.
Francis if you are saying that these firms are “renting” these sites then I should let you know that this is against Bar rules in some states including your state of New York (to the best of my knowledge).
The email listed by Jay doesn’t seem to be misleading. Has anyone stopped to think that maybe these could be separate organizations which take funding from firms for research and website maintenance in turn for a “contact form” or posting the firm’s phone number? “Sponsored by” doesn’t necessarily mean they manage all aspects of the website.
Jay of Pensacola–
Thanks. I see what you mean. That’s an important point.
The Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center is obviously named and presented to make a visitor think that it is free-standing, probably non-profit, and there to inform rather than to troll for clients. “Sponsored by” does not the suffest that the site is actually a creation of the firm, and it is disingenuous to suggest that it isn’t intended to mask the law firm’s true involvement. It is a violation of the ethics Rules? I’m a legal ethicist by profession, and that’s a tough call—in most states and maybe all, this trick sneaks in under the line. But is it unethical, as in wrong. Of course it is, and the furious rationalizations being presented here by defenders (how devastating the disease is irrelevant to the slimeyness of this stunt, and does not justify it in the least) just underscore the point. The use of .org
is a smoking gun. Good work, Roger.
The reason they don’t specify who sponsors them is for link building efforts. Link building involves emailing another web site asking them for a link and their conversion rate is significantly higher if they don’t have the law firm text right away.
Allow me to refer you to an example:
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=3208 (NOTE: I do not agree with their views at all)
I think that is really what this article was missing, this is done in the context of SEO or search engine optimization.
I like how none of the defenders of these firms mention the fact that after verdict they take up to 66 percent of a client’s award. Is that what they call “doing victims a favor?”
Roger,
As a community health nurse AND a mesothelioma victim, I applaud you for bringing this issue to light. When I was first diagnosed 6 years ago and googled the word mesothelioma, the only hits I got were law firms and obituaries. It’s a two edged sword for sure…On the one hand, I commend asbestos disease awareness in whatever form it takes. On the other hand, there are legitimate non-profit groups out there now who are dedicated solely to patient information and support to which patients can and should be directed for help. Having the net crowded with ‘alter egos’, many of whom have hidden agendas, only makes for confusion. I say, don’t disguise who you are, and don’t try to serve two masters - let those with a scientific and health care background advise patients, while the law firms pursue compensation from those responsible for poisoning so many people. We victims have enough to deal with - we don’t need any additional confusion or distress!
Eric–
I respect that you’re sticking up for your wife, and she is obviously not the person at fault here.
People at the law firm evidently now recognize, however, that the site, as it existed, was not being identified in the best way, and they have already taken steps to rectify that situation.
Roger,
Based on your article and your comment to myself and ‘Dave’ (as you put it) I take it then that all parties are assumed to have a hidden agenda until proven otherwise? Do you have to be organized and approved as a 501(c)(3) in order to be a legitimate proponent of disease awareness? You say people in medical or life crisis should be assisted without having to encounter people with secret agendas, but you’ve yet to do anything but insinuate that BA and other groups have secret agendas. I’m fine with investigative reporting, and exposing groups with such agendas, but so far, all you’ve done is find two law firms who have sites with mesothelioma information published, who have openly, honestly supplied information indicating they are sponsoring the site, and then proceeded to ask State Bar officials if there are any rules or laws against such practices, and having not found anyone to convict them of a crime, hung them out to dry as criminals anyway. On your points a), b) and c)in your reply, the implications are that meso victims are being scammed into something at mymeso.org, that the site is a complete fraud, and that Beasley Allen is a law firm with out integrity.
You are, were or claim to have been an attorney yourself. You might remember the following definition from school:
libel -
1.Law.
a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b. the act or crime of publishing it.
c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2. anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
I’m a veterinarian. By your implications,if I set up a website and post information on how people can manage their pets with lymphosarcoma, and then someone reads the information on the site, and chooses to contact my office and asks me to treat their pet for lymphosarcoma, I’m guilty of ‘luring people to my door by pretending to be what I’m not.’
My point isn’t that there aren’t unscrupulous law firms out there that might ‘chase an ambulance’ and solicit to people who are already having trouble coping with problems, but rather that you’ve made accusations without grounds, found no one to confirm or support those accusations, and then posted them as fact anyway.
Wow. Another great article attacking those that are genuinely attempting to bring awareness to this devastating disease. A disease that has one, and only one cause - exposure to asbestos.
Why don’t you write an article about how nobody in the main-steam media is talking about this terrible disease. A disease that is the direct result of greedy corporate America.
Do a Google news search for “asbestos” and you will find articles from all over the world - from South Africa to the UK, but nothing in the U.S.
Or why not write an article about how companies hid the facts regarding the dangers of asbestos from their employees and their families?
Look at disaster in Libby, Montana. WR Grace knew in 1969 that 92% of their 20-year employees had died of lung disease. Did they disclose this to their employees? No.
You know what they did instead? They used the asbestos-contaminated vermiculite tailings to build a local track for the children to run on. They used it to build playgrounds on.
Here’s a legal issue to consider. On April 4, 2001 WR Grace declares bankruptcy to avoid footing the bill for the cleanup of Libby and to avoid having to pay millions in legal fees. A year later, the US Justice department intervened in the bankruptcy proceeding, charging that just prior to filing, the company transferred at least $5 _billion_ into spin-off companies and stock holders to hide assets and avoid liability.
What about an article on Gayla Benefield of Libby Montana? How about a piece on the _30_ family members of hers that died or been diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease?
Or how about a piece that addresses the fact that over 35,000,000 homes, schools, and businesses contain asbestos-contaminated Zonolite insulation from Libby, Montana?
Nah, you’d prefer to attack those trying to do good with innuendo. Great stuff.
I’m interested in this “Dave Allen” character. Anyone want to trace his IP address for me? Odds are ‘Bama or New York.
‘Dave’ and Eric:
People in medical or life crisis should be assisted to find what they’re looking for without having to encounter people wearing disguises with secret agendas they know nothing about. The people who are hurt by the practices described in the article are (a) meso victims who think they’re reaching genuine disinterested victim’s groups or medical information sites and aren’t; (b) genuine disinterested victim’s groups or medical information sites, which find it harder to connect with the people who are looking for them, because they have to compete with fakes; (c) plaintiffs lawyers of integrity, who compete based on their reputations as lawyers rather than by luring people to their door by pretending to be what they aren’t.
Parloff has made a living off of attacking successful PI law firms. Perhaps he is jealous that he spent 5 years as a lawyer and likely failed miserably at it. Now he’s writing blogs. Parloff- I have an idea for an article you’ll never write:
Interview some victims of Mesothelioma. How about the wife who’s husband made $3.50 an hour in a factory for 40 years. This was after he served our great nation proudly in the military. At night she washed his clothes for him after cooking what she could afford to buy for groceries, all the while inhaling asbestos fibers found on his shirt. The Doctor has just given her 4 months to live and her lungs are filled with fluid. The multi-millionaire CEO of ABC Corporation who spent $500k last year on lobbyists doesn’t want to pay, even though his predecessors knew.
Look her in the face and share your opinions about how this whole thing is a farce and listen to her tell you (assuming she can breath at this point long enough to speak) how much pain she is in. Maybe next, after you tell her about your most recent trip to Italy, she can tell you her plan for her family not being on the street after she dies.
And finally, share your opinions on the horrible lawyers who have set up web sites that educate the public on the dangers of asbestos exposure and guide them through the process of obtaining financial compensation… Financial compensation that the companies that line the pages of Fortune Magazine would rather she and her family never knew about. I think that would be a great perspective for your readers.
I don’t believe that Mr. Parloff is making any accusations. His message seems to be “caveat emptor.”
Ok Roger, I’ll be the last to arbitrarily defend any law firm, so don’t think I’m just soft on attorneys. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, have to admit that I am married to the Mrs. Wendi Lewis referred to in the above article. I suppose that might make me biased, but actually, that is the reason why I have considered this issue, long before you did.
Aside from the fact that you seem to believe the BA firm to be disingenuous and you want to offer this website up as proof of that, what exactly is the point of your article?
The website plainly identifies itself as being sponsored by the firm. Yes, it is in a lighter shade, ‘watermarked’ as you call it, but if they had put a big banner up, you’d be crying foul too I suspect, saying they were soliciting.
Who gets hurt by this effort on BA’s part? Sufferers from the disease can learn about avenues of support and possibly treatment. If they feel that they were exposed to asbestos by another party, they have a right to be compensated for their injuries. If they want legal representation, they can call any attorney, on none, and still benefit from mymeso.org.
I’m not familiar with the ethics laws as they apply to attorneys, but there shouldn’t be a law that would prevent any person or agency from offering support or help to those who suffer from disease or distress. I don’t see any way that such people are being taken advantage of by BA through the use of this site.
If you would like to be a more competent reporter, make a point in your article, don’t just make vague insinuations that the subject of your investigation is guilty of some dastardly crime. I would venture to say that BA is far more forthcoming about their relationship with mymeso.org than you are about what you actually think they are guilty of in your article.
When are you going to quit doing hit jobs on legal industry? Who’s pocket are you in Parloff? Despite what you may think, these corporations knew what they were doing and now it is time to pay.
- Scruggs catches a break
- State Farm turns the tables on Hurricane Katrina lawyers
- A law firm’s Internet alter ego
- Dickie Scruggs’ incredible shrinking wallet
- Scruggs guilty plea - but will he cooperate?
- Law firm bought ’stolen’ Coke docs, official says
- Ending software patents: Has the time come?
- A Valentine’s gift: Vibrator sales legalized in Texas
- Scruggs may use stealth entrapment defense to bribery charge
- State Farm v. AG Jim Hood: Wild suit, wild questions, wild ending
- How much SCOX stock DO you own? Reall... More
- Paid at the end of the day, as is Mik... More
- Now this is journalism!... More
- Francis - In a previous post you w... More
- Let me point out to viewers at home w... More
- Francis: I doubt you have experience... More
- Documenting everything is what a wise... More
- Seriously? Get a tool or something.... More
- The links in the body section (to mym... More
- Roger Gold. The links are no-followe... More
This blog is about legal issues that matter to business people, and it's geared for nonlawyers and lawyers alike. Roger Parloff is Fortune magazine's senior editor (legal affairs). He practiced law for five years in Manhattan before becoming a full-time journalist.
Francis -
In a previous post you wrote:
“Has anyone stopped to think that maybe these could be separate organizations which take funding from firms for research and website maintenance in turn for a “contact form” or posting the firm’s phone number? “Sponsored by” doesn’t necessarily mean they manage all aspects of the website.”
If you are saying that Maacenter is being rented (which is what happens with lead generating sites) then according to “Jay from Pensacola” you’ve just opened up ELSS or whatever firm you work for to a huge legal problem because if what he says is true then the site is breaking the rules.
Now I’m not a lawyer and Jay could easily be a competitor lying about those rules but this information is solid gold for your competitors.
I hope you don’t play poker because you just tipped your hand.