Law Soc moots class action against Solicitors from Hell website

  • Print
  • Comments (68)

Readers' comments (68)

  • The legal profession needs to look itself in the mirrior and ask why it has attracted record number of complaints in recent years, more than any other profession I believe. The public view of the Law Society and the SRA is that they are more like trade bodies rather for the consumer protection or interest.
    Clearly, self regulation no longer works or is trusted by the public and therefore a more robust and completely independent regulator is the answer if the profession is serious about restoring the public trust and confidence.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Don't worry about freedom of speech. Let's just make a step back and bring China here. Well done Law Society and Bar Council!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • dear law soc - don't forget about that guy who ran ACS law, his scam was much worse.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If the process that was in place for complaints worked or was more tranparent the need or perceived need for this website would be non existent. All the general public are looking for is accountablilty, the same that they receive in day to day life.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The solicitors profession attracts record levels of complaints. It has done for years and there is no sign that anyone is getting on top of it, although the LSA is meant to help address this. Having been on the ‘Solicitors from Hell’ website, the complaints I looked at were well documented and people seem to believe that they have genuine grievances. I wouldn’t want to be any of the firms fingered by complainants!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I completely understand why this website exists. I work in the law - have complained against another law firm and the response provided by the Law Society certianly does not inspire or motivate one to complain!:
    "We are grateful to you for bringing this matter to our attention. Our purpose is to ensure that clients receive a good service from the firms and individuals we regulate, and we rely upon information from others to ensure that any risks to the public are identified swiftly.
    The information which you have provided has been carefully assessed. If we consider that the information you have provided, and any other information we may hold, means that we should make further enquiries or take action, I can assure you that we will do so.
    We may seek further information from you if that is necessary, but we do not generally provide reports on our enquiries. I recognise that this may be disappointing to you but I hope that you will understand the reasons. It is partly because our enquiries may include confidential information, but also because we try to devote our resources to taking action if we consider there is a risk to the public. Where we do take formal action leading to serious disciplinary and regulatory outcomes the results are published on our website in most circumstances."

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think someone should start a "doctors from hell" and a "hospital consultants from hell" website. I have some good material. Such sites would give the BMA apoplexy.
    Also pathologists from hell eg Freddy Patel.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There are more than 1,000 posts about lawyers on solicitorsfromhell. Rick Kordowski started the site after proving to the law Society that two lawyers, one acting for him and one against, colluded to defraud him of his home, his business and over £100,000. He was awarded £500 compensation. He cannot therefore afford representation. He is not the best litigant in person. However, less than twenty lawyers have challenged their postings, with the shallow claim that they won't get their costs back. If they had genuine claims to be removed they would stomach the £10,000 costs. Rick Kordowski is learning, however, (albeit perhaps slowly) and this class action is a disgusting attempt by a crooked legal profession to close him down before he gets to the Appeal stage. In his case against Awdry, Bailey and Douglas/Bressington vs solicitorsfromhell, the applicants did not prosecute the source, only the publisher, despite threats to do so, and succeeded in a late application to waive the initial interim hearing when they saw the weak defence papers prepared by Kordowski. They then tried to block late submission of papers by the defendant. Very fishy, just what were they worried about? Another twist......Bressington, the lawyer complained of, sits on the SRA, and this is one of the Appeals that is taking a long time to be dealt with.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Throughout 3 1/2 years I had repeated grounds to complain about the conduct of the other sides solicitor. I was advised by my own solicitor that all I could do was to complain to the Law Society once it was all over. I did this and the newly named Legal Ombudsman sent me this reply, "The Legal Ombudsman is only able to investigate service complaints about lawyers who have acted for the complainant. We are unable to investigate complaints about the conduct of a lawyer or a lawyer who has acted for a third party. " They then pointed me towards the SRA, but I then discovered that they have a time limit. Why is that? If misconduct has taken place then surely it should be robustly investigated? I was so exhausted with the process after 31/2 years I needed a break.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think these websites are good ,it will help to clean the Legal field out of corrupt solicitors. Take it for insance at a time of investing a solicitors firm of a missing money, we were imformed from the vine yard that those solicitors have various bank accounts in Foreing Names. Make your own guess.

    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 (68)