Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Legal Ombudsman moving to name & shame crooked lawyers in England & Wales, crooked Scottish solicitors records to remain protected by secrecy for now

Legal OmbudsmanConsumers in England & Wales may expect to find out which lawyers & law firms are crooked while Scots will not. AS DEMANDS GROW for increased consumer protection against poor legal services throughout the UK with the public identification of poorly performing solicitors & law firms to enable consumers to better & more safely chose their legal representatives, the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has now published the responses to its latest consultation on the subject of an evidence based approach to publishing complaints decisions involving ‘crooked lawyers’.

While consumer groups & organisations in England & Wales as well as the UK Government are hugely supportive of the LeO’s eventual move to name & shame crooked lawyers, the legal profession south of the border in the form of the Law Society of England & Wales, law firms & solicitors groups are against the move, citing a number of reasons solicitors generally prefer the public not to know which lawyers are more crooked than others or the exposure of those in the legal profession who have complaints lists a mile & a half long.

adam_sampsonLegal Ombudsman for England & Wales, Adam Sampson.While some of the consumer community have viewed this latest consultation as a delaying move due to concerns over what action the legal profession may take against the LeO if naming & shaming had been implemented earlier this year, Legal Ombudsman Adam Sampson, writing in the Law Gazette on the subject of naming & shaming rogue lawyers & law firms in England & Wales, said : “There is a general belief, though, on all sides that the public has a right to know about firms which genuinely pose a threat to them, either because they have done something awful or have accumulated a large number of complaints, and that these firms should be named; good lawyers can only benefit from the bad ones being known.

“The real problem here is that, in the area of complaints, the usual binary judgements which the law encourages do not apply. Lawyers want us to arrive at a guilty or innocent verdict, to uphold or dismiss complaints. That is difficult. In many cases, even where the complaint is founded on a real error on the part of the firm, the problem is not as great as the complainant thinks it is or the impact as profound.”

“Conversely, even when the complaint does not seem to be rooted in any obvious piece of poor service, it is rarely the case when people complain to us that there is absolutely no ­reason for them to be upset. There is usually something which one can spot as a root cause: even if the service provided was exemplary, as it in many cases is, you can usually see points where the lawyer could have done more to manage the client’s expectations or deal more sensitively with their initial complaint.”

“… sorting lawyers into two categories - those to be named and those to be given the cloak of anonymity - is not easy. The debate goes beyond the legal sector. We are also conscious of the pressure elsewhere from the government, and the pressure on the Financial Ombudsman Service in respect of banks and financial advisers, for example, to move rapidly towards complete openness. We are very conscious, though, of the particular nature of the legal ­market and the issues facing so many more traditional firms.”

“But we are not standing still. The consultations may not have fully resolved the naming issue, but they did enable us to agree and start publishing other details of our work. We have begun to publish data about the sorts of complaints we receive...”

“And, more recently, from the beginning of July we began to publish anonymised summaries of all ombudsman decisions we have made. These decisions are on our website for anyone who wants to see them and we hope, in time, to make them searchable, so that you can begin to build a picture of the patterns of decision-making and the sorts of remedies we order in particular sorts of cases. It is all there. Just not the names.”

Case decisions by the Legal Ombudsman can be viewed online here : Ombudsman decisions and cases on which the Legal Ombudsman has helped resolve informally can be viewed here : On the Case with the Legal Ombudsman. It should be noted these cases apply to England & Wales only.

No such information as is currently published by the LeO is available to Scottish consumers of legal services due to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s refusal to publish decisions or case related information due to the legal profession’s insistence on complete confidentiality in Scotland.

While the Legal Ombudsman moves ahead on the question of publication of complaints, no equivalent consultation on naming & shaming Scottish solicitors has been held by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, who have already refused to comment on the issue or get involved in any moves to name & shame crooked lawyers in Scotland.

Which logoAsked for views on the LeO’s plans to publish complaints details & name poorly performing solicitors, consumer group Which? stated in their response (pdf) : “As outlined in our December 2010 ‘Publishing our Decisions’ consultation response, Which? believes the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) should seek to be wholly transparent.This means it should publish as much information as possible and this should include, in some circumstances, publication of the name of legal firms and individual lawyers. We agree with LeO’s conclusion that the concerns expressed about publishing complaints data are overstated. We believe that a more comprehensive publication policy could be implemented earlier than at some point in 2012 and suggest April 2012 as a clear target date for implementation of LeO’s publication policy.”

Factors which are relevant to publication also include:

a) the nature of the work undertaken;
b) whether the complaint was resolved informally after reference to LeO;
c) the number of active clients the firm has to give a ratio of complaints to number of clients; and
d) the firms where LeO investigates the complaint and a finding is made for the firm or the complaint is dismissed and the firm exonerated.
e) the size of the firm in terms of number of partners and turnover.

In addition, the search functionality for the published data should be easy to use and results presented in such a way as to ensure that there is no risk of the data being misinterpreted.  The search functionality should be intuitive and the search options should be expressed in plain English.  It should also be free to access.

On 13th April 2011, the Cabinet Office and Department of Business, Innovation and Skills published a paper titled ‘Better Choices: Better Deals.  Consumers Powering Growth’.  Among other recommendations, it concluded that there should be an ‘expectation that regulators, government departments, regulated businesses and public service providers will release the complaints and performance data they own unless they have good reason not to do so’.

This expectation means that LeO will have to adopt a policy of identifying individual law firms in the circumstances set out in their publication policy.  Which? agrees with and endorses this approach as the default position
.

oftThe Office of Fair Trading (OFT) stated in its submission (pdf) to the LeO : “We appreciate that you need to balance the interests of consumers with the reputational impact on firms and individual lawyers. However, the OFT remains firmly of the view that  the publication of named complaints data could incentivise legal service providers, due to reputational considerations, to maintain and/or improve the quality of service they provide to consumers.We believe that essential data would include:

* The number of complaints made against individual firms and lawyers;
* The nature of those complaints and placing them into categories to help see if a pattern develops;
* The ratio of complaints upheld against an individual firm or lawyer;
* Areas of law where complaints tend to focus;
* Which aspects of service the complaints tend to focus; and
* Whether the complaints tend to come from private or publically funded cases.

Legal Services Consumer PanelDr Dianne Hayter, Chairman of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, an organisation which represents the best interests of legal services users in England & Wales, and notably has NO EQUIVALENT in Scotland, stated in the Legal Services Consumer panel response (pdf) to the LeO on naming & shaming : “The Consumer Panel is of the firm view that all consumers have a right to know whether the provider with whom they are thinking of engaging to help them resolve their important legal matter has a poor complaints track record. The Legal Ombudsman will have a heavy conscience if consumers suffer serious detriment which could have been avoided.”

Dr Hayter continued : “The risk that a high number of complaints in social welfare law would harm firms‟ ability to attract more work in other areas, such as conveyancing, could be easily managed by effective presentation of the data. The research suggests that consumers would use complaints data to help them make choices between competing providers. In order to facilitate this, the Legal Ombudsman should organise data by legal activity. In this scenario, consumers would be able to compare complaint volumes for one field of law across the different providers they are considering. The Financial Ombudsman Services enables such comparisons and we see no reason why the Legal Ombudsman cannot do so.”

lawsoc_eng_walesLaw Society of England & Wales disagree on naming & shaming rogue solicitors. Expectedly, the Law Society of England & Wales protested against the effort to publish the names of rogue solicitors & crooked law firms, stating in its submission : “We do not believe that publishing firms’ complaints records  will improve complaints handling or provide clients with useful information which will allow them to make an informed choice about which legal service provider to use.”

However, the Law Society of England & Wales did respond to earlier enquiries from Diary of Injustice, revealing the numbers of solicitors convicted of criminal offences in England & Wales, information which is not available in Scotland. This was featured on Diary of Injustice in May 2009, here : Criminal records of lawyers : Scots public kept in dark over convictions while England & Wales get ‘right to know’

SLCC MacAskillWimped out : Kenny MacAskill’s Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has refused to hold consultations on moves to name & shame crooked Scottish lawyers. For now, Scots consumers of legal services are to be left in the dark over their choice of lawyer, as the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Scottish Government do not support the naming & shaming of crooks within the Scottish legal profession. One SLCC insider said he felt the anti-client law complaints quango would never name or shame any rogue lawyers under what he called “its current profession friendly approach to dealing with consumer complaints”.

Clearly there is an imbalance in the rights of consumers of legal services in Scotland, where in England & Wales, all consumer groups and even the Westminster Government support naming & shaming rogue solicitors and their law firms. Why is Scotland being left out once again on consumer protection against our historically poor, crooked, yet expensive legal services market ?

All submissions to the Legal Ombudsman for England & Wales consultation on “Publishing our decisions: an evidence based approach feedback” can be viewed at the following links :

Association Women Solicitors response
Bar Standards Board response
Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Institute of Trade Marks Attorneys response
City of Westminster & Holborn Law Society response
Costs Lawyer Standards Board response
Dean Conrad response
Forum of Insurance Lawyers response
General Council of the Bar response
Institute of Legal Executives response
Irwin Mitchell Solicitors response
ILEX Professional Standards Limited response
The Law Society response
Legal Services Commission response
Legal Services Conumer panel response
Manchester Law Society email response
Media Lawyers Association response
National Consumer Federation response
NewLaw Solicitors email response
Office of Fair Trading response
Which response

43 comments:

Anonymous said...

And not before time!

I wonder how long it will take for the Law Society's glove puppets in the scottish parliament to follow suit make sure it and the Faculty of Advocates are required to have a public register of offenders on their websites - and not hidden on some obscure Law Care site.

Anonymous said...

What I think is most worrying is there is this level of debate about naming & shaming lawyers in the rest of the UK and nothing in Scotland apart from Peter Cherbi's blog and BentJudges.com

Clearly someone turned the lights out on those newspapers which still claim to be 'respectable' and what passes for investigative television journalism in Scotland..

Anonymous said...

Consumer Focus seem to have missed the boat - they are not on the list of submissions and why is Which? more proactive in naming & shaming in England & Wales than in Scotland?

The response from "The forum of Insurance Lawyers" who claim to be "the voice of the wider public interest" is anything but.

They say "There is a real danger that public identification will cause disproportionate
damage to the livelihood and reputation of a firm or an individual lawyer."

Really?

Where do clients come in your voice of the wider public interest?

Answer : Nowhere that I can see.

Anonymous said...

To add to my earlier comment awaiting publication I note from my Union's website the Forum of Insurance lawyers appeared in the Scottish Parliament to tell us Pleural Plaques generated by Asbestos exposure were good for us.

https://www.ucatt.org.uk/content/blogcategory/32/47/4/24/

On Tuesday (September 2) five representatives of the insurance industries, all of whom owe their remuneration to the sector, appeared before the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee to give their views on the planned legislation.

Pamela Abernethy representing the Forum of Insurance Lawyers, claimed: “My submission would be that plaques are a good thing and do not cause harm.”

Nick Starling of the Association of British Insurers, said: “Pleural Plaques are benign. They do not have any symptoms associated with them, except in the most exceptional of cases.”

Alan Ritchie, General Secretary of UCATT, said: “This hearing is the first example of the insurance industry baring their teeth. These claims by alleged experts are both inaccurate and offensive. In the course of our campaign to get the Law Lords decision overturned we have met a great many people whose lives have been blighted by this condition.”

It is understood by UCATT that the insurance industry is prepared to invest a great deal of money in opposing any attempts to have the Law Lords ruling overturned.

Mr Ritchie, added: “Working people were needlessly exposed to asbestos by bosses who knew the risks but were not concerned about their long term well-being. Pleural Plaques victims deserve justice and it is essential that the entire union movement is united and with the support of sympathetic MPs, we get the Law Lords decision overturned.”

In a Parliamentary debate about Pleural Plaques earlier this year Michael Clapham MP described the insurance industry as “jackals”.


I am 100% sure you are doing Gods work Mr Cherbi.

Good luck to you for keeping up this campaign and writing about injustice as you do.

Anonymous said...

The problem of naming & shaming crooked lawyers in Scotland is made worse by the fact we cant trust the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission or the Law Society of Scotland to do it with any honesty.

So who can we trust?

Anonymous said...

Naming & shaming dodgy briefs in England but not in Scotland.Why do we Scots have to put up with this secrecy crap all the time?

Anonymous said...

Not for Scots.Why not Mr Salmond?What have you got against your own people we should not know how bent our lawyers really are?

Anonymous said...

Now this is very interesting Peter and I applaud you for writing at length about it.

The BBC are hot on the heels of the Law Society trying to shut down "Solicitors from Hell" because of their naming & shaming as you can see from the BBC story about it here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14234792 yet no mention at all the Legal Ombudsman is probably going to name & shame also.

So why is Solicitors from Hell being treated differently from the Legal Ombudsman?

I think we are seeing some prejudice in action here!

Anonymous said...

Yes I see from the responses the lawyers are lining up against naming and shaming their crooked pals in the profession.Typical closing ranks of course.GET THEM ALL NAMED SO WE KNOW WHICH ONES TO STEER CLEAR OF!

Anonymous said...

People end up paying these robbers thousands of pounds for doing bugger all so of course we should all be told who the bad apple lawyers are!

Anonymous said...

So who can we trust?

2 August 2011 19:35

Peter Cherbi

I dont mean to be rude in what I say next.

I dont trust this Legal Ombudsman and I certainly dont trust the SLCC or the Law Society from England or Scotland,they are all a creation of the system.I trust Cherbi because he has already suffered at the hands of scum in the legal world unlike all the others who are just in it for the money and dont give a shit about anyone on the sharp end of a lawyer's knife.

Am I right people?

Anonymous said...

Its pure discrimination against Scotland not to have this right to know if your lawyer is crooked or not

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

What I think is most worrying is there is this level of debate about naming & shaming lawyers in the rest of the UK and nothing in Scotland apart from Peter Cherbi's blog and BentJudges.com

Clearly someone turned the lights out on those newspapers which still claim to be 'respectable' and what passes for investigative television journalism in Scotland..

2 August 2011 18:40

I am so happy others are beginning to realise this fact!

Anonymous said...

"The Consumer Panel is of the firm view that all consumers have a right to know whether the provider with whom they are thinking of engaging to help them resolve their important legal matter has a poor complaints track record"

Something you've said and been quoted years ago and many times in the papers!

Anonymous said...

We are all entitled to receive details of surgeons records of operations so we can make an informed choice. There is no good or proper reasons why lawyers records should be kept hidden - what are they afraid of if they have nothing to hide?

Anonymous said...

Again,another very well written posting for everyone's benefit.
This information sharing campaign of yours is fantastic Peter,cant be beaten in the legal field because you put people first instead of lawyers.

Brilliant work keep it up mate as I said before on the other posting!

Anonymous said...

Hmm good point about Solicitors from Hell being sued for doing the same thing naming & shaming crooked lawyers.

Clearly the Government supports this naming & shaming so any action against Solicitors from Hell or anyone naming & shaming a crooked lawyer should be ended or prevented from going ahead because its in the public interest to know who are the crooked lawyers and their law firms who usually support them.

Anonymous said...

Little surprise the SLCC & Scottish Government wont comment on this or do anything about it.Their masters at the Law Society are very powerful and have their little black books full of dirt on our weak kneed Scottish joke regulators and to think the SNP say we'd be better off under independence haha what rubbish

Clearly there will be no human rights and no fair hearings if Scotland is ever independent

Anonymous said...

What is the big deal here?

If a store sells shoddy goods it stands a good chance of getting exposed on Watchdog or in some other consumer arena yet lawyers claim we cannot know which ones among them sell the same shoddy legal services?

Lawyers can get lost.If I am going to hand over my money to one of them for any work I want to know how they have treated their other customers and complaints records etc just as you suggest Peter.

Anonymous said...

Oh yes the insurance lawyers who say cancer is good for us.What about them?Not good to name and shame their corrupt brethren is it?

Anonymous said...

Wouldnt it be easier and probably a lot cheaper just to list the lawyers who arent crooked?
Although I must admit after reading your reports about the Law Society of Scotland I doubt any lawyers up here are honest at all!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Wouldnt it be easier and probably a lot cheaper just to list the lawyers who arent crooked?
Although I must admit after reading your reports about the Law Society of Scotland I doubt any lawyers up here are honest at all!

3 August 2011 20:40

Your probably correct - I wouldnt trust any lawyer in Scotland,they are all crooked as far as I am concerned.

Anonymous said...

Am I right people?

2 August 2011 22:31

YES! AGREE 100%

Anonymous said...

I think anyone who argues against naming & shaming is done for already - its going to come in one way or another after far too many scandals in the profession.

If anyone is to blame for it I would say its the Law Society itself.Their mishandling of complaints just as in Peter's case with the Drew Penman character has generated these kind of campaigns which have impacted on all solicitors and made everyone suspicious.I'd like to think lessons will be learned from these bloody minded cases but I doubt it.

Anonymous said...

As others have said I am dismayed this level of debate is taking place in England about naming & shaming of the worst elements of the legal profession yet nothing appears in the Scottish media.

The more they refuse to report it the more important an issue it must become.

Anonymous said...

Good posting as always Peter I fully support your campaign to name and shame all these horrid crooked lawyers in Scotland.

Well done!

Anonymous said...

Yes name and shame the lot!

Anonymous said...

Expectedly, the Law Society of England & Wales protested against the effort to publish the names of rogue solicitors & crooked law firms, stating in its submission : “We do not believe that publishing firms’ complaints records will improve complaints handling or provide clients with useful information which will allow them to make an informed choice about which legal service provider to use.”

YES CLEARLY THE LAW SOCIETY OF ENGLAND & WALES ARE AS BAD AS SCOTLAND THEY DONT WANT ANYONE TO KNOW WHICH SOLICITORS ARE CROOKED OR UNRELIABLE WELL TOUGH NOW CONSUMERS MUST HAVE THE POWER TO KNOW THE TRUTH!

Anonymous said...

Good to see the OFT takin a stand on the issue, but doubtless Salmond, MacAskill et al will treat this with the same contempt they have lonsince shown to others.

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments & emails on this article.

Several comments have not been published due to their strength and in some cases identifying solicitors regarding complaints.

I would rather these cases be further investigated and published in fuller articles along with supporting evidence or sent to a newspaper for further exposure.

I would remind anyone who feels they may have problems with the SLCC not disclosing secret material or submissions made by the Legal Defence Union, to contact the SLCC and specifically ask for copies of them, should such submissions have been made.

Naming & Shaming the crooked members of the Scottish legal profession is no different from any other profession or industry. Forget the myths created by some elements of the media about the legal profession in Scotland .. the truth is these people are not very bright or clever when things go wrong but they are terribly devious and deeply vindictive against their clients when issues arise which go on to complaints. Just as any criminal who dodges justice deserves to be caught and identified to the wider world, so do those in the legal profession who are leaving ever increasing numbers of ruined or damaged clients.

Lastly, I note some of you have picked up on the fact there is no real discussion or debate in Scotland at the moment about naming & shaming "crooked lawyers".

I suggest those of you who feel motivated enough on this issue to spread the word and contact your msps, however sleekit and welded to the legal profession they may be ... and dont forget to keep me posted on the results !

Anonymous said...

Well done Peter and I look forward to reading more exposures of crooked lawyers in Scotland.

Funny thing.I had a look round what passes for the Scots legal profession's own media circuit and couldn't find a mention to the naming & shaming consultation and all that good support from the consumer end.Anyone might think they were too afraid to talk about it in case it gave Scots clients a few ideas to do the same!

Anonymous said...

You have some good ideas about this Peter in some of your earlier posts I have been reading,especially the part about lawyers having to tell their clients their complaints record before signing them up (to ruin them like the rest no doubt!)

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

There is a quote in that Law Gazette story about Sampson being concerned that complainers will use his published findings to warn others about a crooked lawyer.

Well I dont think its Mr Sampson's place to worry about that.If the complaint is well founded and a decision comes down in favour of the client then it can and should be used in any possible to warn everyone what happened to that person so the rest can avoid the same.

Anonymous said...

Why cant we have a Legal Services Consumer Panel for Scotland?

LAWYERS ARE EVIL PEOPLE said...

Lawyers are not bright Peter, I totally agree with you, but they are warped indeed and evil.

An LLB is a piece of paper which proves someone can study and succeed. It means nothing about intelligence or integrity. Lawyers are rather childish people they ruin clients and expect us to thank them for that.

Self regulation creates a supercillious attitude in those who benefit from it so much so they think clients have no right to challenge them, grow up lawyers, you are lining up against naming and shaming and this is the reason your reputations are all being ruined.

Naming and shaming WORKS and you lawyers cannot stomach this, and the revulsion you feel is real like ours when a lawyer ruins one of us. Get over your revulsion because naming and shaming, yes targetting the supply side is critical to eradicate criminals the state protects. You lawyers are the state that is why no one has any rights against you, naming and shaming works, it keeps clients out of your offices and that is the only way round the SLCC and Law Society, SNP, and MSP, bias in favour of LLB criminals.

God bless the websites and victory to freedom of speech and expression.

Anonymous said...

I am so sick and fed up of writing into the SLCC about my complaint I want to name and shame them too although you have done an excellent job of this already!

WEBSITES CUT THROUGH LAW SOCIETY SLCC BULLSHIT said...

I dont trust this Legal Ombudsman and I certainly dont trust the SLCC or the Law Society from England or Scotland, (I TOTALLY AGREE) they are all a creation of the system. I trust Cherbi because he has already suffered at the hands of scum (WE TRUST PETER TOO) in the legal world unlike all the others who are just in it for the money and dont give a shit about anyone on the sharp end of a lawyer's knife.

Am I right people? YES YOU ARE THEY ARE AN EVIL NETWORK WHO PROBABLY ENJOY RUINING PEOPLE'S LIVES BUT THEY ARE ALSO SLOWLY REAPING THE INJUSTICE THEY HAVE SOWN. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC UNITE BECAUSE THE DISSIDENT WEBSITES ARE THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN LEARN ABOUT THIS EVIL CALCULATING VERMIN. THIS IS WHY THEY WANT THE DISSIDENT WEBSITES SHUT DOWN BECAUSE LAWYERS ARE GETTING AFFECTED NOW. REMEMBER THE INFAMOUS DOUGLAS MILL WHO SAID PEOPLE COULD WRITE ABOUT LAWYERS ONLY IN POSITIVE TERMS, WHEN HE RESIGNED AS LAW SOCIETY DIRECTOR FOR PROTECTING CROOKED LAWYERS. WHAT LAWYERS LACK IN BRAIN CELLS THEY MAKE UP FOR IN DISHONESTY.

TRUST NO LAWYER FOLKS THEY ARE BAD NEWS.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anything linked to suicides and their covering up HAS TO BE CROOKED.

A profession that can drive people to kill themselves because they have no legal rights is abhorent. I urge all members of the public to be wary on this ruthless evil profession, being one of its victims like Peter we know.

Warn the public and drive the trash out of business.

WE SURRORT YOU RICK. said...

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/solicitors-hell-founder-ordered-pay-10000-damages

The founder of the Solicitors from Hell website has been ordered to pay damages of £10,000 after publishing defamatory claims that a solicitor was dishonest.

Rick Kordowski’s site published a complaint in March made by Tim Smee about Marlow firm Gabbitas Robins.

Smee had posted on the site that Stephen Robins, a solicitor for more than 30 years, had been the ‘most dishonourable unscrupulous’ professional he had ever met, after instructing him over a dispute with a Gabbitas Robins client, named as Mr Bonwick. Smee went on to settle his claim.

High Court judge Mr Justice Tugendhat today ruled that Kordowski had no knowledge of the dispute in question, and there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations published online.

Kordowski applied for the libel claim to go to a full trial, but it was ruled that he had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

The court heard that Kordowski has not offered any correction or apology, and asserted a right to defend the proceedings with defences of truth and honest comment.

He sent an email to Smee after legal action was threatened suggesting ‘we take these people on’, the court was told.

The email added: ‘Don’t worry, I will prepare the defence and represent us in the High Court and it will not cost a penny in terms of outlay! (I have done it before).’

In his judgment, Tugendhat said: ‘The allegations that Mr Robins had lied in the court of the litigation between Mr Bonwick and Mr Smee, and that Mr Robins had acted in any way dishonestly or in breach of his duty to his client Mr Bonwick, are false and defamatory of him and the claimant firm.’

He ordered Kordowski to pay £10,000 in damages to Robins.

The claimants also asked for an order restraining Kordowski from further publishing the matter complained of, and that material has now been removed.

The judgment is the latest setback for the controversial website, which may face further legal proceedings after the Law Society threatened to commence two legal actions against it in May.

The Society’s solicitors Brett Wilson are currently gathering evidence for a potential class action against the website. Solicitors named on the website can contact Brett Wilson.

Kordowski said: ‘I have recognised past failings and I will not be deterred from facilitating others in exposing, where it exists, wrongdoing by solicitors - the past has been trial and error but the judgments against me have pointed the way for the site to avoid further claims.’

AGAIN WE SEE LAWYERS CAN SUCCEED IN DEFAMATION ACTIONS AGAINST THEIR CRITICS, BUT CRITICS AND CLIENTS CANNOT SUE LAWYERS.

SELF REGULATION IS A LICENCE TO ABUSE THE PUBLIC said...

Anonymous said...

I am so sick and fed up of writing into the SLCC about my complaint I want to name and shame them too although you have done an excellent job of this already!

YES THEY ARE DEDICATED TO LAWYER PROTECTION AS YOUR EXPERIENCE AND THE EXPERIENCE OF THOUSANDS OF OTHERS DEMONSTRATES.

THESE PEOPLE ARE LAW SOCIETY PUPPETS AND YOU NEVER HEAR MACASKILL COMPLAINING ABOUT THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING WHAT HE WANTS.

THE DAY IS COMING WHEN NO ONE WILL COMPLAIN TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THE PUBLIC WILL NAME AND SHAME LAWYERS ON INTERNET SITES. THE ONLY JUSTICE FOR CLIENTS IS TO BYPASS THE LAW SOCIETY, MSP's SLCC, AND ANY OTHER SELF REGULATORY BODY, CLIENTS BY NAMING AND SHAMING ARE CREATING THE CLIENTS LEGAL PROTECTION UNION.

YOUR AVERAGE LAWYER BELIEVES RUINING CLIENTS IS AN ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE, BUT THEY HATE NAMING AND SHAMING BECAUSE THEY ARE FINDING OUT IT IS NO FUN BEING ON THE RECEIVING END. CUT OFF THE SUPPLY OF CLIENTS TO THE PENMANS IN THE LEGAL WORLD, THEN AND ONLY THEN WITH THE OTHERS TAKE NOTICE WHEN LAW FIRMS CLOSE THEIR DOORS.

SELF REGULATION PROTECTS THE CORRUPT said...

A young woman injured due to prolonged standing and stenciling at a Hamilton Bakers.

Her lawyer, all doctors, her GP for over thirty years covered up what happened to her.

Her lawyer (well known in Glasgow) got three years legal aid money, and we found out later the all lawyers and doctors were insured by the same company as her employer.

So the doctors and lawyers insurers would have been paying her damages.

She has not worked for years due to these ruthless criminals.

Occupational injury where legally privileged criminal doctors cover everything up encourage employers to injure others.

Her GP, made out to the court she had been seeing a psychiatrist for over twenty years, a lie and put a straight line through the box on the benefits agency form which asked if there were any psychiatric problems. (WE HAVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS).

She does not have psychiatric problems.

So at least he told the benefits agency the truth, but he also did not tell the benefits agency about the damage to her legs or right arm because he wanted her money stopped. (NEVER TRUST YOUR GP IF HIS OR HER COLLEAGUES REPUTATION IS AT RISK OR YOU ARE IN LITIGATION AGAINST YOUR EMPLOYER).

Simple strategy, stop her money from the benefits agency by stating there is nothing wrong with her (she had no money for 5 months until her employer terminated her contract) her GP sent her back to work for the third time her employer would not let her into work, the GP refused to give her another medical certificate and the Glasgow lawyer did not help her because his insurers would have been paying her damages, a total nightmare. (THE LAW SOCIETY REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE THIS CASE BUT THEY ARE INSURED BY ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE TOO.)

The employer, lawyer and GP cut off her money to starve her into submission. (THEY WILL DO THIS TO ANYONE BECUSE YOU NEED A LAWYER TO STOP THEM).

This is the reality of the self regulators.

I beg every member of the public reading this please do not get injured at work, all of the lawyers, doctors, sheriffs are working for the insurers you are suing.

What did Motherwell primary care do to him, nothing. (WE WENT THROUGH THE NHS LOCAL RESOLUTION PROCESS AND WHEN THE LETTERS BETWEEN PATIENT AND GP PROVED THE GP WAS A CORRUPT RAT PUTTING HIS PATIENTS HEALTH AT RISK PRIMARY CARE DID NOTHING ABOUT IT).

The Law Society refused to investigate the lawyer.

Yes these professions have horrendous power, they are nothing short of evil incarnate, do not try to sue your employer, you will lose, that is a promise.

People are genuinely getting injured and they are covering it up.

I think the MSPs are more loyal to these criminals than the electorate.

WHEN YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT A DOCTOR, ACCOUNTANT, LAWYER, SURVEYOR THEIR COLLEAGUES DEAL WITH THE COMPLAINT.

THIS PEOPLE ARE POWERFUL GRADUATE CRIMINALS AND THEY ARE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS.

Anonymous said...

Peter wrote "Forget the myths created by some elements of the media about the legal profession in Scotland .. the truth is these people are not very bright or clever when things go wrong but they are terribly devious and deeply vindictive against their clients when issues arise which go on to complaints".

We totally agree Peter and could not have put this better ourselves.

A doctor who was caught distorting medical records was exposed publicly and lost many patients, he and his colleagues were not clever. They sent a letter accusing the patient of being untruthful (NHS LOCAL RESOLUTION LETTERS PROVED ONE GP WAS CORRUPT) and throwing the patient out of the practice. The letter was dynamite as it was shown to many of their patients proving that the practice wanted everything covered up. So their letter helped tarnish all of their reputations, which proves they are not very wise people. (A DOCTOR AT THE PRACTICE LIES ABOUT A PATIENT AND THE OTHER PARTNERS SEND A LETTER BUT TAKE NO LEGAL ACTION AGAINST A PATIENT ACCUSING THE DOCTOR OF BEING A LIAR IN PUBLIC)

The patient was never taken to court because the practice were the liars. Talk about stopping digging when you are in a hole.

We have seen first hand professional loyalty, and no patient or client has a chance because even with written evidence the patient or client had to expose the professional publicly because the patient or client will never get a lawyer to represent them.

We exposed these scumbags and the public decided who were the liars. The so called professionals ain't that clever, and they become complacent.

The Law Society, SLCC, NHS Primary Care, GMC, to name a few, burial grounds for public complaints, you want to expose a corrupt professional you have to do this yourself.

Anonymous said...

I think the Legal ombudsman should
even go futher than that to go into how many bank acounts solicitors hold on clients or the business in general as during investigation on a missing money came up from a vineyard, that those solicitors have so many mysterious bank accounts in foreing names,so if the L.O wants to convince us, they meant bussiness they should start by seeking help from the Gov't to investigate, I will not be surprised if L.O do not publish this