The suit claims that Avvo, which tries to affix a score of 1 to 10 on thousands of attorneys in 10 states, violates the state's Consumer Protection Act. The suit does not ask for a specific monetary amount, though Berman is asking the court to shut down the site. He also is considering seeking a temporary restraining order and the possibility of adding more attorneys who have "impeccable reputations" to the suit.

"The bottom line is the Avvo rating isn't a true representation of one's ability to practice law and deliver positive results to their client -- it dupes consumers into thinking the site is an accurate reflection of an attorney's ability," Berman said in a news release.

Named as plaintiffs are Seattle attorneys John Henry Browne and Alan Wenokur, with the suit listing several alleged inaccuracies about rankings of other attorneys.

It says that Bellevue attorney Enrico Salvatore Leo was able to boost his score on Avvo by updating his profile with softball awards, with the score later dropping after he removed the achievements from his profile. And it says attorneys now serving prison terms score higher on Avvo than some Supreme Court justices, and several attorneys connected to Avvo have higher rankings than law school deans.

Avvo Chief Executive Mark Britton had yet to digest the entire 25-page lawsuit as of Thursday afternoon, but he had read enough to dispute claims that his newly launched rating system was misleading consumers.

In an interview, Britton said the suit was brought because Browne didn't like his Avvo score. The Seattle criminal defense attorney -- who has been quoted in P-I stories about the new online service -- has an Avvo score of 5.2, or "average," partly because of a 2005 disciplinary action he received from the state bar over compensation issues.

"I think that because Mr. Browne did not like his rating, they are filing this suit in an attempt to chill our rating system," said Britton, the former general counsel at Expedia who founded Avvo in February 2006. "All I can say is that I believe the First Amendment is alive and well, and certainly within that amendment and the defenses that go with it, we are able to make an opinion, to make an assessment regarding how well a lawyer might represent someone."

Berman said the case is not just about disgruntled lawyers who don't like their scores, contending there is evidence that attorneys can manipulate their scores on Avvo in order to boost their rankings. Since Avvo received media attention last week, Berman said he has been contacted by numerous attorneys from across the U.S.

Britton said the company, backed with $13 million from Benchmark Capital and Ignition Partners, had not earmarked a certain portion of the venture funds for legal defense. But he planned to file a response in a timely manner under Washington law.

In addition to Avvo and Britton, the suit also lists 25 John Does as defendants. Those include law firms and venture capital firms who could be added to the suit if it is proved they "aided and abetted" certain conduct. In a P-I story earlier this week, Berman said he did not plan to go after Avvo's venture backers.

On Thursday, Berman said he changed his mind on that issue because new information became available.

The suit claims that Avvo violates the state's Consumer Protection Act because it is not an objective or unbiased resource, even though the startup says its ratings benefit consumers.

"We are trying to get consumers more information than they ever had before," Britton said. "Before Avvo was launched, everybody was pretty much going to the Yellow Pages and search engines, which are not the most efficient places for people to find a lawyer. By providing that information and guidance, it just helps consumers get the legal help they need."

The suit also claims that Avvo holds attorneys hostage by forcing them to hand over credit card information to update their profiles.

Britton said that the credit card information is a security measure in order to guard against "hacker bots" and other people claiming profiles that are not theirs.

"There is nothing nefarious that we do with the information," he said. Still, Britton said the company is working on a new system to verify attorneys in ways that do not use credit card information.

The lawsuit also claims that Avvo uses a secretive method to come up with its rankings.

Asked about adding more transparency, Britton said that they would consider doing that, but they are most concerned about people "gaming the system." Disclosing the method by which it comes up with the rating could lead to people manipulating the score, he said.

Avvo continues to make changes to the Web site based on the feedback from lawyers and consumers, something Britton said Berman chose not to do.

"He chose rather just to file a complaint," said Britton.

In a Monday interview, Berman told the P-I that he views this as an important case because those who are in need of legal advice should be able to get trustworthy information. "If you are going to have a service out there, it should be reliable and it should be trustworthy, and this site is neither," said Berman.

While some union foes called the court's ruling an important victory and predicted that it would lead to other such laws, the National Right to Work Committee acknowledged that it decided a narrow issue.

The justices did not say it was unconstitutional to require teachers and other public employees to pay dues to a union. Rather, they said only that states that allow public sector unions may also protect the rights of dissidents.

At issue before the court was a unique Washington state law that said unions may not collect fees from a nonmember and spend this money on politics unless "affirmatively authorized by the individual."

The state's largest teachers union challenged this rule in court. The Washington Supreme Court struck down the restriction as a violation of the union's rights, but the ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court.

"Unions have no constitutional entitlement to the fees of nonmember employees," said Justice Antonin Scalia. "It is undeniably unusual for a government agency to give a private entity the power, in essence, to tax government employees," he wrote, referring to the "agency shop" laws in many states that permit such arrangements in the public sector.

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal of a convicted murderer from Ohio Thursday because he filed it two days late, even though he met a separate deadline set by a judge.

The judge mistakenly told the prisoner, Keith Bowles, 34, that he could file court papers by Feb. 27, 2004. Under federal rules, however, the deadline was Feb. 24. Bowles filed on Feb. 26.

The high court typically adheres strictly to deadlines and this case was no exception.

The 5-4 decision, the 16th this term, fell along conservative-liberal lines and also provoked a strong dissent from Justice David Souter.

Writing the opinion for the court's majority in this case, Justice Clarence Thomas said the judge's error did not alter the 14-day time limit set in federal law and legal rules. He said Congress could relax the deadline if it wishes.

Bowles was convicted of murder in Ohio for his role in a group beating of an unarmed man, who later died. The beating was in revenge for an earlier beating that day to a relative of a member of the group in Painesville, about 30 miles northeast of Cleveland, court records showed.

Bowles was given 15 years to life in prison. Early in 2004, a federal judge gave Bowles additional time to tell the court he intended to appeal, mistakenly noting a 17-day deadline.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Bowles' appeal was untimely.

Souter said Bowles' case cries out for an exception to the rule.

"It is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, and there is not even a technical justification for condoning this bait and switch," Souter said.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia joined Thomas' opinion.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens joined Souter in dissent.

Wilson became a symbol for extreme cases of getting tough on sex offenders when he was sentenced to the mandatory 10-year sentence for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl in 2003, when Wilson was 17.

Lawmakers last year voted to close that loophole, but the state's top court said the new law could not be applied retroactively to Wilson's case.

Opponents of Wilson's release said it could lead to similar legal challenges. Georgia prisons currently hold 189 inmates who were sentenced for aggravated child molestation when they were 21 or younger.

"The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court, will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave miscarriage of justice," the judge wrote. "If this court or any court cannot recognize the injustice of what has occurred here, then our court system has lost sight of the goal our judicial system has always strived to accomplish ... justice being served in a fair and equal manner."

He said he would seek an expedited ruling from the Georgia Supreme Court. And he noted that a plea deal is on the table that would spring Wilson in a maximum of five years and also remove him from the sex offender registry.

"It is really ridiculous when you consider that we had a judge that just said it is a misdemeanor that carries no sex offender registration," she said. "It is extremely, extremely disturbing that the attorney general would take this action now."

Wilson also was charged with rape for being one of several male partygoers at the Douglas County hotel to have sex with another 17-year-old girl, but was acquitted. The party was captured on a videotape that was played for the jury. Five other male partygoers took plea deals in the case. One has been released from prison and is now in college.

"He wants to speak out to young people about realizing that when you party and carry on, you've got consequences sometimes grater than you realize. I think because of his extraordinary personality, he'll be OK, but I don't want this to happen to any other kid. It's crazy."

By SHANNON McCAFFREY, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 7 minutes ago

ATLANTA - Genarlow Wilson's joy was short-lived. One minute, a judge ordered him released from prison, saying the young man's 10-year sentence for consensual sex between teens was a "grave miscarriage of justice." Ninety minutes later, Georgia's attorney general said Wilson wasn't going anywhere — the state had appealed.

"Yesterday, they did not consent to a bond," attorney B.J. Bernstein said Tuesday on CNN. "We are hopeful to hurry up and get in front of a judge — one, to get him out pending an appeal, but even more importantly, to get this madness over with."

Wilson became a symbol for extreme cases of getting tough on sex offenders when he was sentenced to the mandatory 10-year sentence for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl in 2003, when Wilson was 17.

Lawmakers last year voted to close that loophole, but the state's top court said the new law could not be applied retroactively to Wilson's case.

Opponents of Wilson's release said it could lead to similar legal challenges. Georgia prisons currently hold 189 inmates who were sentenced for aggravated child molestation when they were 21 or younger.

"The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court, will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave miscarriage of justice," the judge wrote. "If this court or any court cannot recognize the injustice of what has occurred here, then our court system has lost sight of the goal our judicial system has always strived to accomplish ... justice being served in a fair and equal manner."

He said he would seek an expedited ruling from the Georgia Supreme Court. And he noted that a plea deal is on the table that would spring Wilson in a maximum of five years and also remove him from the sex offender registry.

"It is really ridiculous when you consider that we had a judge that just said it is a misdemeanor that carries no sex offender registration," she said. "It is extremely, extremely disturbing that the attorney general would take this action now."

Wilson also was charged with rape for being one of several male partygoers at the Douglas County hotel to have sex with another 17-year-old girl, but was acquitted. The party was captured on a videotape that was played for the jury. Five other male partygoers took plea deals in the case. One has been released from prison and is now in college.

"He wants to speak out to young people about realizing that when you party and carry on, you've got consequences sometimes grater than you realize. I think because of his extraordinary personality, he'll be OK, but I don't want this to happen to any other kid. It's crazy."

No one is predicting that a symbolic resolution expressing no confidence in Gonzales will survive even the test vote Monday. Most Republicans are likely to vote no, dismissing the whole exercise as a ploy to embarrass President Bush.

"I'm not going to comment on the kind of job" Gonzales has done, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition." "The vote is whether we should take a vote to express a lack of confidence by the Senate. That's wrong."

At the same time, not many of the Senate's 100 members have been supportive of Gonzales after the attorney general told a Senate committee dozens of times that he could not recall key details about the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

White House spokesman Tony Snow brushed off the impending vote.

"There's an attempt to sort of pull this thing like a piece of taffy and looking if there's any political advantage in it. There's not," Snow said on "Fox News Sunday."

Democrats say it's only right for senators to go on record, since five Republicans have called outright for Gonzales' dismissal and many more of the president's party have said in public comments that they have lost confidence in him.

Three years earlier, he had shot his grandparents, Joe and Joy Pittman, with a pump-action shotgun as they slept, then set fire to their home in Chester County.

His attorneys argued unsuccessfully at trial that he was involuntarily intoxicated by the antidepressant Zoloft and didn't know right from wrong.

Pfizer Inc., the manufacturer of Zoloft, has said the drug "didn't cause his problems, nor did the medication drive him to commit murder."

Zoloft is the most widely prescribed antidepressant in the United States, with 32.7 million prescriptions written in 2003. In 2004, the Food and Drug Administration ordered Zoloft and other antidepressants to carry "black box" warnings — the government's strongest warning short of a ban — about an increased risk of suicidal behavior in children.

Christopher Pittman, now 6-foot-2, has attracted attention worldwide. He turned 18 in April and is in an adult prison, where supporters visit him regularly.

The case generated outrage that Pittman was held so long before his trial. In October, dozens of supporters and relatives gathered in Columbia as defense attorney Andy Vickery argued before the state Supreme Court that his client's confession was influenced by Zoloft and his youth.