Solicitors from Hell owner launches £1m defamation claim against Law Soc CEO

  • Print
  • Comments (29)

Readers' comments (29)

  • Good luck to him.
    It would be a huge step forward for the vast majority of solicitors if the Law Society get their comeuppance.
    Solicitors who have been wrongfully named and shamed should can bring their own proceedings if they wish.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This all seems rather undignified and does little to enhance the reputations of either party/ies or the legal profession generally.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The SFH website names and shames a fictitious law firm for a matter that has no basis.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is a debate which will go on and on while the Law Society blunder on. Mr Kordowski has made many mistakes but the reason his site has attracted so much support is because there are an awful lot of incompetant, dishonest and immoral soicitors out there.

    My biggest annoyance is those law firms who pursue people on mass for money. We have seen widespread coverage of the antics of ACS Law. Even the bigger law firms like Davenport Lyons and Edwin Coe are at it.

    Readers may be interested in this case. David Greene of Edwin Coe handled it. On behalf of his client, he tried to pursue over 60 individuals for online defamation.

    What is interesting is the judge's comments on numerous protocol breaches by his firm and particularly this comment:

    46. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Not only, yet again, did Mr Smith and his legal advisers fail to comply with the defamation protocol, but they failed even to identify what he is alleged to have said – over a year later. It is possible that the solicitors, being engaged on a conditional fee agreement, were trying to keep down costs by not exerting themselves beyond the bare minimum. If so, that is a philosophy which does not serve the interests of justice or of fairness to these multiple defendants.

    http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/1797.html&query=smith+and+v+and+advfn&method=boolean

    Interesting because David was one of the authors of the Civil Procedure Rules!.

    And it was not just these people who incurred costs - it was the taxpayer. His client was fee exempt and tied up the resources of the court with these meritless cases for 4 years.

    Perhaps he would care to comment on the case. I know there are over 60 people who would be interested to know what ever possessed him to pursue them for comments such as telling his client to 'grow up' on a discussion forum.

    With disgraceful cases like that reaching our courts is it any wonder websites such as SFH spring up?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I believe there are problems with law firms in this country and they abuse the rights of normal hard working individuals in the pursuit of riches. See a case 97/9/2011 Stephen Jones v Edwin Coe Law Firm in Newport County Court. type in BadBiz or Edwin Coe on the Internet you are sure to find the whole story.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hypocrisy at its best. If someone gave bad service to a solicitor they would name and shame and/or sue wouldn't they? Of course they would.

    Yet when the finger points back at them life's not fair...bad luck. Lawyers aren't gods, they're humans who make false and misleading actions and so they should be dealt with. Well done SfH.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Complaints against solicitors are nothing new; many see the site as a breath of fresh air. Not all solicitors are bad but victims of corrupt solicitors are bereft of a fair remedy.

    Solicitors are enormously advantaged over the lay person by their knowledge of the rules and procedures, access to papers and information, insurance protection etc and usually have a financial advantage.

    Every complaint system has been inadequate or a failure. The short-lived office of the Law Observer was replaced by the Solicitors' Complaints Bureau, replaced by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, (damned by the "Willing Blindness Report"), replaced by the Legal Complaints Service replaced by a Ombudsman who will not investigate by will rely on solicitors telling the truth in arbitration proceedings.

    Complaints against solicitors are not properly investigated, e.g. complaints about negligence are deemed the concern of the solicitor's very protective insurer's The victim remains in ignorance of the true situation.

    One victim was told, in writing, by an OSS caseworker that his complaint would only be investigated if he promised in writing never to sue the firm concerned. A senior person in a complaint system said that investigating misconduct and negligence would "muddy the waters of justice." A senior solicitor wrote falsehoods to the complaint system.

    What recourse is left to the victims?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Just because Kordowski lost in the cases brought against him does not mean that the claims made on his website
    are untrue.

    I was the author of one of the complaints made on the SFH website and I only did this after I had exhausted other supposed means of complaint. The Law Society?Legal Ombudsman would not entertain my complaint, because I had not instructed the solicitor concerned.

    However, my complaints were of a serious enough nature to be taken seriously in my opinion. Despite being personally threatened with a defamation claim as the author of the words, I have persisted in publicising this solicitors appalling behaviour and replied to the threats of legal action, welcoming the chance for the allegations to be heard in court.

    To this date, no action has been taken against me.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Actually, because Kordowski lost the cases brought against him, does mean that every claim made on his website is untrue.

    I imagine most of the S.F.H. contributors are just about to spit out their cornflakes in disgust at the above comment. Their faces will now be a darker red than the top of their favourite newspaper.

    Here's the rub. I'm mocking them by imitating them. I'm deliberately writing utter rubbish because that's what many of the contributors to S.F.H. do on a regular basis.

    Sure there's a minority of S.F.H. contributors who probably have grounds for a legitimate compliant, but they should complain to the Law Society.

    If their complaint is ropey then the Law Society won't proceed. If it is good, then the Law Society will take action.

    Those people whose complaints are binned by the Law Society (because they lacked merit) now go on-line at S.F.H. and make up lots of the facts. Kordowski preys on them to make a profit. His principles can be bought for £200, which completely undermines the legitimacy of his website.

    I actually think there is scope for such a website to be useful for people to raise their concerns. However it needs to be very different from S.F.H. I hope that Kordowski isn't bankrupted by this matter because I think he genuinely believes in what he's doing - it's just that he hasn't realised that he's going about it in an unconvincing way.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Granted - Kordowski has made mistakes. But I feel the majority of comments on SFH are based on truth and honest comment. Read them.

    The Law Society and SRA have been woefully inadequate at protecting the public from rogue solicitors. Perhaps a website in a different form would be agreeable to avoid the few unfair and untrue comments which appear. But unless the Law Society actually engage with those aggrieved and work out an acceptable solution the stand off will continue. Incidentally there are other websites which report on solicitors and other organisations which are fair and balanced. Perhaps it is time to learn from those.

    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 (29)