Website for blacklisted solicitors plans expansion

I think Inspector Knacker of the Yard should pop round for a little chat with Mr Kordowski

Maybe Mr. Kordowski could set up a website for solicitors and barristers that helps us avoid the clients we try to help, but for all our many hours of explanation, hard work and effort, still have unrealistic expectation, a stubborn view or just aren't willing to pay for the help they want. I'd pay for that....

There are lots of ways for unhappy customers to
write and say what they think.

The best bets are to

Give GREAT service
and create your own preponderance of positive proof.

The more positive proof you are great
means that people are more likely to
see and act on the good stuff.

Here are some ways you can do it.

Google local reviews (very important)
Testimonials written, audio, video on your
website and on social networking sites like YouTube
Awards, ratings, Lexcel, expert guides, information lines

The more proof i.e. independently said by others
you can get the better.

In the absence of this you get the negatives appearing
rather than the positives.

There is a flaw in Mr K's argument. While he refers to "pain and suffering to unsuspecting clients", he overlooks the possibility of a disgruntled litigation opponent - particularly a litigant in person - making an entry out of spite. There is no good reason why a firm targeted in this manner should have to pay for the removal of such an entry, particularly when it gives the lie to his use of the word "blacklisting" as is generally understood. Would he like to receive a libel claim or two rather than take the common sense approach of moderating his entries and allowing a prior right of reply?

All the comments here in outcry show how many people are missing the point. The SRA is a waste of time, the page referred to above only notes cases where action has been taken. It does not make any reference to instances of atrocious service, lack of professionalism, and general apathy on the part of the SRA to take action to root out the rubbish and the wrong-doers. Because they do not act, I think a lot of Solicitors take the view that x in getting away with it so why shouldn't we. So the situation is exacerbated.

In case the profession has not noticed people have no faith in Solicitors. Self regulation does not work, one reason probably being because if it were done diligently and properly the amount of wrong doing it would uncover would be so vast it would damage people's faith even more. But sweeping a problem under the carpet hardly improves things. Hence this website is providing a service.

With over a quarter of a century as a conveyancer I have during that time seen a massive drop in standards. I also think the regulation of Solicitors over that period has reduced. Because I am not a Solicitor the contemptuous attitude towards people like myself is why should I care? And why should anyone listen to me as I am not qualified? That hardly helps, my standards are way above what I have seen on a day to day basis from the majority of qualified people I have to deal with. A qualification as a Solicitor does not an honest person of integrity make. I could quote many examples from persons for whom I have worked. In my humble opinion, the public should have a right to know that those people are not fit and proper persons of professionalism and honesty to represent them. Sorry if that puts me in a minority, but maybe not being a Solicitor, I do not have my own self interests to protect, and I can look at this issue rationally.

He does not do him self or his potential 'clients' a service with a foul-mouthed rant.

If his solicitors were negligent and cost him £700K plus he could and should have sued them.

I do not know how much credibility his story has. His disclosures do not come across as calm and measured. I am sure he will say that is typical of the profession (Iam and ex-solicitor) but I felt sorry for the firm concerned after reading his stuff.

Would the Gazette please explain why they felt this website worthy of front page exposure?

I hear Dickinson Dees paid the £299 last week to get two of their errant lawyers off the site!

This website is a good idea, wish I had thought of it. However I am not familiar with libel laws but if a 'client' posts a report about their solicitor which is untrue. Why has the website owner not been sued? If they have been what was ordered by the court? I dont understand why a solicitor is not given the right to reply under the postings so that a fair hearing is given? If a solicitor can pay a fee to the website to take the posting down, then how is this a service to the community ifthe realy bad solicitors continue to practice? or is this websiite just about getting money?

As someone who's been building websites for law firms for over six years, I've followed the fortunes of Mr. K for years, ever since it was his personal crusade against Moss & Coleman.

Occasionally I get a non-client phone me as Mr. K's site shows up better than their site in the Google rankings for their name. Some basic SEO soon puts paid to that.

My advice to clients is to ignore the site. Sure, everyone has a client who is a PITA from time to time, I have one at the moment, and VERY occasionally we all have situations where we could have done things better and a client might have a legitimate complaint.

The interesting thing about the Gazette story is that this is the first time, to my knowledge, that Mr. K. has openly said that if a law firm pays him money then he will remove their name from his site (historic and all future references).

So how does that sit with his consumer "clients" who he charges a fee to post a complaint on his website? He’s taking money from consumers AND taking money from solicitors. Is that having his cake & eating it?

One assumes that he takes the consumer’s money, finds they have submitted a complaint against a firm who have “paid him off” and then refunds the money.

Rick, as you are active on this thread today, perhaps you’d like to respond?

Regs….David.

Conscious Solutions

To David G, a fellow webmaster I presume.

The service at SolicitorsFromHell.co.uk is totally FREE to disgruntled clients.

In fact, it has been reported that a threat of a listing gets firms 'moving'.

Lets see what the national complaint stats stack up to, this time next year.

The service at SolicitorsFromHell.co.uk is totally FREE to disgruntled clients.

I guess the word ‘not’ is missing.