Without my initiation, the company has apparently added a "peer review" in violation of their own policy on their web site. I notified them that I had not initiated the "peer review" process outlined on their web site, and their response was that they would remove the alleged "peer review," but would add the notation/phrase "the attorney has chosen to suppress the review," suggesting to prospective clients that there's a problem with the rating, or there is something to hide, which isn't the case, other than the fact that I did not ask to be "peer reviewed" by Martindale. I am a sole practitioner and always have been-- there is no possible way any admin or fellow firm colleague initiated the peer review process. In other words, it's a clear mistake. However, Martindale's "solution" is unacceptable. Martindale has no right to set up the criteria on which I should be rated, (the CA Bar does this) or dictate how I appear to my clients on the Internet. This is interfering with my absolute right to run my business.
Martindale's policy is merely marketing, but at the attorney's expense--it forces attorneys to sign up for its service to gain a better rating in order to avoid looking as Martindale dictates on the Internet. According to them, my choice is to 1) have a rating I didn't initiate, or, 2) have the verbiage Martindale proposes, both of which are unacceptable.