Libelled lawyer sics Carter-Ruck on site
A consumer website that claims to “name and shame” underperforming lawyers is being sued for libel by a personal injury lawyer who was criticised on the site.
Lawyer Scott Eason has instructed Carter-Ruck to pursue Rick Kordowski, the owner of solicitors fromhell.co.uk, for damages after two consumers posted negative comments about his ethics.
Carter-Ruck issued a High Court writ against Kordowski on behalf of Eason when he refused to remove the comments from the website.
Kordowski, the writ states, informed Carter-Ruck “that he had an ’administration and monitoring procedure’ whereby he would only remove postings (whether they were true or false) if the solicitor or firm complained about paid him between £99 and £299”.
It continues: “When he was informed that this was ’akin to extortion’ he maintained his position.”
In an interview given to the Law Society Gazette in January, Kordowski talked about the system, the writ states.
It added: “It can be inferred from the admissions he made […] and his refusal to respond to Carter-Ruck’s letter of claim unless paid, [that the defendant is] acting with the guilty knowledge that the chances of economic advantage for him in obtaining a payment of between £99 and £299 from the claimant outweighed the chance of economic penalty by being sued for libel by the claimant.”
Kordowski said: “I’ve put a lot of time and energy into this project and still had to pay the running costs so I decided to invite the aggrieved contributors to make donations to the site to offset the running costs. The result was very little income - not enough to pay the outgoings.
“In November 2009 I hit upon the idea of charging the solicitors a fee to take off the listings. A few solicitors have obliged and paid up. But it’s not a money-making enterprise and it’s never been my intention to extort money from solicitors. Indeed, several firms sent me a maximum fee to delete the listing on them but I returned the money as it was in the permanent category of listings that the contributor didn’t want removed at all.”
He added: “Why Scott Eason is suing someone who has no money has me baffled.”
Readers' comments (9)
Anonymous | 6-Apr-2010 4:45 pm
It is a shame that it is a moneymaking scheme, because a "name and shame" website would be useful for clients and especially as the SRA seems to be unwilling to do anything about the “dodgy” practices of some solicitors/law firms (particularly the large ones).
In fact, the SRA are so bad they effectively advised me that I could flout the Data Protection Act and then hide behind privilege.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 8-Apr-2010 5:20 pm
This seems very disingenuous to me. Defamation is set up to protect an individual, not a corporate reputation, yet Mr Eason is clearly not acting as a business in making this defamation claim against people who may or may not be legitimate complainants and the site which published their comments.
This may create (or extend I guess) a dangerous precedent.
A number of very helpful review sites have grown up where people can post comments about tradesmen, but these would become completely useless if a builder or plumber sued for defamation every time someone criticised their service, with the onus on the 'victim' to prove their case. Why should lawyers be exempt from criticism? I would think it almost impossible for a 'lay' client to meet the burden of proof needed to defeat a determined defamation action.
Personally, I can't see the courts allowing this one to run. Carter-Ruck are having a laugh. Or is that defamatory against whichever partner issued the writ???
But seriously, if a corporate entity can't sue for libel, why should a sole practitioner/sole trader be able to? Is there any legal precedent anyone can offer?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 9-Apr-2010 1:46 am
Scott Eason have made the wrong decision. I would never visit the site, but their client's comments have now been amplified and reached many more people than was necessary.
It is also news long after it would have been forgotten by most people. A prominent North East firm attracted more than its fair share of criticism last week but trying to hammer people for their opinion would validate those views. Listening and learning is the only way to react without incurring further damage.
As for the website developer, he is becoming the hero of this piece. He is protecting the right to give feedback.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 9-Apr-2010 2:24 pm
A hero? The fact that he charges to have any comments removed invalidates anything he is trying to do.
All it takes is for one aggrieved (rightly or wrongly) client to ruin a reputation.
Clients should have the right to reply and dodgy practices should be named and shamed. But a crass website that charges to remove entries, set up by someone with a grudge against the law profession, is not the way to do it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Kordowski (SolicitorsFromHELL.co.uk) | 9-Apr-2010 4:09 pm
Good point!
Perhaps I should get rid of the option to have comments removed altogether and just leave it as that.
I shall have to give this some thought!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Apr-2010 7:13 pm
I said "becoming the hero" - I agree he's not the perfect person to argue this principle but this heavy handed action is a good way to drum up support
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Apr-2010 7:22 pm
What does "Sics" mean?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Apr-2010 4:55 pm
It is high time Rick Kordowski had his backside kicked. Yes, there are solicitors who need to be named and shamed, but his site is clear extortion and is a disgrace.
Of course we could not expect our feckless Law Society to bring an action to protect the reputation of the profession, in the same way that it so abjectly fails to shut down those firms in the ARP who have not paid their insurance premiums.
Good luck, Mr Eason.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Mar-2011 10:08 am
Restaurants and hotels get reviews, why not lawyers? As with any review some are reliable and some are not. One can normally tell which is which. It's about time that solicitors who rack up costs and who couldn't care less about their clients be held to account. I am a lawyer myself and embarassed by how appalingly some lawyers behave. Unscrupulous lawyers should be named and shamed as it not fair on those good lawyers who excel at their job.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment