IDAHO BUSINESS REVIEW ANALYZES DR. DAVID MCKEE’S RESPONSE TO NEGATIVE REVIEW

Standard

MAY 11, 2013

“With Online Reviews, It Pays To Know What You’re Doing”

Jane Pribek, Idaho Business Review

What would you do if someone called you “a real tool” on Avvo?

Don’t follow in the footsteps of Dr. David McKee, who responded to his negative review by filing a defamation lawsuit, which the Minnesota Supreme Court recently ruled was not actionable. In addition to losing the case, McKee’s action generated negative publicity about the poor review. If only he had known about online reputation management.

“The spread of social media has touched everyone and every business owner,” said Joe Preston, of Attorney Reputation Management, a Washington-based marketing and public relations firm. “We’ve had clients who’ve been affected by jealous competitors, disgruntled former employees and sometimes, frankly, clients who are unreasonable.”

There are steps attorneys can and should take to protect their reputations, said Preston and intellectual property attorney Scott Scioli, who are co-authoring a book on the topic, scheduled for publication in June.  They recommend you start by claiming your profiles on the various directories and reviewing websites, primarily for search engine optimization purposes. Then, you’ll need to monitor the reviews or comments on those websites, frequently, along with periodically Googling your name and your firm’s name to see what results come up. Some advise using Google Alerts and similar services to stay on top of new mentions. But you can’t rely on alerts alone, Preston said, because Google has curtailed how often the alerts are sent.

You can be proactive by encouraging happy clients to write positive, truthful reviews. Many websites use algorithms to determine the credibility of posted reviews, and reviews sent from mobile devices often are seen as more likely to be authentic, Preston said.

When someone posts an unflattering review, don’t expect the website to take action. Still, you should bring blatantly false reviews to their attention, such as when you never represented the reviewer. But website owners’ tend to trust their own software’s indicia of authenticity over your word, Preston warned. Once they deem a review authentic, it’s very hard to convince the company to remove it.

More often, it’s better to respond to negative reviews, tactfully and ethically. Be cautious not to reveal any confidential information about the representation.  Reach out to the reviewer, Preston said. Be positive, and ask him or her to call so you can resolve the matter.

As for taking legal action, Scioli advised against it, noting that when you file a defamation lawsuit, it makes the news and keeps the negative information as a top result on Google. Moreover, there can be significant proof issues: Sometimes people use proxies or hire people outside the U.S. to write negative reviews. Then there’s the issue of whether you even can collect the judgment.

“The perception of being the kind of person who sues someone for criticizing you is very negative, and can lead to additional negative feedback about you and your firm,” Scioli said. “You have to be careful about asserting your rights, even when you’re in the right, because sometimes it’s not a question of who’s right, but rather what’s the better strategy.”

Full Article

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Web Posting

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Patient Complaint

Plaintiff David McKee’s Reply To Patient Complaint

Plaintiff David McKee’s Cease And Desist Letter To Defendant Dennis Laurion

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Complaint To Minnesota Board Of Medical Practice

Plaintiff David McKee’s Complaint To Sixth Judicial District Duluth Court

Plaintiff David McKee’s Response To Minnesota Board Of Medical Practice

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Answer To Plaintiff David McKee’s Complaint

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Motion For Summary Judgment

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Deposition Extracts

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony About Circumstances Before Encounter With Laurion Family

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony About Encounter With Laurion Family

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony About Circumstances After Encounter With Laurion Family

Plaintiff David McKee’s Deposition Testimony In Response To Questions By Marshall Tanick

Affidavits By Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Parents

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Supplemental Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff David McKee’s Motion To Oppose Summary Judgment

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Reply Memo In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment

Sixth Judicial District Court’s Order On Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff David McKee’s Appeal Of Order On Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff David McKee’s Brief To Minnesota Court Of Appeals

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Brief To Minnesota Court Of Appeals

Plaintiff David McKee’s Reply Brief To Minnesota Court Of Appeals

Minnesota Court Of Appeals Order To Strike Portion Of Plaintiff David McKee’s Reply Brief

Minnesota Court Of Appeals Announces Decision

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Petition For Review By Minnesota Supreme Court

Plaintiff David McKee’s Opposition To Review By Minnesota Supreme Court

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Brief To Minnesota Supreme Court

Plaintiff David McKee’s Brief To Minnesota Supreme Court

Defendant Dennis Laurion’s Reply Brief To Minnesota Supreme Court

Minnesota Supreme Court Decision On David McKee MD V. Dennis K. Laurion

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2010

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2011

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2012

David McKee MD v. Dennis Laurion 2013

McKee V Laurion Is A Textbook Case

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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