Law Soc loses patience with Solicitors from Hell website

  • Print
  • Comments (25)

Readers' comments (25)

  • 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

  • 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

  • "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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Still charging £299 for someone to remove their details from your website, Mr. Kordowski?

    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 (25)