Solicitors from Hell website forced offline By Joanne Harris 16 November 2011 14:28 17 December 2015 14:10 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anonymous 16 November 2011 at 14:41 Did someone pay £200 for every solicitor listed to cover Kordowski’s “administrative costs”? I predict there will be about 100 posts below this one. I also predict someone will use the line “99% of solicitors give the rest a bad name”. Reply Link Anonymous 16 November 2011 at 15:23 99% of solicitors give the rest a bad name. Reply Link Anonymous 16 November 2011 at 15:31 It’s a disgrace, where are we supposed to libel solicitors now? Reply Link Anonymous 16 November 2011 at 15:41 There’s no longer any need for such a website now that the SRA have included same such practice in THEIR remit. Only this time its doubtful a maligned solicitor will be able to sue Reply Link Anonymous 16 November 2011 at 21:46 open it up again in another country , southern ireland,,watch this space Reply Link Anonymous 17 November 2011 at 01:27 I’m really glad to see this site has been taken offline. I have a friend (lawyer) who got put on that website. He is one of the nicest and most gentle people I have ever met, and yet someone wrote a review claiming he was abusive. That just goes to show how the site cannot be trusted and how some people just have an axe to grind. Reply Link Anonymous 17 November 2011 at 08:11 What a pity I only found out about this site last night. I could not fully access it but could see that some lawyers who are trying to get charge of the conveyancing of my expensive house are mentioned on a couple of occasions. It might be crap of course, but I have some reason to doubt it. I have asked this be posted anonymously as I would not wish to be on the end of a lawsuit! 50% of solicitors give the rest a bad name, the 50% being based on a sample of 4. Reply Link HeartBrokenDad 17 November 2011 at 08:46 This is frankly a disgrace. This is the same Law Society that took complaints from people with legitimate grievances about the way they had been treated by solicitors and then did nothing? The same Law Society that now proclaims at the top of its homepage ‘Supporting Solicitors’? So now those with a legitimate grievance only have the Legal Ombudsman (Law Society renamed) or the SRA to complain to. It wouldn’t be so bad, if the SRA didn’t rub peoples faces in it by keeping some of the worst solicitors out there on their panels. Tugendhat cares not one jot about real justice. He knows that several of the cases before him regarding Solicitors from Hell were associated with people with genuine complaints, but decided that it was far more important to protect the profession which has paid him so handsomely over the years. This judgement will no doubt bring relief to the many crooked, dishonest solicitors out there and be a disappointment to those that actually follow the SRA’s rules. How many solicitors can say that they follow what used to be the SRA’s Rule 1 – you shall act with integrity at all times? Reply Link Anonymous 17 November 2011 at 10:22 As a litigation lawyer I can see why people are often aggrieved after going to law. I think the mistake many complainants make is that they think the law must be able to address their problem precisely in the way they think is right – without realising their opponent has exactly the same thought process. Ultimately, there will be a solicitor caught in the middle. Reply Link Anonymous 17 November 2011 at 11:00 The point about this particular site is that it lacked credibility. You could not see who made the complaint and there was nowhere to be able to at least attempt to address/resolve it. You only had one side of the story. And then he charged £200 for the complaint to be removed, oh come on! Im sure even lawyers would welcome a higher quality site where people could share experiences, which might in turn help to drive up standards of client service across the profession. Reply Link Bill Wainwright 17 November 2011 at 11:16 That fellow at El Vinos who used always to be bellowing about his succeses and “skills” with clients was on this website ; I always had my doubts about him, as did my cousin,but some of the comments from his aggrieved advisees were pretty much on the mark. Especially the woman who got the wrong letter from him. It shows that these kind of websites can have their uses because I can’t remember anyone taking him to task at the time. Reply Link Miri 17 November 2011 at 11:44 HeartbrokenDad – “So now those with a legitimate grievance only have the Legal Ombudsman (Law Society renamed) or the SRA to complain to”. You do realise these were all part of the Law Society initially and the functions were split? The whole point of creating the SRA was to have a “separation of powers” between the “Solicitors’ Union”, promotion of the profession element and the regulatory element that both used to be under the same body and thus improve regulation. You have not complained to the Law Society about malpractice etc since the SRA was created. The fact that the Law Society *is* now designed to promote the profession is exactly the reason why the tagline is “supporting solicitors” and that it was the Law Soc who pursued this case. If the SRA had this tagline that would be different. Of course the profession should be regulated and people who have suffered at the hands of solicitors who have been dishonest should have proper redress. The SRA and Legal Ombudsman can improve and be more proactive. But a website that allows people to publically shame solicitors without a jot of proof and a website owner who is happy to remove even legitimate complaints if paid £200 does not achieve regulation. Those who have posted on solicitors from hell with a legitimate grievance can go to the regulator who should deal with those complaints and they have an avenue to pursue their dispute, why on earth should the courts uphold some vigilante with a chip on his shoulder who thinks it’s acceptable to put up comments that could destroy a solicitor’s career with no basis, and in fact seems to revel in it? That is not justice. Reply Link Anonymous 17 November 2011 at 13:06 It speaks volumes that the Daily Mail has never run with a story cut and pasted from the Solicitors From Hell site. If there was even a shred of legitimacy about what was written it would have been gold-dust to the press. Reply Link Lucy 17 November 2011 at 13:36 It is totally unfair and unjust for individuals to make complaints behind a web site that is only there for their money and for the web owner to axe his own personal grievance. In any walk of life if someone has a grievance there are stages to their complaint and ultimately there is a final stage such as an Ombudsman to investigate. A web site to make slanderous remarks was never a valid way to complain. What is interesting is that the complainants themselves have remained anonymous, quite disgraceful. None of the Solicitors have been able to provide information or to disclose the identity of the complainant because of the very Solicitors own rules of professionalism. The public seek advise from Solicitors who are refrained by the law, they can’t work miracles. If one is not happy with the advice go elsewhere. The Law Society is not for the public, it is the “trade union” for Solicitors. The Legal Ombudsman is available to the public for them to make complaints and that should satisfy people. I am pleased that justice has been done . I only hope that Mr Kirdowski the site owner is ordered to pay costs and compensation for slander. Reply Link I agree there should be a site for bad solicitors 17 November 2011 at 16:55 I agree there should be a site for bad solicitors to be ridiculed, there are sites for other proffessions , so why not? Then the bad ones might try harder Reply Link Anonymous 17 November 2011 at 18:40 Rick Kordowski’s other site: SOLICITORS FROM HEAVEN is also not available. Did the Law Society seek closure of that site too? What of other websites, such as THE GOOD LAWYER GUIDE, that only publish testimonials that praise a solicitor? Does that really help people avoid bad solicitor, especially as I have proven that solicitors on that website encourage others to write testimonials for them? I found one lawyer who had received five glowing testimonials on THE GOOD LAWYER GUIDE within days of that website opening last year. I have just managed to get three of those testimonials removed after demonstrating to the website owners that the testimonials were written by: 1. The sole practitioner’s wife (who also works for the law firm) 2. A French paralegal (a former employee at the law firm) 3. A Spanish lawyer/English Solicitor who also used to work at the law firm. The now sole practitioner of that law firm also wrote an article about himself and published it on Wikipedia who quickly removed it, declaring that the subject of the article did not warrant any merit for inclusion on Wikipedia. The same solicitor had also written false testimonials about himself and published them on his website; amazingly, he actually wrote those testimonials in the names of unhappy clients! When I complained to the SRA about the false testimonials they did nothing for 8 months. When they did pursue the complaint the solicitor told the SRA he no longer had copies of the testimonials and the SRA accepted that as fact and closed the case. Reply Link Anonymous 17 November 2011 at 18:55 It is a shame Rick did not hide behind a pseudonym, use a ,com or non uk suffix for his domain name and host in US ideally on panic.com but he is his own man. What next writs for failing to publish material? Reply Link HeartBrokenDad 18 November 2011 at 13:26 People keep saying on here that complainants on Ricks website hide behind anonymity, but I was one such complainant that did not. I published my name and phone number and asked others who had experienced the same to contact me. The solicitor and firm concerned, threatened both Rick Kordowski and me separately for libel, but after I told them that I would welcome the opportunity to present my evidence in court, I didn’t hear another word from them. They went after Rick though and won. They still haven’t come after me, despite continuing to publicise my complaints.. Reply Link Kim Philby 22 November 2011 at 15:12 No thanks we don’t want the SFH site in what Anonymous calls ” Southern Ireland”. We have our own abusive site which trades freely as the Irish Law Society have decided to take no action to stop it. Reply Link Anonymous 22 November 2011 at 22:25 I recently took my complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Ombudsman. Regarding my firm of solicitors forging my signature in a professional negligence claim. To me the matter was black and white. My signature had simply been cut out from another document and stuck onto this document. The Solicitors Regulation Authority told me there was no evidence “ was not strict proof” and the Legal Ombudsman stated to me in a letter to me dated 18th October 2011 stated:- “this is because the office ( and indeed the LCS ) are not set up to carry out the sort of forensic investigations needed to establish whether a document has been forged or to deal with complaints surrounding forgery, which the Police or other agencies might undertake in connection with suspected criminality, we are not the correct organisation to assist you with your matter. Allegations of fabrication, forgery and fraud are matters for the Police and the Courts to deal with as their powers far exceed our own. For any avoidance of doubt I would like to confirm that the system of profession self-regulation, of which the LCS and my office are part of, is unable to perform a judicial function and cannot be used as a substitute for the Courts. On this basis I would suggest that you obtain some independent legal advice to determine whether you have a legal remedy, if you have not already done so. I would suggest that you contact the Police.” I sent the Legal Ombudsman the original forgery. It is very clear that I never signed this document. I have attached a photo of t he signature. It is established that corruption and self protection is alive and well in the legal and associated regulation departments. I did make a complaint to the Police and have been asked to visit Croydon police station this Friday (25th November 20110 where I will be given an explanation by PC Moore at 14.30 who will inform me that they will not investigate my forging complaint because the Law Society has apparently sent the police a letter asking them not to do so. If my “black and white” complaint is not to be investigated, what chance does anybody else have in have. Will the Law Society have this site shut down, because clients dare complain. Reply Link Dr Howard Fredrics 24 November 2011 at 18:45 While Kordowski employed some rather unorthodox methods, his efforts are to be commended. I will personally be glad to assist with the transfer of hosting to a US site, where libel laws specifically protect US citizens from UK libel actions. Reply Link Anonymous 9 January 2012 at 19:44 Having had to deal with a solicitor who failed to follow up a matter until it was out of time with another regulator, then failed either to pay to me money held from my late wife’s estate, or account to me or IR/HMRC for the tax on it the site will be missed. Reply Link Anonymous 19 February 2012 at 13:30 With regards to Anonymous | 9-Jan-2012 7:44 pm post stating that a solicitor failed to “account to me or IR/HMRC for the tax”. With regards to my late Mother’s Estate we found that it was impossible to independently verify the amount of Inheritance Tax(IHT) that had been taken out of the Estate and off the Beneficiaries. HMRC refused to even discuss the Inheritance Tax with us as we were not the Executors of the Estate. The Executors of the Estate were the firm of Solicitors who had written up my elderly Mother’s Will and also acted as Trustees, Administrators of the Estate and IHT advisers! The Grant of Probate doesn’t even state how much IHT has been taken out of the Estate. This is clearly an area where greater transparency is needed because as it stands such a lack of transparency and accountability could be open to all types of abuse. A Beneficiary should be able to independently verify with HMRC the amount of IHT that has been paid or it should be clearly stated and verified on the Grant of Probate. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.