Host of Solicitors from Hell-style sites appear following court action

  • Print
  • Comments (30)

Readers' comments (30)

  • Bill
    "Daylight is a good disinfectant" is utter nonsense when these websites are also advocating smearing **** everywhere.
    That's the whole problem with these websites - there's no interogation of the facts. Anyone can write anything.
    The best situation would be for the SRA to really knuckle down on those who damage the profession. Not just bad solicitors but also firms which are telling everyone that they're lawyers but don't have any solicitors.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Out of interest...
    www.solicitorsfromhell.com predates Rick K's site by a number of years. It HASN'T just appeared. It is run by a delightful and seasoned Gentleman named Brian.
    This article appears to be based on very minimal research - there are MANY protest sites out there - almost every one started by someone who was given a TERRIBLE experience by a greedy self-serving law firm and THEN given the complete run-around by the OSS/CCS/LCS/SRA/Ombudsman - all of whom LIE to protect lying solicitors.
    The solicitors on here should stop whinging. If you believe in "self regulation" then get out there and REGULATE... the Flaw Society is the OPPOSITE of a Regulator.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I an earlier post I noted that Rick Kordowski had taken down Solicitors from Heaven as well as Solicitors from Hell. Solicitors from Heaven is now back on-line and is inviting law firms to register!
    Interestingly, Solicitors from Heaven is now using an anonymous registrar!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To the Anonymous chap who wrote to me just before 10.30 this morning, I am grateful for your comments (although part of your message did not come out). My point is that if one does choose to surf, and the more one does so, the more one's risen hackles are reinforced by the kind of thing of the letter going to the wrong person. Those chaps who are always bellowing about how good they are and so on cannot all be right. My small Firm has never been on the Hell thing and prides itself on across the board compliance; that is surely the way forward rather than rely on the SAR. Fortune favours the brave!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The LS are interested in protecting members of course. And shutting down the other lawyer rating sites would not be as expensive as the action against SFH I would presume. But the other sites are not associated with Kordowski so maybe a lower priority?

    That aside, trying to legislate on the internet is like chasing greased pigs.

    Maybe the LS could come up with a more positive version of a site rating solicitors?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • All great about freedom of speech etc and how bad a profession we are. If it's to be fair game can we set up a clients from hell website or will I be told that they are all perfect and not deserving - you can't have your cake and eat it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Does anyone stop to think how easy it would be to allow the public to actually step forward and form a group/panel for monitoring how solicitors perform. There could be something to gain and very little to loose by allowing input from outside forces and a way to compile valuable information for very little cost , if there are members of the public who are willing to volunteer their time. Whats wrong with forward thinking? everyone benefits from knowledge

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Eh, I'm not too worried about the imitators; the more of them there are, the less of a problem they become - Solicitors From Hell diluted by a hundred becomes a case of a few isolated cranks shouting on the Internet. Solicitors From Hell was only a problem because it attracted many hundreds of cranks (along with the occasional legitimate grievance) and gained a lot of attention (and Google traction) - something none of these imitators look like doing.
    "Solicitors From Hell 2" seems to be a lengthy and unreadable list of Google search terms concerning one particular firm, and duplicates content that this one disgruntled party has spammed across many, many websites. "Cowboy Solicitors" appears to have an even lower fact-checking threshold than the original "Solicitors from Hell", given that roughly half the submissions there seem not to be from actual clients but rather those on the losing end of a case featuring the firm/lawyer in question.
    That was always the problem with Kordowski's site - no fact-checking, no investigation, no identification, and no right of reply. I've got no issue with the idea of a site that "names and shames" bad firms - but force people to use their real names and explicitly waive their right to confidentiality, publish complaints only with documentary proof the person was actually a client, and give the firm being complained about a full right of public reply (with the posting being removed if found to be false.) With those three (or four) conditions in place, I doubt SFH would have attracted so much ire from the profession.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hobson Well Solicitors From Hell 2 must be pretty smart then according to this website it was only registered this month and its already attracting peoples attention.
    If you want these sites to go away then the law firms need to clean up their act.
    Freedom of speech is important whether it be problems with one law form or not. I did have a read through it and found at least 4 law firms and a lot of information on Libel reform.
    I do like a couple of things about the site. these two comments.
    Solicitors From Hell 2 will allow people to upload articles about Solicitors from within the UK or anywhere else in the world this will be done automatically & free of charge. Should a complaint arise we will require evidence to substantiate your complaint. or the removal of the offending post or words will take place.
    And
    Further should anyone claim that any item is defamatory and can prove the information wrong then the post will be removed free of charge.
    I think that sounds fair to me.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hobson is misinformed in that the more websites there are for people to post complaints against lawyers, then it naturally follows that, given time to propagate, there will be more individual links in search engines naming the firm.
    The alleged ‘cranks’, as Hobson describes them, were probably perfectly normal citizens before they suffered at the hands of a lawer. ‘Cranks’ that need to air their justified grievances and will do so at any given opportunity.
    For Desmond Hudson of the Law Society, perhaps it’s a case of ‘better the devil we know’ and consult Mr Kordowski on this matter – before its get out of control!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

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 (30)