Solicitors from hell site sued

[EXC]

Law Society takes on Solicitors from Hell website

A website which claims to name and shame under-performing lawyers is facing legal action from the Law Society for alleged defamation.

The site, Solicitors from Hell, was set up by Rick Kordowski after a dispute with a solicitor ended badly.

It invites users to post detailed testimonials about poor service, directly naming the lawyers involved.

But the Law Society says there is no system for substantiating the negative comments on the site.

Defamation claims have already been brought against Mr Kordowski, a graphics designer, by individual law firms. The latest was in the High Court last week.

But now the Law Society is planning to pursue two cases against Mr Kordowski, one on behalf of solicitors already on the site, and another on behalf of the profession.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's You and Yours programme, Law Society Chief Executive Desmond Hudson
But John Flood, professor of Law and Sociology from Westminster University, defended the Solicitors from Hell website, saying it filled a gap in the market.
"I don't think the site would be there if there wasn't a considerable amount of dissatisfaction with the way legal services were being delivered in this country," he said.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14234792

[enaid]

Re: Solicitors from hell site sued

So that means unlike most other services a review on the internet about poor service by solicitors is a no no?

[mystery1]

Re: Solicitors from hell site sued

How can you bring an action on behalf of a whole industry ? They are , in effect, saying lawyers are never wrong and everything is done correctly always.

Bully boy tactics but just in case it's fought with a great defence it'll be heard by judges who are/were members of the law society.

M1

[teaboy2]

Re: Solicitors from hell site sued

But the Law Society says there is no system for substantiating the negative comments on the site.

Read more at: Solicitors from hell site sued - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

I think they'll find there is, i.e. a review system based on people honest opinion of way solicitors handle their cases, or the advice given - Otherwise known as 'word of mouth'.

You simply can not stop people posting about their experiences and expressing their thoughts and feelings about they experience with a solicitor or law firm, and given that this is the legal proffession, i think its only right people can goto the site and look for any posts on law firms and/or solicitors, so then they will get an idea of how good they are - So basically it is in the publics interest, i would say that substantiates negative comments.

Note how they said negative comments and not derogatory. Think they giving us a clue as what maybe the real reason for taking this action i.e covering their arses for their failings, in order to protect their reputations.

[SpringerSpaniel]

Re: Solicitors from hell site sued

According to reports in The Lawyer, the Law Society has warned the owner of Solicitors from Hell (a website claiming to give consumers a forum in which to publicly name and shame solicitors who they feel have provided a poor service) to remove the website from the Internet or face High Court action. The Law Society has given Rick Kordowski until 2 September 2011 to remove the site or face legal action for defamation, harassment and breach of the Data Protection Act.
As reported in the Law Gazette, the letter of claim sent to Kordowski by Brett Wilson (the society’s solicitors) said that the site serves "no legitimate purpose" and that it was a "magnet for the vexatious and bitter whose complaints would not stand up to scrutiny in any impartial tribunal or forum".
Kordowski has said he is committed to maintaining the website, despite already losing several High Court cases brought by solicitors it had named. In a statement, Kordowski said: “I deny all the allegations set out. I find it outrageous that, on the one hand, the Law Society is taking action against me on behalf of all 150,000 solicitors in England and Wales; and on the other hand, they’re funding the legal ombudsman to the tune of over £20 million per year who in the last six months received 38,155 complaints, of which a massive 90% were rejected. Does the profession really have that much to hide? These costs are ultimately paid for by solicitors in the form of practising certificates. Yet the Law Society totally ’rejected’ my suggestion to work together to expose wrongdoing, where it exists, for the sake of decent lawyers in the profession."

[leclerc]

Re: Solicitors from hell site sued

If you see their website today, you'll notice that they do not appear to be backing down, lol!

[The Debt Star]

Re: Solicitors from hell site sued

I think they'll find there is, i.e. a review system based on people honest opinion of way solicitors handle their cases, or the advice given - Otherwise known as 'word of mouth'.

You simply can not stop people posting about their experiences and expressing their thoughts and feelings about they experience with a solicitor or law firm, and given that this is the legal proffession, i think its only right people can goto the site and look for any posts on law firms and/or solicitors, so then they will get an idea of how good they are - So basically it is in the publics interest, i would say that substantiates negative comments.

Note how they said negative comments and not derogatory. Think they giving us a clue as what maybe the real reason for taking this action i.e covering their arses for their failings, in order to protect their reputations.

the only instance I have come across this website is when the so-called "victim" was allegedly a disgruntled ex-employee of the firm in question and allegedly lied about the firm in question, allegedly posing as a former client and making it all up. The website allegedly refused to withdraw the comment and allegedly asked instead for £250 to remove it.
They also allegedly offered the said firm a guarantee that if they paid the money then they wouldn't post anything else up. In my book that reads as blackmail. I hope that website gets sued beyond existence.

[The Debt Star]

Re: Solicitors from hell site sued

This from the SFH website:

"So if you've been treated unfairly by a solicitor or firm, add them to our list of 'Solicitors from Hell' and for just £1 warn other unsuspecting clients and members of the public what may be in store for them."

Heck, if LB charge "just £1" for every warning posted up on this website they'd be millionaires! PMSL.

[teaboy2]

Re: Solicitors from hell site sued

the only instance I have come across this website is when the so-called "victim" was in fact a disgruntled ex-employee of the firm in question and deliberately lied about the firm in question, posing as a former client and making it all up. The website refused to withdraw the comment and asked instead for £250 to remove it.
They also offered the said firm a guarantee that if they paid the money then they wouldn't post anything else up. In my book that reads as blackmail. I hope that website gets sued beyond existence.

Well thats understandable in that specific case, but thats just one case where some disgruntle employer MAY have made a post, when there is many more that are no doubt true experiences that members of the public have had with some solicitors.

Am not condoning their behaviour in the case you mentioned, though i would love to know where you got the information from in regard to such case.

What i am defending is people rights to post reviews both postive and negative, anyone on ebay will have expereince the same kind of feedback, same with hotels on hotel review sites, so why not have the same for solicitors or in fact any kind of business or proffessional services offered to the public by firms or individual traders? After all, they are only posting their honest opinion of the sevice they received and experienced at the hands of the solicitors they named. In fact, are we not all guilty of doing the same when we title threads by the name of the DCA or post our own experiences on debt issue and on certain DCA's whilst mentioning them by name? Yes, off course we are!

So on that site they are naming and shaming, just like we are when we talk about experiences at the hands of banks and DCA's and by naming those banks and dca's on this very forum. The only difference being we advise on legal issues involving them and there product or collection attempts and do so constructively and objectively, without being allout hostile to DCA's or Banks - Where on the site in question there is no disccusion between members or objectivity and instead one sole purpose of hostililty towards the proffession.

Yes the site in question needs to make some changes so it is less hostile and not anomynous postings, and allow those firms who have been mentioned to respond directly and have their response posted unedited. But i see no reason why it should be shut down, as even the alleged extortion claims can be resolved by such changes. If it were to be shut down then i feel it will be a sad day for peoples rights of freedom of speech.

Overall, i am not saying i condone the current way the site operates as i do not, but i do repect peoples right to freedom of speech, and with the changes i mentioned and a little more objectiveness and less hostile approach from the site operators, then i see no reason why the site should be taken down. But thats just my personal opinion.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

This from the SFH website:

"So if you've been treated unfairly by a solicitor or firm, add them to our list of 'Solicitors from Hell' and for just £1 warn other unsuspecting clients and members of the public what may be in store for them."

Heck, if LB charge "just £1" for every warning posted up on this website they'd be millionaires! PMSL.

Lol Yeah that does take the **** a bit.

Though end of the day its upto the site operators if they want to charge not that they will help themselves by doing so, as it will simply put people off and they will come to forums like this one.

If LB charged a pound for every post made on this site we would all be skint.

[The Debt Star]

Re: Solicitors from hell site sued

Lol, and I do take your point about the right to express a point of view about service standards, that has to be acknowledged!

In think the problem here is the anonymity which makes it all too easy to say something extremely damaging to a person's standing/reputation and then charging to remove offending data. All in all not a particularly impressive picture.

Generically though, the court appears to have found that it is the website owners are liable and responsible for posts made, as if they are themselves the authors.

[charitynjw]

Re: Solicitors from hell site sued

Lol, and I do take your point about the right to express a point of view about service standards, that has to be acknowledged!

In think the problem here is the anonymity which makes it all too easy to say something extremely damaging to a person's standing/reputation and then charging to remove offending data. All in all not a particularly impressive picture.

Generically though, the court appears to have found that it is the website owners are liable and responsible for posts made, as if they are themselves the authors.

So if I write ****, **** and ********, it would drop Ame and Cel in the ****?

Ooops.

Sorry girls! :tung:

[The Debt Star]

Re: Solicitors from hell site sued

So if I write ****, **** and ********, it would drop Ame and Cel in the ****?

Ooops.

Sorry girls! :tung:

That'll be £1 please.

[zaccolbert]

Re: Solicitors from hell site sued

It sounds like a good idea, just not well thought through. He needs to develop a system so comments can be substantiated, if he does that then he's on to a winner, there should be a space online where poor service can be reported