Lawyer wins £10,000 damages from Solicitors from Hell owner
A judge has condemned the owner of the Solicitors from Hell website for his conduct when committing a serious libel against a young solicitor.
Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said that comments on Rick Kordowski’s website, solicitorsfromhell.co.uk, which criticised Juliet Farrall’s professional capability, were baseless, abusive, malicious, and an unwarranted slur on the competency and probity of a young lawyer.
Jones said Kordowski was responsible for all postings on Solicitors from Hell, even if he was not the author. He awarded £10,000 in damages to Farrall, a solicitor at London firm McCormacks, in part to give a clear sign to the public that the allegations against her were untrue.
Jones was assessing damages for Farrall following a hearing in the High Court on 1 October, when Mr Justice Tugendhat granted a rare interim injunction against Kordowski. Kordowski is appealing the ruling.
Jones said the libel against Farrall was aggravated by the fact that Kordowski: attempted to charge Farrall £299 to remove the posting; failed to apologise; arrogantly and disreputably demanded that Farrall provide information about her position in the firm; failed to verify the allegations before publication; failed to remove all traces of the allegations from search engines after the posting was deleted; and failed to give Farrall an opportunity to comment on the allegations before publication.
After discovering the offending post on 1 September 2010, Farrall sent a letter before claim to Kordowski, saying that the allegations were untrue. Kordowski then wrote to Farrall’s employers, McCormacks, requesting that they send him Farrall’s file reviews and appraisals. The posting was removed between 29 and 30 September 2010, but traces of the allegations remained on search engines after then.
In Kordowski’s appeal against Jones’s ruling, the website owner claims that he has a ‘moral and social duty to expose wrongdoings on the part of solicitors’. He points out that his terms and conditions ‘make clear to those who post that they must not make defamatory and/or [malicious] comments’.
Kordowski says in his appeal that the allegedly defamatory material was taken down ‘during the early stages with minimal exposure’, adding that he has no means by which to pay damages and costs.
Comments
Interesting...
It is interesting to note that all claims against Mr Kordowski (where the poster left comments anonymously) are claims from solicitors who used to work in the ‘same’ firm.
Funny that!
Client from Hell
Mr Kordowski's behaviour is utterly reprehensible. He publishes allegations against solicitors with no attempt to ascertain whether they are justified and then refuses to remove them unless the solicitors concerned pay him money. That is morally cowardly and legally criminal. And then he claims he has no money so isn't worth suing.
Perhaps he would be so kind as to explain what his motivation is other than the money. If he had a bad experience with a solicitor at some stage, I suspect it was because he was the client from Hell.
I and my firm have never appeared on his site. While I normally post using my name, I am not doing so in this instance because I do not know what might be done in revenge by this odious and extraordinarily vengeful little man.
There are numerous web sites
There are numerous web sites where customers can say what they like about anybody. The owners of those sites, if they are sensible, are careful NOT to moderate submitted comments, (a) because this would be extremely difficult and time consuming, if possible at all and (b) because if the owner attempted to validate each comment he would then have a much greater liability for invalid comments. Much better to let people voice their opinions in a free way and let the readers decide.
Ha Ha Ha! That's for the
Ha Ha Ha! That's for the above comment stating that they do not want to put their name on this posting for fear of revenge from Mr Kordowski.
Profiteering
Mr Kordowski makes some very bold remarks, but I bet he hasn't got the guts to say exactly how much money he has made from his sites over the years, including advertising income. No doubt he will say "not much" or something else suitably vague, but I'm sure it will all come out in the wash one day.
Brave
Mr Kordowski is a brave man to publish as he does. I wouldn't dare do that myself, as I would dread the next call, or person in my reception!
Ok, where critique is justified, then the recipient has no one but themselves to blame (an Amazon review of sorts) but how do you avoid libel without knowing the facts?
Unacceptable
Perhaps if Mr. Kordowski actually did some research and verification work before publishing or allowing anything to be published would be a good idea. If he has had a bad experience with a solicitor in the past then his website will ensure he has bad experiences with solicitors in the future.
Read this quick (It will be deleted, as usual)
I don’t have the time or resources to verify all submissions. If a poster agrees to my T&Cs, leaves their full contact details, makes a monetary contribution and above all, is BRAVE enough to post a complaint about a solicitor. That’s good enough for me!
Referring to Mr Kordowski's
Referring to Mr Kordowski's posting above, is he asking his posters to indemnify him against any judgment awarded for defamation? At the very least is he going to use the "monetary contributions" to start to pay off the numerous judgments against him or is it the case that he feels he is above the law?
The fact that he thinks he is not liable for defamation simply because he says he's not responsible for postings is quite brilliant.
I wonder whether it has occured to him that if he doesn't have the time and resources to verify the postings that he shouldn't be running such a site at all.
5000+ complaints against solicitors
It in my T&Cs!
I receive a £1 for each new listing.
I have read over 5000 complaints against solicitors. It is clear that the public think it is you, the ‘solicitor’ who think you are above the law!
5,000 complaints about
5,000 complaints about solicitors or 5,000 postings from disgruntled opponents in litigation,
ex-employees, jilted lovers, people who don't want to pay their bill, unhinged individuals, stalkers, obsessives?.... you don't know because you don't verify the postings.
How can the public be so wrong?
Yes indeed, a good proportion fall into those categories and are rejected.
I did adopt a policy where I asked the solicitor for comments prior to publication. But in each and every case, the solicitor 'denied everything'. How can the public be so wrong?
And neither do amazon....ebay
The public love solicitors from hell. Ask yourself why. Amazon /ebay etc etc dont verify feedback. Maybe if law firms had feedback mechanisms like amazon or ebay sites just as this wouldnt exist???
The arrogance shown in many of the above postings says it all
Nothing arrogant about not wanting to be extorted
Mr K charges (or he used to charge) £299 for a solicitor to have their listing removed. Amazon and ebay do not charge such a fee to remove unfair comments. They would be shut down if they did.
Good at reading between the lines?
Being an industry that is supposed be good at ‘reading between the lines’ has it not dawn on anyone that the removal fee is a Publicity Stunt?
THE LeO
It would be cheaper (1st class stamp) for disgruntled clients to take their complaints to the LeO if they were unhappy, rather than just ranting on the SFH site; they are more likely to get a reasoned response, compensation where it is justified, and not run the risk of being taken to court with Mr K!
Mr K, you have obviously had a bad experience but life is too short to hold grudges in the way that you seem to; I am not a lawyer and I have had bad experiences with the legal system, but at the end of the day you have to move on otherwise it will just eat away at you.
If you want to be a 'peoples champion' channel complainants to somewhere like the LeO, where legitimate complaints will get a fair hearing and poor solicitors will be dealt with appropriately (I don't work for the LeO either!).
Pray tell....
Are you receiving a referral fee for clients that are referred to a firm by your sister company 'SolicitorsfromHeaven'?
Are the panel firms able to remain independent and act in the clients' best interests or are they under threat of being libelled by SFHell if they don't do as they are being told?
How do you assess whether a firm is good enough to be on your panel; non-appearance on SFHell?
What happens if a recommended firm is subject to a complaint on the SFHell site?
Isn't referring clients to firms by SFHeaven getting in bed with the enemy (law firms)?
How do you square the circle with all this?
only thing you are interested in is cash
"independent tribute".......you say yourself firms have to pay a fee after 30 days. Let's face it, the only thing you are interested in is cash. The recommendations (which can be bought) are as meaningless as the complaints (which can are deleted if you are paid).