Verdicts and Anonymity[mpc_quote author_font_preset=”mpc_preset_87″ author_font_color=”#ffffff” author_font_size=”14″ author_font_line_height=”1.3″ author_font_transform=”capitalize” author_font_align=”center” author=”- Goethe” quote_font_preset=”mpc_preset_88″ quote_font_color=”#ffffff” quote_font_size=”24″ quote_font_line_height=”1.6″ quote_font_align=”center” padding_divider=”true” padding_css=”padding-top:40px;padding-right:20px;padding-bottom:50px;padding-left:20px;”]“I can promise to be candid, though I may not be impartial.”[/mpc_quote]
eutralCheck attorney reviewers are encouraged to post their names and contact information, in part so that others considering hiring a particular Neutral may contact a reviewer to ask about his or her experiences. This is one of the tremendously valuable tools that NeutralCheck membership provides. It can also help attorneys expand their own professional networks.
But NeutralCheck recognizes that some attorneys may not feel comfortable providing a truly honest Verdict (especially if that review is negative) associated with their name. Those attorneys have the option to use a screen name that protects their identity. Regardless of whether a name is publicly associated with a particular Verdict, NeutralCheck reviewers are all active members of the Bar.
No Verdict is posted unless a reviewing attorney affirms that he or she is:
(1) is currently eligible to practice law by a state bar (i.e., is on active status and not currently suspended or disbarred);
(2) has represented one or more clients in a mediation or arbitration before the Neutral being scored; and
(3) the scores and any narrative statements are true and accurate and based exclusively on the attorney’s personal experiences with the neutral in a mediation or arbitration.
In that way NeutralCheck can help protect a reviewer’s anonymity while at the same time providing reliable results to help attorneys select a Neutral.