The rankings, based on user reviews and ratings, are completely ad independent and, while I don’t like trusting the general public to rank the men and women who will either get me out of that murder rap or will take a scalpel to my lower intestine, I suppose it’s nice to know who’s who in the medical and legal professions.

The service offers listings for over 800,000 physicians based on public records. Users can rank their doctors anonymously, something that has brought not a few lawsuits to Avvo in the past. Think of it as Yelp for human beings.

The site also offers free medical advice in addition to its free legal advice. Again, while I trust Angie to steer me right when it comes to folks who can clean up my gutter, I’m loathe to trust free medical advice on the Internet. That said, the service is free, anonymous, and could be a good first step for those with weeping sores, etc.

The site, according to the Seattle Times, sees 2 million visitors per month hand has raised $23 million in funding.

The site is kind of a reverse directory for lawyers that’s sure to be a haven for personal injury lawsuits. It’s similar in concept to what ThemBid is doing with auctions for local services. Instead of searching for a lawyer, you list your case and lawyers find you. The site handles two major kinds of cases, class action and individual. Each of those sections is then divided into sub-categories such as DUI/DWI, bankruptcy, or asbestos settlements. Plaintiffs list their grievances in these categories and attach any relevant documentation.

Licensed lawyers, and only lawyers, can log on and review the listings, hunting for attractive cases. Anyone can join a class action lawsuit, though. Lawyers bid to contact potential clients with the highest bidder winning and Sue Easy getting the money. However, that doesn’t mean you have to accept the counsel after reviewing their profile and reviews. You can always pass and move on to another lawyer.

But I’m not so sure if taking the highest bidder is the best system. It cuts down on consumer’s selection to one at a time. I imagine there will be cases where a close second to the highest bidder may serve a clients needs better but is closed off from contact.

Sue Easy was a TechCrunch 40 semi-finalist and is currently taking private beta testers.

The complaint on behalf of Seattle lawyers John Henry Browne and Alan Wenokur says Avvo is deceptive, unfair and violates state consumer protection laws.

It would be easy to call irony on this one, but in reality it sits far better with clichés including when you dance with the devil and when you play with fire.

From a strict consumer viewpoint it’s easy to side with Avvo, and as CEO Mark Britton writes on the Avvo blog, the service helps consumers by providing them with information that empowers their ability to make an informed choice. Yet you just know this was going to happen. Red rag to a bull perhaps?

The suit itself claims that Avvo’s rating system is flawed. Browne and Wenokur allege that the Avvo system can be gamed, citing an example of a lawyer improving Avvo ratings by including sports awards with their profile. Whilst the suit skirts the question of free speech in terms of Avvo not confirming the veracity of supplied information, it does not seem to have the potential of becoming a legal battle focused on free speech. The crux of the suit is about calculations and ratings; the only people who would be deeply concerned with the suit are Web 2.0 startups that use proprietary ratings system. The thin end of the wedge could be a precedent where service providers with negative ratings on review sites could sue those sites on the basis that the rating system itself was deceptive or unfair, and that could mean just about all of them.