Tugendhat J slams Solicitors from Hell creator for 'abusing court process'

  • Print
  • Comments (8)

Readers' comments (8)

  • Simple answer is that Kordowski’s should set-up an off shore firm, in a country where rights to freedom of not curtailed by members of the legal industry looking after their own.
    Say Sweden (rights protected under Yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen), host his website in Sweden and outsource the updating.
    It's a lot cheaper than you think and freedom of expression in those countries will mean that the back scratching, self serving and basically evil legal industry here shall have no recourse.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ Anonymous

    Wow! Have you had a bad experience with lawyers I wonder? Clearly something has upset you.

    I think the point here is that people need to be protected from unjustified attacks on their professional and moral character. Kordowski seems to have been profiteering here by allowing and enabling people to make unjustified claims of malpractice.

    What you suggest is merely a means to enable blackmail. The defamation laws in the UK have been under much scrutiny recently and thankfully for everyone (not just lawyers) some intelligent and thoughful people have been giving this thought.

    Whatever any lawyer has done to you must have been severe for you to feel the need to trawl the legal press in order to make such comments to the legal world. I do hope you have found receonciliation.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hopefully there are lessons learned here: Always check the identify fo the person posting to the site and operate a moderation system. There will always be 'nutters' out there who want to have a go at lawyers - it shouldn't be that hard to weed out the genuine from the vexatious. After all most of us can cite circumstances first hand where lawyers/law firms have acted 'without due care and attention'. When it happens the determined client mostly goes elsewhere. For example, I have just seen a RTA 'victim' marginalised by a specialist firm where correspondence was 'lost' and the conduct of the partner in charge was dreadful yet on moving to another specialist firm a CFA agreement was completed in a trice, a Silk engaged and the contradictory witness statements speedily exposed. As with all professions ther are saints and sinners and in the above example the terminally lazy!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It sounds like this website is just a scam to make some cash for its owner and that's it.
    If this website is supposed to be doing something worthy i.e. exposing 'bad lawyers' then how does payment of a fee of £299 that a lawyer can pay to remove criticisms of them justify that end?
    Presumably the lawyers who have done something wrong will pay to have the comments about them removed, and the ones that haven't will unjustifiably suffer the consequences or take the website to court.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hear hear Lawyer | 6-Apr-2011 0:10 am

    Kordowski's argument that he had a “moral and/or social duty to inform others of the wrongdoing or negligence of some solicitors" is shown to be a complete farce when he's been charging said solicitors to remove negative comments!

    Profiteering indeed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 'Solicitors From Hell' is most certainly in the 'Public Interest'
    I have made comments about 4 firms I have dealt with. Not a single one of them has said anything, because all my comments are true. They dare not launch a legal action against me.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • publicly badmouth a lawyer or firm and then ask for money to take it down? sounds to me like good ol fashioned extortion.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Surely the point here is that the comment on the website was not made by a person who had been or was a client of the law firm, so any comments made by him were never going to be based on all the facts and circumstances (hearsay is probably what most of it was)
    Secondly the defence that ths defendant had a “moral and/or social duty to inform others of the wrongdoing or negligence of some solicitors" is (as others above have commented) completely undermined by the option to pay a fee to have negative comments removed from the website.
    I agree service such as the defendant claims to be providing would be a useful and beneficial tool for theose members of the public looking to choose a firm to represent them. However, it appears that the Defendant was not as interested in this public service as he was in making a few quid.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (8)