Society sends letter of claim to Solicitors from Hell owner
The Law Society sent a letter of claim to the owner of the Solicitors from Hell website last week, as it prepared to launch a class action against him on behalf of the profession.
The letter demands that website owner Rick Kordowski must close the site, or face an action for defamation, harassment and breach of the Data Protection Act.
More than 300 individual solicitors, law firms and others have joined the action against Kordowski, having been affected by the site. The action is also being brought on behalf of the profession as a whole.
The letter of claim, sent by the Society’s solicitors Brett Wilson, points out that Kordowski has been sued for libel on at least 16 occasions in relation to the website.
It notes that more than £150,000 has been awarded against him in damages, which remains unpaid.
Brett Wilson said its analysis of the 990 postings on the site between 15 April and 10 August 2011 indicated that the site serves ‘no legitimate purpose’.
It said the site was a ‘magnet for the vexatious and bitter whose complaints would not stand up to scrutiny in any impartial tribunal or forum’. In many cases the author is a disgruntled opponent, the firm said.
The Society’s letter of claim sets out a schedule of undertakings on which it seeks agreement from Kordowski. These include an undertaking to remove the entire site from the web and not to publish any of the content in future, or set up any other website with a similar name.
A Law Society spokeswoman said: ‘Not all solicitors defamed on the website can afford the time and trouble to bring a case themselves, and the Law Society is taking every possible step to protect our members and the public interest.’
Kordowski said he denied all the allegations made against him. He pointed to the high levels of complaints against solicitors received by the Legal Ombudsman, and said the Society had rejected his offer to work together to expose wrongdoing in the profession.
In a separate development last week, Kordowski lost two applications to appeal earlier judgments against him won by Megan Phillips, solicitor at London firm Bhatt Murphy, and Juliet Farrall, solicitor at London firm McCormacks.
In Farrall’s case, Sir Richard Buxton held that Kordowski’s ‘argument that he offered the claimant the alternatives of excusing herself to him or paying a substantial amount of money, in each case to secure the removal of the posting, casts a dire light on the way in which he conducts his business’.
He added: ‘The need to control the applicant’s activities’ had made ‘considerable demands on the court’s time'.
Comments
Waste of money
What a waste of the Law Society's money. Kordowski (like many members of the public) clearly has no respect for the profession and suing him is going to serve no useful purpose at all: it's just playing into his hands.
Double Standards
I cannot believe that I am reading this. I note that the article fails to mention Solicitors from Heaven. It appears that publicity is fine just as long as it is good publicity. Are we saying that individuals are not entitled to voice their opinion and all negative comments are defamatory? The Law Society is beginning to operate along the grounds of dictatorship rather than democracy.
I note the article mentions that that the action is being brought "on behalf of the profession as a whole". I was not aware that anyone was asked. The action is being brought on behalf of the individuals and firms whose names appear on this website and this is a very small percentage of the legal profession. One should be asking why their names appear and how they have managed to upset their client(s) to such an extent.
What a waste of money. So he
What a waste of money.
So he has a sight that pokes fun at lawyers. Who cares.
May be we should ask the question why there is not a police from hell website or a doctors from hell website or an accountants from hell website?
He probably has a point.
Bias in the profession
The legal industry is unique in that it seems to be the only one where consumers are chided for posting negative reviews online. The website serves the purpose of allowing consumers to express an opinion of the service they have received and to disuade users from visiting these costly, client-unfriendly solicitors.
Solicitors, you seem to be in denial as a profession. Most people who REALLY need legal services don't even know that they can seek remedies to their complaints through the SRA/SDT/LSC. Your average client is contacting the solicitor for help navigating the legal world. Do you tell them in your engagement letters that if they are unsatisfied with any advice or work done that they can complain about it through the official channels? I have seen a number of engagement letters and none of them mentioned this.
The reality is that all issues that arise and are found to be the fault of the solicitor don't usually even make it through the official channels - ask a Solicitor's PII insurer how much they pay out in claims per year. I guarantee you they pay out on hundreds of firms who are never pulled up by the SDT or LSC.
The unfortunate position the consumer has is not being able to argue their point as well, as they have no legal training. This is why a website like this should not be removed. Any sensible individual can differentiate a client with a grudge against a client who genuinely feels they have been neglected or taken advantage of. As I said previously - if you take care of your clients they will most likely not choose to slate you on the internet (whether the outcome is good or not). Obviously some people will never be pleased, but if a client genuinely feels a solicitor did all they could to help their case, they would not post these reviews.
I am aware that not all solicitors are bad, but I have come across a notable number who are just awful. Solicitors as an industry need to start improving their attitude to customer care, then consumer opinion of the profession will not be so jaded.
P.S. I found it very interesting to note the article regarding "Consumer panel's Hayter" (I have put the link to this in my as my website) - this is another indication that solicitors are in denial as to how they are seen by consumers as a whole. Instead of lashing back at Mr Kordowski, why not use the criticism to improve on where the industry is obviously failing?
Legal services are more of a public service than many others that exist - customers need to be helped, not treated like they are too stupid to comprehend your work. Hasn't Mr Kordowski taught you that a jaded consumer with the right legal books can make your life a living hell? FIX IT!
I concur with some of your
I concur with some of your points but clients should take some responsibility and research a solicitor. Our firm engagement letters include info on the legal ombudsman and details of our complaints procedure.
The mechanic I use came recommended. The people I am going to get in to erect some garden fencing are recommended....in other words, I asked around.
I have read some postings on Solicitors from Hell and I think a many of them can be attributed to clients not being happy with the outcome. Clients often mistake solicitors as those who create law. If Solicitors from Hell wants to be a true service, then it should allow those named to respond if they wish and without payment.
Right of reply
Lawyers right of reply has always been available, free. But I have only had two requests for this since creation.
Rick Kordowski
plese explain..
how can they reply without breaching confidentiality?
Confidentiality...
I know the answer to this question and I’m not even a lawyer!
LUCIFER'S FRIEND?
The Law Society and the High Court are acting as if it was a site called Kordowski from Hell. His SFH website has improved out of all recognition from when it started 6 years ago and he certainly makes it quite clear that the public must make their comments truthful and accurate. May Hellfire await those who slander the innocent!
If Kordowski had some real financial help and a small staff how much better the checks and verifications would be. His site is of tender therapy to a massively frustrated public and is not meant to be a substitute for the Legal Ombudsman. It is a low level forum that has captured the public's imagination but as with every aspect of critical comment the degree to which it is fair comment is never easy to measure.
I happen to know that some of the comments on SFH are very accurate indeed and I am also aware that one less than honest firm paid a lot of money to come off and if Kordowski wants me to testify in Court as to this particular firm's duplicity I will.
One only has to look at the legaljackass website on SFH (Solicitor speaks out link) to see just how tricky the Law Society were to one solicitor who tried to expose bad practice in the profession. This brave solicitor won the day as the independent Law Society Adjudicator ruled in his favour saying that "writing derogatory and potentially libellous comments about law firms does not necessarily count as bringing the profession into disrepute." Clearly there is a need to have a grievance procedure that is not controlled by the establishment.
The establishment and those in the corridors of power cover up many aspects of very unwholesome conduct to protect the guilty. Solicitors from Hell combats this iniquity. Can you imagine the Law Society Gazette writing the sort of Editorials we see on SFH?
Kordowski deserves to continue his website and with the help of counsel Jonathan Crystal this team will give the Law Society one HELL of a fight.
I'm not a supporter of SFH
I'm not a supporter of SFH (in fact could well be named on it-never looked, don't care, know my clients get a good service), but I support free speech. Best of luck to SFH in their fight.
"I am also aware that one
"I am also aware that one less than honest firm paid a lot of money to come off and if Kordowski wants me to testify in Court as to this particular firm's duplicity I will".
So irrespective of the validity of the complaint or the seriousness of the allegations SFH will simply remove the posting on payment of a fee !
Not only that, but Mr
Not only that, but Mr Kordowski will ban potentially damaging listing from ever appearing in the first place by the use of a proscribed list. A list of people who have posted on the SfH site before, but who’s future posts could be even more damaging to lawyers. These posts incidentally, like their original ones, can be verified. Mr Kordowski knows what I’m talking about.
Supplies of fresh air to Kordowski...
Re Kordowski being paid a fee for a particular firm to come off let's not get so two-faced about it. Kordowski has to eat and if he is offered a lot of money then good luck to him. His site has helped a lot of people ease their frustrations. Kordowski cannot live on fresh air. For one man to have made the national news for quite some time now means he is being taken seriously by the media who regard him as relevant.
Lawyers spend their hard earned on alcohol and cigarettes and other excesses. They have skeletons in their cupboards and are sinners as we all are. Why should Kordowski have to live and behave like a saint?
"On behalf of the profession as a whole"
On the assumption that some of the above comments were posted by members of the profession, it's difficult to see that the Society can claim that this is being done "on behalf of the profession as a whole". The profession consists of lawyers, who should be better placed than anyone else to take steps themselves if Kordowski has defamed them.
Here's what will happen. The Society will spend a significant amount of the profession's money suing Kordowski. The Society will win. Kordowski will not pay the costs which he is ordered to pay. The Society will then have to decide whether it wants the bad publicity of bankrupting him. It may also have to consider a committal application, which (again) would be terrible publicity for the profession. Has the Society really thought this through properly? Obviously not. If the Society wants to go down this route, and on the assumption that there is at least one unsatisfied costs order already in existence against Kordowski, why doesn't the Society simply fund a bankruptcy petition, to be issued by the person to whom Kordowski owes costs?
The Society should think carefully before it spends money on this "cause" and paints itself into a very embarrassing corner. For an organisation which is supposed to represent solicitors and their interests, the Society is showing a distinct lack of both judgment and imagination.
Decent Lawyers
The Law Society totally ’rejected’ my suggestion to work together to expose wrongdoing, where it exists, for the sake of the decent solicitors in the profession.
If you are a decent lawyer, please sign my petition.
Rick Kordowski
Why would they want to work
Why would they want to work with you? You think you're some champion of the people whereas, in actual fact, you are a man who allows people to libel other people on a website without even the most basic of factual checks.
I would have much more sympathy and probably support you if your site was run in a professioal way and you undertook a complete review and background check of your posters. You don't, so its an unregulated free for all and it does huge damage to the "decent" solicitors who you purportedly support (please see your latest libel case for an example - presumably you don't even care you did this to someone?).
Rick Kordowski's dedication
We should all regard Rick Kordowski as a hero. Not only does he selflessly champion the rights of people to have their say, at great risk to himself, since he might face prison. What is also true is that Rick is a very modest man, who has kept his own personal tragedy which has had his family in an uproar over the last few months very quiet. We should all offer our sympathy and support to Rick and his family and let these judges and solicitors know they are dealing with a man of selfless dedication.
150 Cowards Can't Be Wrong?
So... 150 lawyers are saying to the Law Society ...
"Please help us against the Big Evil Kordowski - we're only 'umble solicitors who can't stand up to the big bully in the playground. We haven't a hope in hell on our own because we don't understand all this going to court stuff and anyway, our cases are too weak to win"
The Flaw Society says:
"We're frightened too... not a lawyer amongst us strong enough - I know... lets's call in Brett (Nelson?) - He's big and strong and WE'VE got LOADS of pennies - Brett will rid us of the Rick Monster"
What does "Inequality of Arms" mean?
A large number of cowards vs One Brave Man
Wonder how long this will stay put.
Solicitors are bound by
Solicitors are bound by client confidentiality so cannot release statements defending themselves. Therefore, the SFH site exploits this fact and solicitors cannot actually defend themselves.
Solicitors also, in the main, have dignity and don't wish to publically point out that their client is mistaken or that their case was weak or that their evidence didn't stand up in court (which is the main problem with the majority of the complaints on SFH by the looks of things).
Don't let this get in the way of your ill informed rant though.
Rick deserves everything he gets and I would say this if he started a site against any other trade or profession. He does no checks on the validity of any of the complaints before publishing and then refuses to take them down when they are challenged as untrue.
Solicitors with dignity
"Solicitors with dignity"?
Experience... If they can't get what they want by attempted intimidation ... they give up for a few years ... and then come out of the woodwork with 149 of their buddies and hide behind a class action. Cowards with dignity? - Nah!!!!
Don't let this (experience) get in the way of your ill informed rant though :-)
reply
Rather generous use of the word 'brave' there I feel!
150 Cowards....
Very 'eavy Very 'umble solicitors I might add - as with the backing of the Law Society even the likes of obnoxious solicitor Uriah Heep stand High and Mighty in the Court of the Crimson King.
About time! - SFH is hideous
This is all so ridiculous. The main argument people use to defend SFH is 'Freedom of Speech' but if SFH is so hell bent on this then why can solicitors have these so-deemed essential nuggets of public information removed for a fee. It is a horrible money making scheme and nothing more.
Whilst I am aware that there are many valid problems which arise within the profession I feel that these would be better dealt with through the usual complaints system - in-house and then externally (Ombudsmen or SRA) if unsatisfied. Making childish remarks on a gimmicky website is not the behaviour that anybody with a serious issue would turn to.
It is merely a sounding board for those who are deluded as to their claim prospects - a legitimate grievance could be raised in a number of other ways and Kordowski is a fool for letting the chip on his shoulder about solicitors bankrupt him - This is a huge shame for so many reasons - just imagine if he had put that much energy and passion into something actually worth setting up and defending!
Couldn't agree more with both
Couldn't agree more with both pro and con. Yes, a website like this is needed - but not run by Kordowski, who's only in it for the money and publicity, a sad little man to say the least. What Mr Kordowski does now is sell out to lawyers - read my last post. What exactly is the trouble with his family (Rick Kordowski's dedication.... Anon)- Is Mr Kordowski now seeking to garner additional sympathy? Perhaps Mr Kordowski would care to share his trials and tribulations in more detail with us?
C
My wife has cancer.
Interesting - however I found
Interesting - however I found a thread on a website which features Mr Kordowski quite prominently. http://www.fuk.co.uk/node/51235?page=1 or look up "Rick Kordowski why when you start a business"
Bit dated, but might explain things. Seems Mr Kordowski has made a lot of enemies besides solicitors. It tells the real story behind the original SfH post, and a few other things, I reproduce the last comment in the thread ( the editing is mine). He doesn't appear to have much of a clue. And today Mr Kordowski continues in the same vein as described.
"Rick_Kordowski wrote:
It’s a shame that you have been miss-informed. They say that your profession is the one of the most stressful jobs/professions. Perhaps you should t*** each other off and be done with it! Then keep it real! (W*****s)
Uh? there are no solicitors here mate"
So there you have it. Makes you wonder what all the fuss is about.