Solicitors from Hell to face legal action
The Law Society is set to launch legal proceedings against the owner of Solicitors from Hell, the website that blacklists law firms and solicitors.
Chancery Lane will seek two injunctions against the site and its owner Rick Kordowski: one on behalf of solicitors and firms named on the site, and a second on behalf of the wider profession.
The Society has also persuaded the Metropolitan Police to review its decision not to bring criminal charges against Kordowski, whose site allows members of the public to post potentially defamatory comments about solicitors.
Until last year, Kordowski charged a £299 fee for the removal of comments.
Chancery Lane has instructed Clerkenwell, London firm Brett Wilson to act on its behalf.
The firm will write to all firms named on the website to see if they want to be involved in the action and support it financially.
Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson said Kordowski’s actions must be pursued as a criminal matter. ‘We think there is a strong case. And all his past behaviour indicates that he is not going to stop,’ he said.
Hudson said there is a ‘sufficient corpus of evidence’ to show that the truth or otherwise of assertions made on the site is not relevant to whether comments are removed.
‘It’s a thoroughly scurrilous exercise, that is not about seeking redress.
'It is doing damage to firms and harming the public interest, as people who need guidance from solicitors may be put off from seeking it,’ he said.
Hudson added: ‘It is not a question of stifling free speech or legitimate complaints about solicitors. The public can still go to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Bar Standards Board and the Legal Ombudsman.’
Around 15 libel cases involving Kordowski and Solicitors from Hell have been filed. It is understood that he has lost six and has yet to win a case.
Most recently, granting an interim injunction on behalf of Thames Valley firm Gabbitas Robins and one of its partners, Stephen Robins, Mr Justice Henriques called on the Law Society and Bar Council to ‘consider some effective response’ to the site.
In defending proceedings against him, Kordowski has claimed that his site offers a ‘service to the community’ and that there are ‘a significant number of incompetent and/or dishonest lawyers about whom the public should know’.
He has pointed out that his terms and conditions ‘make clear to those who post that they must not make defamatory and/or [malicious] comments’.
Last year, Kordowski removed the option for solicitors and firms to pay a £299 ‘administration and monitoring’ fee to remove all current and future traces of their name from his site.
Kordowski denied that there was any case for criminal proceedings against him.
He said: ‘There are many ways to have a complaint removed from SFH. The preferred would be for the solicitor to make amends with the author.
'The solicitor can communicate with me and exonerate themselves with evidence.
'The solicitor is offered a mediation service where I add my suggestions or observations to each party. All of these methods are without charge and have resulted [in] many published complaints being removed.’
Hudson said that the Society has previously taken action against the site.
It has made formal complaints to the Metropolitan Police and the Data Protection Commissioner, and provided financial support to firms applying for injunctions.
He said: ‘The problem that confronts us is that we are concerned not to give the oxygen of publicity to the site. So hitherto we have adopted a more private stance.’
But following a meeting on 13 April, the Society’s high-profile litigation group agreed to go forward with the proposal from its in-house legal team to seek two sets of injunctive relief.
Hudson said the Bar Council had been approached to support the actions, but had said it was unable to do so at this stage.
The Law Society said solicitors named on the site who do not receive a letter from Brett Wilson by 20 May should contact sfh@brettwilson.co.uk.
Comments
Not just S from H, what about the others?
While action against S from H is to be welcomed there are others. canyoutrustthem dot com does the same thing and google allows anyone to post reviews. This action may remove one offender but others will no doubt appear.
This really is a total waste
This really is a total waste of time.
Take out this site and others will spring up. Unfortunately the legal profession in all its manifestations has not come to terms with the freedom of speech which the internet has provided.
Anyone can say anything about anybody else. The judges have just found this out with their ridiculous super-injunctions, especially the optimist who made a "contra mundem" order. Possibly he hadn't heard that Britain no longer has an empire.
The fact that there is a complaint or allegation about someone does not mean it is true. The reader of the allegation can only make his own mind up by seeing who made the complaint and deciding on their credibility.
Regrettably the SRA and the Law Society have encouraged the complaint culture by not properly investigating them, and forcing solicitors to settle-all part of the compensation culture.
As a nation we are going to have to come to terms with the meaning of true freedom of speech, with all that entails.
Same for ebay/amazon??
Is ok for people to leave feedback on Amazon/Ebay or should they be subject to legal action too for allowing people to freely comment on goods or services recieved?
The Law Soc is giving this guy and this site credibility by taking this action.
Good comments from anon 09:41
You will of course be aware
You will of course be aware that on Amazon you can 'report abuse' and on ebay you can 'report this review' whereas on Solicitors from Hell you could *pay* to have comments removed and can now have comments moderated or removed subject to providing evidence of inaccuracy. Guilty until proved innocent then?
All companies are liable for legal action for permitting publication of inaccurate, misleading and malicious comments - even ebay and Amazon. The different is that reviewers on sites such as Amazon rarely comment beyond their own experience e.g. "the item was a different colour in the picture and felt cheap and flimsy" rather than at Solicitors from Hell where unsubstantiated comments such as "the solicitor lost my case, wouldn't return my file unless I paid my bill and is a crook" are quite normal.
The owner of S from H has already lost several cases and will lose more. Hopefully this will send a message that attacking professionals without evidence and trying to extract money using nefarious means is not the path of choice for budding entrepreneurs,
To Anonymous above, It's all
To Anonymous above,
It's all very well being a proponent of free speech but that does not mean that the business subject to malicious comments has to take the comments 'lying down' - particularly if those comments could cause harm to a business.
As an individual if you were named on a website as a paedophile in a website called 'Individuals from Hell' (a mundane title I admit) and the operator of the site offered to remove such comment for £299 would you (a) pay the money, (b) take action against the owners of the site or (c) say "I will do nothing in order to allow freedom of speech to prevail"?
Let us up the ante and say you are a primary school teacher. Would such comments under the freedom of speech banner be acceptable? In the absence of any sane response in the affirmative I think that you would agree that it is not.
A business is made up of an individual or several individuals - why should that business have less rights than a private individual?
I was just pointing out the
I was just pointing out the reality.
The free speech forum already exists-it isn't going to go away. Already teachers are being maligned on Facebook-but again the point surely is not to believe eveything that is written, to get the context of why it is written.
In selecting a service, the buyer must be discriminating in what they believe. Did we all believe Pravda because it was "The Truth"?
Welcome to the world the rest of society lives in
As i understand it the fee to remove comments provision has gone. A great line "The owner of S from H has already lost several cases and will lose more". Of course he will lose- he is providing a vehicle for CUSTOMERS to feedback about legal services they have recieved. Put him in prison then!
The whole world makes comments every day about the goods and serivces received in daily life. Moral of the story is- just dont say it about a solicitor!
Nonsense
If those "comments every day" were collected in one place, and that place was focussed solely on negative reviews, with absolutely no attempt made to check the facts, no attribution, no consequences for out and out making up stories, and, most importantly, no right of reply for those being libelled, and that place was so prominent that typing in your own name into Google would immediately bring up a load of rambling, defamatory nonsense about how crooked and incompetent you were... well, perhaps then you might have a point.
This was never about "providing a service", it's one man's obsessive grudge against a single firm, spun out of control so that many hundreds of completely innocent people had their reputations unfairly tarnished.
Hobson Do you have access to
Hobson
Do you have access to the internet? Google any firm name or any issue followed by the word problems or complaints you will find the same about just about anything. The reason this guy is so prominent is largely to do with the reponse of the legal proffession to it. The founders intentions may not have honourable- but the content is not unreasonable in the context of the rest of the real world. The law sectors obsession and paranoia about this guy has spun out of control and the free publicity will be a welcome bonus i am sure.
If the public were so outraged by 'Solicitors from Hell' they wouldnt post there
from anonymous 9:41 and 12:09
Oh for heaven's sakes, will
Oh for heaven's sakes, will solicitors not stop making complete fools of themselves over this kind of issue.
If effort is to be expended, then please lets put our own house in order first. There are legion amounts of terrible practitioners out there, but it by incompetence, indifference, or outright dishonesty.
Let us please direct our fury to clean our own hands first.
what rubbish-Solicitos from hell
I am disappointed in the reaction of many Lawyers to the Sols from Hell site. Why should people be able to leave slanderous comments about Solicitors on an anonymous basis without the Solicitor being able to comment on the case and THE CLIENT. Complaints via the LCS or SRA and now Legal Ombudsman allows the Solicitor to comment on the complaint and for proper and full investigation. There is control of the situation/complaint having a framework which allows some fairness to BOTH PARTIES. The Sols from Hell sight is a unilateral view without the opportunity for the Solicitor's view to be put . How cowardly of the Clients to complain on this site particularily when it clear that this chap gets paid for all comments, enjoys slandering Solicitors without rebuke or fairness of discussion. To see he is prepared to remove comments for cash reflects poorly upon him. I am pleased the Law Society is taking action at long last, our Profession is critised enough by the public who do not see what good we do society. The public should be grateful to us in solving all sorts of problems and issues for them legally and fairly as opposed to many foreign jurisdictions which are fundamentally corrupt. One of the backbones to our legal process has been fairness and equality before the law for everyone how about Solicitors having the same treatment.
The answer to the question
The answer to the question you pose is, because they can. That is what is possible on the internet. No, it may not be right, or good, but it is the reality.
The alternative is censorship, i.e. no alternative-far less right and good..
The fact that the site does not allow a right of reply simply means that sensible readers will undertand that the ite is not a proper review site, just a whinge site.
"The fact that the site does
"The fact that the site does not allow a right of reply simply means that sensible readers will undertand that the ite is not a proper review site, just a whinge site."
Thats exactly the point, and the only people who appear to take this site seriously and give it credibility by some of the reponses are some practictioners. Its almost we all think all clients are stupid......
Solicitors From Hell
There is a place for bad solicitors to be exposed - but only on reputable websites like Courtnewsuk which accurately covers the hearings of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunals.
Ha ha! The SDT doesn't expose
Ha ha! The SDT doesn't expose bad solicitors. It exposes breaches of the rules and the SRA's zealotry in persecuting solicitors.
Ineffective regulation
If the SRA and BSB did an effective job regulating the professions, people would not feel to resort to websites like this. Anyone who has made a complaint to these bodies know it is virtually impossible to get them to take action against an unscrupulous lawyer unless they are caught red handed.
"Regrettably the SRA and the
"Regrettably the SRA and the Law Society have encouraged the complaint culture by not properly investigating them, and forcing solicitors to settle-all part of the compensation culture."
that is about the long and short of it. Full stop.
Why waste the profession's money?
Those who believe they are defamed on the site in question are quite capable of looking after themselves: they are lawyers, who can issue proceedings themselves. How much of the Society's money has been spent "providing financial support" to firms applying for injunctions? Were those firms really not in a position to pursue proceedings without financial support from the Society?
The chances of the Society recovering the costs which it will incur in pursuing Mr Kordowski must be somewhere around nil; and the chances of Mr Kordowski complying with an injunction are probably not much better - the cases which he lost to date do not seem to have deterred him (and applying to commit him for contempt if he does breach the injunction will not make lousy PR for the Society).
All in all, there must be better things/causes for the Society to spend its money on, as the Bar Council appears to have realised.
Ineffective regulation
My experience is that the SRA do not investigate complaints as thoroughly as they might and they may rely on a solicitor's statement rather than an examination of his files. This is misleading to a member of the public who believes that the files themselves will have been examined.
Free speech
What a waste of time.
By making a stand it gives the site publicity and ensures the site will continue on servers overseas. The action achieves zero.
All the public see is solicitors trying to limit free speech and grant voting rights to prisoners. If murderers can vote I think solicitors should be able to handle a libertarian style free speech forum.
Just like the rest of society.
Anonymous(e)
Yes perhaps it is a waste of time in real terms. Individuals defamed by S from H or others can of course take what ever action is needed in their own time and at their own expense.
However I am also roundly cheesed off, by Anonymous contributors who seem to revel in mis information about the complaint's procedure, internally at the LCS, the SRA, the SDT and now the Ombudsman. Yes complaints of poor service up to negligence and rampant profiteering are dealt with correctly in my view by the methods in place. There is no cover up there is open ness.
Frankly anonymous contributors claiming "right of freedom of speech" should at least have the courage of conviction to name them selves when making comments and not actually abuse the process. The principles libertarians should surely agree with is innocent until proven guilty, freedom to do as you wish unless what you do harms others rather that the "business libertarianism" of expecting people to prove innocence and do as you wish no matter what harm is caused to others.
Undoubtable I will now receive frankly more bile from various anonymice!
What is your point?
I don’t see the point the above is trying to make. Why waste time arguing about whether there should be libertarian style freedom of speech?
We are where we are and the internet provides that forum, rightly or wrongly. Trying to stifle it will get you nowhere. Whether it is a super injunction or a solicitor that can't handle complaints you can not stop this sort of “gossip”.
My personal opinion is the litigation will increase the unique web hits the site will get. It will give the site invaluable publicity.
It is exactly the same as trying to shut down Wikileakes, a counterproductive waste of time.
Solcts from hell
I have a certian amount of sympathy with Solcts From Hell. Recently, I've had cause to use a solctr for the first time for about 40 years and I couldn't help noticing how very much standards appear to have fallen. Then, when you want to complain, your website says you've got to do it first through them. Well how many people, including myself, are going to want to complain to the very people you've just been doing business with, maybe even need to speak to the same solicitor, who may even have won your case for you but you feel that his/ the firm's performance has fallen short in a number of ways? Not many, and certainly not I. Your current complaints procedure is an excuse for letting solicitors off the hook, for that reason. I thought you used to be able to complain about a solicitor to the Law Society direct - it's no wonder that standards have fallen.
As long as the normal recourse to suing for slander still applies, it's difficult to see what is so wrong with having such a site. Even in the Health Service these days, you can post comments about your experience of doctors and hospitals, etc. so, why should solicitors be any different?
Of course you have to
Of course you have to complain to them first or how are they going to know you have a complaint?
If a meal you buy in a restaurant is no good, you complain to the waiter and then the manager. You don't keep quiet and then post a bad review in the Good Food Guide.
Hear hear. If a client had a
Hear hear.
If a client had a complaint to make about me I would want to hear it first and not be told first on a website calling me a "Solicitor from Hell"!
If a client feels they cannot speak freely with their solicitor then that is a fundamental issue that needs to be dealt with. If you find the service lacking then you have to tell the solicitor otherwise they may be unaware there was a problem and cannot rectify it.
For instance, I've recently
For instance, I've recently sent emails to a number of solct's firms enquiring if they would represent me in a certian matter. None of them have even bothered to reply. Ultimately, I blame the Law Society as, presumably their governing body, for the falling standards!
I don't need anybody to tell
I don't need anybody to tell me when I've been in receipt of poor service.
Law Society's Protectionist Policy
Maybe if the Law Society tried policing rather than simply protecting what is (in my opinion) a thoroughly disingenuous profession then websites such as Solicitors from Hell (a magnificent creation) would have no need to exist.
There is at least one comment on this page that names a solicitor's firm as being corrupt (see: Submitted by Anonymous Dorothy on Sat, 14/05/2011 - 00:53. ). I assume therefore that the Law Society will now commence legal proceedings on behalf of their member against the Law Gazette for allowing such a defamatory statement to appear on their website.
Please feel free to visit my website www.cwd-critic.com