Solicitors do not deserve public humiliation
I received a poor service from my local library the other day. The woman in there was a bit abrupt and sent me to the wrong section as I searched for something to hold up on the Tube to prove how intellectual I was.
I declined to complain at the time because I have a much better idea. I’m going to stand outside the library tomorrow with a megaphone, telling everyone how bad she is.
‘Susan is an idiot,’ I will scream. ‘She can’t even name all three Bronte sisters. She thinks Jordan actually writes her own books. In fact, I am so incandescent and hyperbolic that I will liken her to the devil, such is her ineptitude and inanity.’
I could go down official channels and complain to her employer, but why waste time doing things properly when I can shout from the rooftops? I don’t even need evidence of her malpractice, just a will to destroy this woman in the eyes of anyone who will listen to me.
Contributors to Rick Kordowski’s Solicitors from Hell website replace their megaphone with a keyboard and remain anonymous, but in many ways their postings can be as foolhardy and dangerous as my rantings at the poor librarian (and just for the record, my local librarian is neither an idiot nor called Susan).
Let’s get this straight: some solicitors are not very good at their job. The odd bad apple is careless, corrupt and even criminal.
But the vast, vast majority are honest and highly-skilled practitioners, respected in their community and sullied by a guilty few in their profession. As a journalist, I can empathise only too easily.
Complaints will always be common against solicitors, because there is so often just one winner. The loser needs a scapegoat, and who better than the (sometimes) well-paid brief who cost them the case?
But how can the Solicitors from Hell website justify the way it operates?
It is not a public service; this is a public humiliation. It is a chance to gawp and cackle as complainants throw rotten fruit at lawyers confined to the stocks, with no possibility of escape. Solicitors are given a right of reply, but only after the comments have been published.
There may well be those who feel ill-served by the complaints service, and clients are entitled to vent their anger if they feel their protest is not being taken seriously. But there are official channels for this, ones which do not potentially ruin a firm’s reputation without proper grounds.
The Law Society intends to bring legal action against the website owner, its chief executive Desmond Hudson describing the site on Radio Four this week as ‘littered’ with abusive comments.
Critics will file this move under the ‘they would say that wouldn’t they’ banner, and it’s true the Law Society must be careful not to appear unwilling to accept solicitors’ failings.
But on this occasion it is clearly right to make a stand and defend its members. Solicitors are already accountable and subject to scrutiny. If the public wants that scrutiny increased, by all means let’s improve that system quickly and fairly; and indeed the relatively new Legal Ombudsman is a positive step in that direction.
Solicitors may not be the most popular professionals in this country, but they don’t deserve this public and unreasonable flogging from Solicitors from Hell.
Comments
I too have been vilefied and
I too have been vilefied and had my professionalism put into question not only within the community but within the profession.I have found it difficult to get employment as a result - this was not by solicitors from hell but by word of mouth - there have been no written complaints substantiating what has been said produced to me or the relevent authorities but apparently chats with former colleagues and clients. Unfortunately an attempt to deal with this through the professional channels has been pooh poohed and this has continued because these individuals can and have got away with this. To deal with this on a private basis for an individual would be costly.
Solicitors do not deserve public humiliation
John Hyde is going to, hypothetically speaking, stand outside of his local library shouting "Susan is an idiot" he will also scream "She can't even name all three Bronte sisters. She thinks Jordan actually writes her own books". In fact, he is so incandescent and hyperbolic that he will liken her to the devil, such is her ineptitude and inanity.'
Question to John, say by coincidence there are two, three or more Librarians all named 'Susan' in his local library, which one or are they all idiots'?
John quotes the Law Society's "chief executive Desmond Hudson describing the site (Solicitors from Hell) on Radio Four this week as 'littered' with abusive comments".
Let me also quote Desmond Hudson "fair criticism" is "entirely valid" and that the need for clients to be able to give feedback is "extremely important".
Back to 'Susan', John does not give 'Susan' any surname (suffix) so we must assume he has put them all, if there are two, three or more Susan's in his local Library, under the same 'umbrella' with his outrageous abuse?
Getting confused? So did the Guardian, Thomas Boyd Whyte Solicitors, Gregsons of Liverpool's Ian Wright and Michael Stevenson, Attorney Carolyn Elefant and some others.
Clue! There are four "Solicitors from Hell" (with different 'suffixes') websites on the www, which are not all owned by the same person, with different approaches and John is causing as much confusion as the Guardian has recently done.
John said "Solicitors may not be the most popular professionals in this country, but they don't deserve this public and unreasonable flogging from Solicitors from Hell". Same 'umbrella' John??
Let me finally quote what Judge Vassall-Adams said "...that Mr Kordowski appeared to be willing to publish very serious defamatory allegations without any prior check to establish their truth or accuracy".
It appears John is still on his learning curve!
Consumers are entitled to
Consumers are entitled to share feedback about a service with whoever they wish to. Whether it is seen as justified is a separate question. How seriously it is taken by other consumers is up to them. This site would go nowhere if it werent for all the challenges to it that make it and its contents famous. If we stop being so precious and insecure in the legal proffession then we would move on form this.
John - go and shout with your megaphone if that makes you feel better. Most will just think that you are a bit of a wally if you did.
We need to get over ourselves folks!
I think the point of this
I think the point of this article defies logic and freedom of expression.
When talking about non-law firms, browse the internet - go to moneysupermarket.com and you will find numerous complaints about how companies and individuals working for those companies are "evil", "incompetent", "thieves" and how their customer service staff treat them condescendingly.
I see Solicitor's From Hell as the legal equivalent. Unfortunately with most of the law firms in the UK being much smaller than these types of businesses, the overall reputation of the business is affected. But does that make it unfair to express your disappointment and warn others? I think not. Products are scrutinised all over the internet - go to ciao.co.uk - why shouldn't services be? If we are free to express our disappointment in banks, insurers and products, why not solicitors? Solicitors can gain business by word of mouth that may be stated as fact while it is opinion so why is it different when they lose this business? If anything, how someone is going to represent your interests is much more important than any of these other industries so in actuality we NEED this consumer feedback. Consumers do not know that SDT and intervention listings are posted on the Law Gazette. I doubt any solicitor would be willing to offer this information.
It's all good and well saying that there are official routes to complain, but just like in law, the truth does not always prevail, the best argument does with these complaints. The Law Society is being run by people who are trained in legal services (as they are the only ones who can run a regulatory board of this nature) so while officially they are independent, in reality there is still a bias and comradery, and those with no legal knowledge have no way to combat this.
I read the judgement where Mr Kordowski was fined in April, and I agreed with his defense of fair comment. But again we have the same problem when these libel cases are being judged (and so every defense was rejected) - the people judging on these case have probably all practised at some point in their career and will empathise with their peers. You may disagree but it is well known that the legal profession is still an "old boys club".
The bottom line is there will always be angry customers, but if you genuinely treat your client well, they will think twice about posting insults all over the internet. Why should solicitor's be exempted from these type of online discussions that no other business is excluded from?
Two wrongs do not make a
Two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that other businesses allow themselves to be subjected to unfair and biased critcism on the internet does not require Solicitors to behave similarly.
You clearly do not regard yourself bound by a decision of a court. Why?
More than 50% of entrants to the legal profession (by which I mean Solicitors and Barristers) are female. The use of "it is well known" by those claiming to speak on behalf of the public always causes me concern - easy to say, but very difficult to prove if challenged. It is about as useful to a proper informed debate as would be an assertion that all complaints against Solicitors are false
If you are not prepared to abide by the legal process of this country e.g.. properly constitued lawful complaints processes and court proceedings, why do you claim the right to freedom of expression, in itself part of that process? That's having your cake and eating it
Your final paragraph betrays the fact you pre-judge complaints in favour of the person making them. You assume they are all true and justified. That is unfair and unjust.
I agree complaints can and do arise for entirely proper and correct reasons. Solicitors need to face them, investigate and apologise if mistakes have been made and/or if the client has not received the standard of service to which the client is entitled. Clients are far more likely to respect Solicitors who behave in this way, and even if they do not instruct that Solicitor again they are less likely to slag them off on the internet.
But what it seems to me Solicitors are being asked to do is to admit fault in EVERY complaint because that is the way large businesses have chosen to deal with them. Whilst Solicitors are in business, it is a very different marketplace - one that involves the application of the law and the proper administration of justice, and there are some things that do not, cannot, lend themselves to a policy of "the customer is always right". For example, clients want Solicitors to tell them what they want to hear, naturally enough. Most, if told something else with a full and non-legalese explanation, will accept it, but there is a significant minority in my experience who simply refuse to do so, and they then turn on the provider of the unwanted advice claiming they are acting against their interests as a client. Thus a complaint is borne without any foundation or justification.
Now suppose that complaint is published by SFH. Result, Solicitor's reputation damaged unjustly. Why should any Solicitor (or any business for that matter) be subjected to that?
What is your job? What happens to complaints made about you? Are they published on the internet? If so, where? Tell us please - we are part of the general public and, if your arguments are correct, we have the right to know.
So Mr Hyde thinks that a
So Mr Hyde thinks that a librarian sending someone down the wrong aisle of a library is the same as having your home repossessed or losing your life savings due to a dishonest and/or incompetent solicitor.
Seems to me that Mr Hyde has been hanging out with his middle-class solicitor chums for slightly too long and has inherited their moral values.
I should imagine this posting is a little too truthful for the Law Society's propoganda mouthpiece but it will be interesting to see how long it stays online.
Please feel free to visit my website: www.cwd-critic.com