Ogletree, Abbott, Clay & Reed, L.L.P. v. Findlaw et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0864-3858037.) Filed by Ogletree, Abbott, Clay & Reed, L.L.P.. Filer requests summons issued. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Handorff, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
________________________________________________________________________
Ogletree, Abbott, Clay & Reed
Law Firm, L.L.P.,

Civil No.:

Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL

v.
FindLaw, an assumed name, West
Publishing Corporation, a Minnesota
corporation, and Thomson Reuters
Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Ogletree, Abbott, Clay & Reed L.L.P., by and
through its undersigned attorney, and for its claims and causes of action against the
Defendants above named, states and alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION AND PARTIES
1.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 in that the amount

in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states; that
complete diversity exists between Plaintiff and Defendants herein.
2.

That at all times relevant, Plaintiff, Ogletree, Abbott, Clay & Reed L.L.P.

(hereafter “Plaintiff”) was a Texas Limited Liability Partnership, whose principal place of
business is located at 12600 N. Featherwood Drive, Suite 200, Houston, Harris County,
Texas 77034.

3.

That at all times relevant, Defendant FindLaw was an assumed name with a

principal place of business located at 610 Opperman Drive, City of Eagan, Minnesota.
4.

That at all times relevant, West Publishing Corporation was a Minnesota

corporation with a principal place of business located at 610 Opperman Drive, City of
Eagan, Minnesota, and is the nameholder of Defendant FindLaw.
5.

That at all times relevant, Thomson Reuters Holdings Inc. was a foreign

corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York, organized under
the laws of the State of Delaware, and was authorized to do and was doing business in the
State of Minnesota.
6.

That at all times herein, Defendants shall be known collectively as

“FindLaw.”
FACTS
7.

Plaintiff is a law firm which operates three corporate websites with the

following addresses: Ogletree, Abbott, Clay & Reed, LLC website at
www.ogletreeabbott.com (“Ogletree website”), Jones Act website at
www.1800jonesact.com (“Jones Act website”) and the Workers’ Compensation website
at www.complawyers.net (“Complawyers website”) (collectively, the Ogletree website,
Jones Act website and Complawyers websites are referred to as the “Ogletree websites”).
8.

FindLaw is a corporation which markets website developing to attorneys all

across the United States. FindLaw advertises on the Internet to the public for the purpose
of encouraging the public to find lawyers through their company. FindLaw sells various
types of advertising to attorneys and also sells website developing services to attorneys.

FindLaw is profiting from being a “middleman” in the legal field. FindLaw also markets
a magazine named “Top Lawyers” and also advertises under the name “Top Lawyers”.
This magazine supposedly contains the nations’ top lawyers, however, it contains lawyers
who pay to be in the magazine.
9.

Plaintiff hired FindLaw to increase its exposure to potential legal clients on

the Internet after seeing FindLaw’s advertising and hearing a sales pitch from their
marketing representative Brian Vogel.
10.

Plaintiff then entered into a series of written agreements with FindLaw on

November 27, 2012, January 23, 2013, January 24, 2013 and June 14, 2013 to redesign
the Ogletree websites and to improve the search engine optimization (“SEO”) of the
Ogletree websites.
11.

Plaintiff began paying FindLaw for their services on February 21, 2013,

and in total has paid $61,965.69 to FindLaw. Plaintiff stopped paying September 15,
2013.
12.

Even though Plaintiff initially contracted with FindLaw on November 27,

2012 and then started paying FindLaw on February 21, 2013, it was not until April 23,
2013 that FindLaw launched one of the three revised Ogletree websites – the
Complawyers website. It was not until May 2, 2013 that FindLaw launched the 1800
Jones Act website. It was not until May 6, 2013 that FindLaw launched the Ogletree
website.
13.

When FindLaw did launch the revised Ogletree websites, there were

numerous errors and omissions including: missing content, changed file (webpage)

names and conventions, unauthorized outbound links, paid links to the Ogletree websites,
increased code size and website latency.
14.

When FindLaw redesigned and launched the revised Ogletree websites,

FindLaw did not utilize and migrate all of the existing content and webpages from the
existing Ogletree websites (as provided by Plaintiff to FindLaw) to the new Ogletree
websites (as redesigned and published by FindLaw). Each of the three Ogletree websites
that was redesigned and published by FindLaw had significantly less webpages than the
Ogletree websites which FindLaw was hired to improve. By way of example and not
limitation, the Ogletree website’s total pages indexed was reduced from 612 pages
indexed to 184 pages; the Complawyers website’s total pages indexed was reduced from
1,358 pages indexed to 157 pages; and the 1800 Jones Act website’s total pages indexed
was reduced from 598 pages indexed to 81 pages. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff until
sometime after FindLaw launched the Ogletree websites, it appears that FindLaw omitted
2,146 (two thousand one hundred and forty six) webpages (about 84% of Ogletree
websites’ previously existing content disappeared and thus caused damage to content and
page rankings).
15.

The more indexed pages there are on a website with high quality, useful

and relevant content, including different keywords, can provide a website with more
opportunities to present a webpage relevant to a user’s search query, which can increase a
website’s page ranking(s) in Google. By way of example and not limitation, when
Google’s spiders find, crawl and index a webpage, Google will include that webpage in
what Google refers to as its proprietary index database. Generally, when Google’s spiders

find that a previously existing webpage no longer exists, Google will remove that
webpage from Google’s index (or indices). An important element of generating traffic to
a website can be having high quality, useful and relevant content on various webpages
indexed by Google. Each webpage with high quality, useful and relevant content that is
indexed by Google potentially increases the ranking of the website’s page(s) for people
searching for specific keywords.
16.

When FindLaw redesigned the Ogletree websites, FindLaw ignored the

page naming conventions of the existing Ogletree websites. By way of example and not
limitation, FindLaw created webpages that had the extension “.shtml”, and to that end, in
the absence of a 301 redirect that correctly sent users to the new page (that FindLaw
created), the visitors (Plaintiff’s prospective clients) instead received the 404 error “page
not found” error (an HTTP status code meaning that the server could not find the
webpage requested by the browser). By way of example and not limitation, the
Complawyers website revised by FindLaw contained 234 (two hundred and thirty four)
404 errors resulting from FindLaw changing the naming conventions on the FindLaw
powered Complawyers website. If the information that was moved to another webpage
with the .shtml extension was useful to users and had inbound links pointing to the old
website address that FindLaw subsequently changed, changing that webpage naming
convention (address) would for all intents and purposes be commensurate with removing
that previously existing webpage from the Internet and would cause the Ogletree website
to lose the beneficial page rank that those inbound links would have otherwise provided.

17.

FindLaw has represented that goods or services have characteristics, or

benefits, which they do not have, represented that an agreement confers or involves
rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are prohibited
by law and failed to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known
at the time of the transaction thereby intending to induce Plaintiff into entering into the
referenced agreement, knowing that it would not have entered into such agreement had
such information been disclosed in that FindLaw represented that they would perform an
audit of the Ogletree websites and promised to improve the Ogletree websites so that
Plaintiff could get “more clients and more money” and that Plaintiff would get “better
results and more business.” However, in fact, Plaintiff has experienced significantly less
clients and money after FindLaw supposedly commenced its work to redesign the
Ogletree websites and improve the SEO for the Ogletree websites.
18.

With regard to the content that FindLaw did use to launch the revised

Ogletree websites, FindLaw added software code that required users to download a large
amount of data to view certain webpages. The previous Ogletree websites only required
the user to download 0.5 MB of data to view the Ogletree websites. FindLaw redesigned
the Ogletree website and Complawyers website with code that required the user to
download over 1.5 MB in data to view the respective webpage(s), and also forced the
user to load over 100 different files. The previous Ogletree websites loaded half that
many files. Webpage load time is a ranking factor for Google. Webpage load time is
affected by how much data is required to load a webpage and by how many different files

are loaded. Each file that is loaded lengthens the load time as well. FindLaw either did
not know this or ignored it.
19.

When it comes to webpage performance and latency, milliseconds matter in

terms of speed and load times of webpages in general and specifically for the Ogletree
websites. In other words, in addition to impacting Google page ranking (with prospective
clients not seeing the Ogletree websites in their search rankings as readily as they may
have but for FindLaw’s actions), these changes also resulted in users (prospective clients)
abandoning the Ogletree websites prematurely (i.e., potential clients not converting into
clients at the same rates as prior to the websites being redesigned by FindLaw).
20.

Plaintiff specifically told FindLaw not to place outbound links on the

Ogletree websites. However, in October 2013, Plaintiff discovered that FindLaw had
secretly inserted at least one outbound link on every page of the Ogletree websites which
were directed to FindLaw’s website, thereby diminishing Plaintiff’s website’s values so
that FindLaw could increase its SEO value. In general, outbound links are very valuable
for the website that receives the outbound link (FindLaw) and may take away some value
from the websites that give them (Plaintiff). Therefore, FindLaw has intentionally
damaged the value and effectiveness of Ogletree websites by placing FindLaw’s links on
the Ogletree websites. When Plaintiff demanded that these outbound links be removed
from the Ogletree websites, FindLaw immediately removed these outbound links, didn’t
admit they had placed them, and offered no excuse for their unlawful conduct, however,
the damage was done.

21.

FindLaw represented that it would build inbound links to the Ogletree

websites that would meet and conform to Google’s SEO Guidelines and terms for proper
inbound links. However, Plaintiff discovered that FindLaw had obtained links for the
Ogletree websites. These links actually expire after a period of time, which strongly
suggests that these links are paid links in violation of Google’s paid link policy. This
policy would subject the Ogletree websites to serious penalties from Google for Black
Hat SEO techniques. As of the date of the filing of this lawsuit, it appears that Google
has significantly penalized the Ogletree websites.
22.

FindLaw has misrepresented that it “produces results” with “custom

content” developed by FindLaw’s “expert copy writers” and a “dedicated team of
attorney SEO experts” but FindLaw outsources to Bangalore, India and FindLaw cut its
staff in January 2013 by 25%.
23.

One of the means by which results can be tracked is with analytics tools

that track website performance such as Google Analytics. When FindLaw launched the
Ogletree websites, FindLaw failed to recognize that Plaintiff was previously using
Google Analytics to track Plaintiff’s visitors on the Ogletree websites. Information such
as this from Google Analytics is generally used to know where a website’s visitors are
coming from and what they are doing on the website. Plaintiff has regularly used this
type of information to generate more qualified leads of prospective clients by: (1) making
improvements to the Ogletree websites; (2) helping the Ogletree websites rank better in
Google; and (3) improving the visitor experience on the Ogletree websites. From April
23, 2013 to June 6, 2013 (45 days), the Complawyers website did not have any Google

Analytics code installed. From May 1, 2013 to May 27, 2013 (27 days), the Ogletree
website did not have any Google Analytics code installed. From May 1, 2013 to June 6,
2013 (37 days), the 1800 Jones Act website did not have any Google Analytics code
installed.
24.

On November 11, 2013, Plaintiff, in order to mitigate its damages, removed

the Ogletree websites from FindLaw’s servers and launched the Ogletree websites on
Plaintiff’s servers. In order to attempt to amicably resolve this matter, on November 17,
2013, Plaintiff removed the Ogletree websites from Plaintiff’s servers and re-launched
the Ogletree websites on FindLaw’s servers. When Plaintiff realized that its damages
were irreparable, on November 30, 2013, Plaintiff removed the Ogletree websites from
FindLaw’s servers and launched the Ogletree websites on Plaintiff’s servers.
COUNT I: FRAUD
25.

Plaintiff realleges the previous paragraphs and incorporates the same by

reference herein.
26.

Based on information and belief, FindLaw made material false

representations to Plaintiff in order to induce Plaintiff into a series of contracts for
website redesign, SEO marketing services and internet attorney marketing services or
alternatively, concealed material facts from Plaintiff that, had those facts been known by
Plaintiff, Plaintiff would not have entered into such contract.
27.

Based on information and belief, FindLaw knew that its representations

were false when made or the representations were asserted without knowledge of the

truth of the representations. FindLaw also knew the concealed facts were material to the
subject contract.
28.

Based on information and belief, FindLaw intended that Plaintiff rely on

the representations.
29.

Plaintiff relied on FindLaw’s representations.

30.

As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations and concealment

of facts by FindLaw, Plaintiff has sustained damages in excess of $75,000.
31.

FindLaw’s conduct as described above was malicious and the tortuous

conduct occurred in whole or in part in Harris County, Texas. Accordingly, Plaintiff
requests that exemplary damages be awarded against FindLaw.
COUNT II: DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
32.

Plaintiff realleges the previous paragraphs and incorporates the same by

reference herein.
33.

FindLaw’s conduct described above violated the Texas Deceptive Trade

Practices Act and the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as such FindLaw is
liable to Plaintiff pursuant to those statutes as follows:
34.

FindLaw represented that goods or services have characteristics, or benefits

which they do not have, in violation of Texas Business & Commerce Code, Sec.
17.46(b)(5), and Minn. Stat. § 325D.44 et al.
35.

FindLaw represented that an agreement confers or involves rights,

remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by
law, in violation of Texas Business & Commerce Code, Sec. 17.46 (b) (12) and Minn.

Stat. § 325D.44 et al.; and failed to disclose information concerning goods or services
which was known at the time of the transaction thereby intending to induce Plaintiff into
entering into the referenced agreement, knowing that it would not have entered into such
agreement had such information been disclosed, in violation of Texas Business &
Commerce Code, Sec. 17.46(b) (24) and Minn. Stat. § 325D.44 et al.
36.

These representations, acts, and omissions made by FindLaw in its dealing

with the Plaintiff, constitutes an “unconscionable action or Plaintiff’s causes of action” as
such term is defined in Texas Business & Commerce Code, Sec. 17.45(5) and Minn. Stat.
§ 325D.44 et al.
37.

The foregoing violations were committed knowingly and intentionally and

Plaintiff relied on such representations, acts, and omissions to its damage and detriment
in excess of $75,000.
38.

As a direct result of FindLaw’s wrongful acts and omissions, Plaintiff has

been compelled to expend legal services incurred in this matter.
COUNT III: BREACH OF CONTRACTS
39.

Plaintiff realleges the previous paragraphs and incorporates the same by

reference herein.
40.

FindLaw breached the terms of its contracts with Plaintiff and its duty of

good faith and fair dealing, including specific promises represented in advertising and by
statements made to Plaintiff to increase Plaintiff’s exposure to potential legal clients,
which were relied upon by Plaintiff to its detriment and damage in excess of $75,000.

COUNT IV: MISREPRESENTATION
41.

Plaintiff realleges the previous paragraphs and incorporates the same by

reference herein.
42.

Based on information and belief, Plaintiff states that FindLaw made

material misrepresentations to Plaintiff in order to induce Plaintiff into a series of
contracts for website redesign, SEO marketing services and internet attorney marketing
services or alternatively, concealed material facts from Plaintiff that, had those facts been
known by Plaintiff, Plaintiff would not have entered into such contract.
43.

Based on information and belief, FindLaw supplied false information for

the guidance of Plaintiff in their business transactions and in doing so failed to exercise
reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information. FindLaw
also knew the concealed facts were material to the subject contract.
44.

Based on information and belief, FindLaw intended that Plaintiff rely on

the representations, and Plaintiff relied on FindLaw’s representations.
45.

As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations by FindLaw,

Plaintiff has sustained damages in excess of $75,000.
COUNT V: BREACH OF EXPRESSED AND IMPLIED WARRANTY
46.

Plaintiff realleges the previous paragraphs and incorporates the same by

reference herein.
47.

That at all times relevant herein, FindLaw promoted and sold website

redesign, SEO marketing services and internet attorney marketing services and in so

doing FindLaw expressly and impliedly warranted to the public and to Plaintiffs that its
products and services were of merchantable quality for use for which they were intended.
48.

That at the time FindLaw promoted and sold website redesign, SEO

marketing services and internet attorney marketing services, they were not of
merchantable quality for its intended use as expressly and impliedly warranted by
FindLaw, and it knew, or should have known, that they were not of merchantable quality
for use for which they were intended by the public, including Plaintiff.
49.

That FindLaw’s breached it’s expressed and implied warranties, which

were relied upon by Plaintiff to Plaintiff’s damage and detriment in excess of $75,000.
COUNT VI: NEGLIGENCE
50.

Plaintiff realleges the previous paragraphs and incorporates the same by

reference herein.
51.

FindLaw was negligent in the promotion and sale of its website redesign,

SEO marketing services and internet attorney marketing services, and breached its duty of
reasonable care by its words and actions to Plaintiff, directly and proximately causing
Plaintiff’s damage and detriment in excess of $75,000.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ogletree, Abbott, Clay & Reed Law Firm, L.L.P.
respectfully requests that Plaintiff have judgment against Defendants above-named, and
each of them, for the following:
1.

Actual damages, treble and exemplary damages against the Defendants in

an amount in excess of seventy-five thousand ($75,000) dollars;

2.

Attorney’s fees pursuant to the Texas Consumer Protection – Deceptive

Trade Practices Act;
3.

Attorney’s fees pursuant to the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act;

4.

Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate;

5.

Costs and disbursements; and

6.

Other and further relief as the Court shall deem appropriate.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY.

Dated: February 5, 2014

HANDORFF LAW OFFICES, P.C.

/s/Thomas F. Handorff
HANDORFF LAW OFFICES, P.C.
Thomas F. Handorff (#285882)
Parkdale Plaza, Suite 500
1660 South Highway 100
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416
[phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff Ogletree, Abbott, Clay &
Reed Law Firm, L.L.P.