Law Soc loses patience with Solicitors from Hell website
The Law Society has given Solicitors from Hell owner Rick Kordowski until 2 September to remove his website from the internet otherwise it will take High Court action against him for defamation, harassment and breach of the Data Protection Act.
Kordowski, who has been on the losing side of several High Court defamation cases from solicitors named on his site, said he is committed to his cause.
The Law Society first mooted legal action against Kordowski in May (11 May 2011) after High Court judge Mr Justice Henrique said that both the Law Society and Bar Council should investigate defamation complaints about the website (18 April 2011).
The website claims to give consumers a forum to publicly name and shame solicitors who they feel have provided a poor service.
The legal body has now instructed Brett Wilson to lead action against Kordowski on behalf of the entire legal profession. Its aim is to have the site taken down and stop Kordowski from relaunching it in another guise.
In a letter of claim sent to Kordowski the firm states: “You’ve forced a number of firms and lawyers to resort to costly litigation in order to protect their reputations. The irrecoverable cost of such litigation is prohibitive for many firms and lawyers.”
It continues: “It’s fair to say that the website in its current form serves no legitimate purpose and simply provides individuals who have ’axes to grind’ a means to seek to damage the reputation of lawyers (and other individuals) against whom they hold grudges, and for you to attempt to generate revenue.”
Should Kordowski refuse to take the site down, the letter states, the Law Society will attempt to secure a High Court injunction forcing him to.
In a statement Kordowksi said: “I deny all the allegations set out. I find it outrageous that, on the one hand, The Law Society are 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 £20m per year who in the last six months received 38,155 complaints, of which a massive 90 per cent 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.”
Kordowski has instructed Cloisters’ Jonathan Crystal to represent him on a pro-bono basis.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (25)
Anonymous | 17-Aug-2011 2:33 pm
On a quick read of the site, I could not see anyone complaining about anything that gave me serious cause for concern. Whilst freedom of speech must prevail, I think this site is a waste of space and a breeding ground for law suits in a world that is already far too litigious.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bruce Wilkins | 17-Aug-2011 2:54 pm
Why is the Law Society truly concerned? Rick already does their work for them by banning certain individuals who might be a threat to lawyers, and possibly Rick himself who likes to think of himself as a hero of the people and of course the sole champion of “free speech”.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Scep Tick | 17-Aug-2011 4:33 pm
"I have a listing on Rick's site about a firm who would be incapable of having it removed through litigation - NOT because the cost is "prohibitative" - but because what I say about them is TRUE and the firm KNOWS that I can prove every word."
Except it appears that if they bung Mr Kordowski a few bob he will remove it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Kordowski | 18-Aug-2011 11:16 am
The Law Society totally ’rejected’ my suggestion to work together to expose wrongdoing, where it exists, for the sake of the decent solicitors in the profession.
If you are a decent lawyer, please sign my petition.
Rick Kordowski
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bruce Wilkins | 18-Aug-2011 12:30 pm
Well of course they reject Kordowski’s offer, since some work hand in glove with Rick to prevent certain facts about lawyers emerging. The comment “Except it appears that if they bung Mr Kordowski a few bob he will remove it” is correct. But Rick goes even further, it appears he gets a bung for preventing listings in the first place, thereby denying individuals the “right to be heard” at all. Perhaps Rick would care to comment on that. But then Rick didn’t reply to my previous comment, just issued a standard legal evasion.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nathan Motton | 18-Aug-2011 2:02 pm
Below is a comment from the CEO of Patient Opinion, Paul Hodgkin
The attempt by the Law Society to stifle public criticism of allegedly shoddy lawyers (Solicitors lay down the law on web claims, August 16, 2011) is entirely inappropriate.
The legal profession, like any other, needs to be held accountable for its practices and ignoring criticisms won’t make them go away. The volume of postings that have appeared on solicitorsfromhell.co.uk shows a clear demand for a public forum to vent frustrations and share service experiences.
But rather than taking legal action to quash consumers' conversations, perhaps the Law Society could better spend its time creating a more balanced online space where both positive and negative reviews can be shared.
The healthcare sector provides a working model for using negative feedback to bring about positive change. Websites like Patient Opinion allow NHS patients to share their experiences with the relevant trusts, often leading to genuine service improvements.
Hospitals across the country are becoming more accountable, helped further by the government’s recent proposal to make all patient feedback public. The public sector is, by nature, open to greater scrutiny than the private sector, but the latter shouldn’t ignore the positive lessons of engaging with customer complaints.
Review websites always run the risk of hosting unfair or defamatory comments and they should not be given an automatic carte blanche, but the courts should ultimately seek to protect the role of public scrutiny across all professions.
Paul Hodgkin,
CEO, Patient Opinion
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-Aug-2011 7:55 pm
In a letter of claim sent to Kordowski the firm states: “You’ve forced a number of firms and lawyers to resort to costly litigation in order to protect their reputations. The irrecoverable cost of such litigation is prohibitive for many firms and lawyers".
With regards to the above comments by the Law Society I would like to state that many individuals who have suffered financially because of the actions of a Solicitor have been "forced to resort to costly litigation (professional negligence claims for e.g.) in order to" have the Solicitor address the issues. The "cost of such litigation is prohibitive for many "individuals and therefore at the present time there is little or no redress for individuals who have very real grievances against Solicitors. The Pre- action Protocol for Professional Negligence - in my experience - is little more than a further opportunity for the negligent Solicitor to defend his actions.
Mr Kordowski, appears to me, to be a man who has dared to highlight certain failings within the legal system. I am sure that the majority of visitors to his site are discerning enough not to 'black list' any Solicitor that they feel has 'undeservedly' been mentioned. It is my opinion (through years of experience) that the Legal Profession have lived in Ivory Towers for too long and need a 'wake up call'. There needs to be a completely independent body/site where real grievances against Solicitors can be aired in a transparent way. I don't personally feel that any 'heavy handed' action by the Law Society/Solicitors towards Mr Kordowki would achieve anything. There are many Mr/Mrs Kordowski's out there who feel that there needs to be change within the outdated legal system and transparency within that system.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
john olding | 18-Aug-2011 10:01 pm
I have read the comments to this thread and I can personally answer some of them.
Firstly the legal ombudsman is simple a waste of time as was the predecessor who was literally sacked. It wasn’t called that but, a rose by any other name……
The law soc isn’t interested in setting up a site where people can air their views of how bad their friends and collogues the solicitors has been and who has robbed, caused them to lose their case or has been so negligent that they should be struck off. In fact from this side it looks as if they attempt to stifle any criticism of their friends and colleagues. No matter how bad they are.
The solicitor’s complaints or whatever they are calling themselves this week isn’t interested and again only pays lip service and awards from both are simply not worth the effort of the complainant.
They refuse to publish the way they decide how much negligence is worth. Nor can you complain about them.
NO other public service has that; we all have to have a complaints system, except the ombudsman service, all of them.
I personally rejected their insulting offer and intend to sue the errant and negligent solicitors for the return of the stolen money and the negligence of another firm both of whom do not do the legal professionals any service.
I am also amazed at that the number of complaints. The thousands that they rejected for whatever crass reason is beyond belief. The cost per complaint is astounding and is mentioned by others else were.
If I worked in a profession that had that many complaints I would be so embarrassed I would retrain as a plumber.
I have also been instrumental in having at least two solicitors removed and that at least may protect someone else
Rick provides just what we the public need and I will be happy to support him in any way, even financially if necessary.
Even the Law Society Gazette won’t allow criticism and will take down the most serious complaints. Therefore stifling debate.
Well done to the Web for bringing these awful people under the spotlight.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stratega, London | 19-Aug-2011 9:16 am
I made up the name of a law firm & posted a fictitious complaint on the Solicitors From Hell website.
It's been on for a year. There's no merit to a website that fails to take even basic steps to establish the merit of the allegations.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Aug-2011 9:59 am
Still charging £299 for someone to remove their details from your website, Mr. Kordowski?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment