Solicitors from Hell website forced offline
Solicitors from Hell founder Rick Kordowski has given up his legal battle against the Law Society after Mr Justice Tugendhat granted the body injunctive relief and ordered the site to be taken offline.
It will be seen as a victory for the Law Society which has spent the last six months trying to close down the site which claims to name and shame lawyers who clients allege have delivered poor service.
Yesterday the Law Society asked Tugendhat J to grant an injunctive relief forcing Kordowski to take down the site or face contempt proceedings. A judgment will be delivered at a later date, the court said.
The parties have been locked in a bitter legal dispute since May after Mr Justice Henriques, ruling in a separate defamation case against Kordowski, recommended the body move to close down the site.
Henriques J said: “The time has surely arrived for the Law Society and Bar Council to consider some effective response to the conduct complained of in this case and other similar cases.
“No doubt the legal profession does, on occasion, fail those who seek its services. However, many conscientious and highly reputable firms and individuals have found themselves as objects of offensive abuse and defamatory publication at the behest of disappointed litigants.” (18 April 2011).
The Law Society instructed Matrix Chambers’ Hugh Tomlinson QC to launch a claim against him on behalf of all 145,381 solicitors practising in the England and Wales (11 May 2011).
In August Kordowski was told to take down the site by 2 September or face action for defamation, harassment and breach of the Data Protection Act (16 August 2011).
When he failed to take down the site Chancery Lane stepped up the pressure by handing him the High Court claim after he emerged from a bruising battle with Law Society chief executive Des Hudson.
Kordowski had launched a counter claim for defamation against the Law Society chief alleging that Hudson had labelled him a “criminal”.
Last month Tugendhat J threw out the claim, branding the bid “an abuse of the court process” (21 October 2011).
The judge said Kordowski’s complaint of spoken slander against Hudson could not be allowed because he had not made a complaint against Professor John Flood of the University of Westminster, who had repeated the alleged slander on his blog.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (23)
Anonymous | 16-Nov-2011 2:41 pm
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".
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Nov-2011 3:23 pm
99% of solicitors give the rest a bad name.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Nov-2011 3:31 pm
It's a disgrace, where are we supposed to libel solicitors now?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Nov-2011 3:41 pm
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
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Nov-2011 9:46 pm
open it up again in another country , southern ireland,,watch this space
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Nov-2011 1:27 am
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Nov-2011 8:11 am
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
HeartBrokenDad | 17-Nov-2011 8:46 am
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?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Nov-2011 10:22 am
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Nov-2011 11:00 am
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bill Wainwright | 17-Nov-2011 11:16 am
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Miri | 17-Nov-2011 11:44 am
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Nov-2011 1:06 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Lucy | 17-Nov-2011 1:36 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
I agree there should be a site for bad solicitors | 17-Nov-2011 4:55 pm
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
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Nov-2011 6:40 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Nov-2011 6:55 pm
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?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
HeartBrokenDad | 18-Nov-2011 1:26 pm
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..
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kim Philby | 22-Nov-2011 3:12 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 22-Nov-2011 10:25 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment