Law Society of England & Wales Chief Des Hudson will not face court over “criminal” remarks against critics of crooked lawyers. Des Hudson the £400K-A-YEAR Chief Executive of the Law Society of England & Wales will not face further court scrutiny of his remarks branding the owner of naming & shaming website SOLICITORS FROM HELL “a criminal” after the judgement in the case published earlier today revealed Mr Justice Tugendhat has dismissed Mr Rick Kordowski’s claim for damages against the Law Society Chief who is alleged to have told Law Professor John Flood in reference to Mr Kordowski “That man is a criminal” and “He should be closed down”. The ‘disputed remarks’ were apparently born out of the Law Society’s frustration and it’s inability to prevent members of the public documenting their experiences at the hands of crooked lawyers on the Solicitors from Hell website.
The ruling in the case states that Mr Justice Tugendhat said Mr Kordowski’s complaint against the Law Society could not go ahead because he had not also complained about Mr Hudson’s alleged remarks being republished by others including Professor Flood. The judge said there was no evidence of any real or substantial harm to Mr Kordowski and also held the case brought against Des Hudson was “an abuse of court process”. The judge said : “Whether or not there is a good reason for refraining from suing in libel on the words posted by Professor Flood, that is not relevant to my decision that the action for slander on the words spoken to Professor Flood [by Hudson] is an abuse of the process of the court.”
Diary of Injustice reported on the claims in an earlier article, here : Naming crooks is criminal ? Law Society of England & Wales Chief Des Hudson to face legal action from Solicitors From Hell owner over "criminal" jibe
In this latest case, the Law Society of England & Wales was represented by QC Hugh Tomlinson, who is also representing the Law Society of England & Wales in their court efforts to have the Solicitors from Hell website taken down and all its content deleted forever from public view. It is understood Mr Tomlinson is the only QC who agreed to represent the Law Society in their attempts to have the Solicitors from Hell website taken offline.
Professor Flood’s statement to the court. Mr Hudson’s remarks against the Solicitors From Hell owner were corroborated by Professor John Flood in a written statement. Professor Flood’s statement read : I John Flood [address removed] provide the following statement of fact : It was about 12.30 on 21st July. I and Des Hudson had finished our live on-air discussion about Rick Kordowski and his website “Solicitors from Hell” on the BBC Radio 4’s ‘You and Yours’ programme. We were being led out of the BBC and as we were going through the doors at the BBC, Des Hudson said 'that man is a criminal' referring to Rick Kordowski, to which I replied, the police rejected that. Des Hudson further said 'he should be closed down' after that he went his way and I went mine".
Mr Hudson, responding to the allegations, told the court in his own statement, which has not been published in full : “Professor Flood suggested that our actions were likely to make Mr Kordowski a martyr and we would be seen as muzzling free speech. I replied that our actions were focussed on an issue that had nothing to do with free speech but rather his methods of collecting payment to remove comment. I believe that I said 'in my view this amounts to criminal behaviour which is why we have reported him to the police'. Professor Flood told me (and by this time I was almost at the main doors of the entrance hall to Broadcasting House) that the police would do nothing, and I remember speaking over my shoulder to him as I walked out of the room 'we'll see'. I did not say to Professor Flood 'that man is a criminal'. I would add that indeed it is my belief that the actions of Mr Kordowski are criminal in nature…."
A legal observer commenting on Mr Hudson’s submission challenged the Law Society Chief Executive's belief Mr Kordowski’s actions “are criminal in nature”. He said : “As far as I am aware, the Police are having nothing to do with the Solicitors from Hell website, and I think any reasonable person may think naming crooked lawyers so other consumers can avoid the same fate as ruined clients before them, is simply providing a much needed service to consumers of legal services we currently do not have. Naming and shaming crooks is certainly not an act which can be branded criminal in nature.”
The full judgement in Kordowski v Hudson can be read here : Kordowski v Hudson [2011] EWHC 2667 (QB). It is understood Mr Kordowski was ordered to pay £14,000 in costs and his application for permission to appeal was refused although Mr Kordowski said he would be appealing the judgement.
Speaking to Diary of Injustice, Professor Flood commented on the High Court decision against Mr Kordowski, saying : “At some point the legal profession must stop trying to shoot the messenger and listen to the complainants' voices and work to recreate the professional bargain of caring for clients.”
A legal insider speaking to Diary of Injustice this afternoon partly blamed the Legal Ombudsman for as-yet failing to use its powers of naming & shaming rogue solicitors as a factor in ongoing court attempts by the Law Society of England & Wales to pursue websites which name & shame the worst elements of the UK’s legal profession.
He said : “The Legal Ombudsman in England & Wales already possess the necessary power and backing to identify poorly performing solicitors in published decisions. If the LeO had already begun publishing the names of solicitors who fail their clients, I believe the Law Society’s case against the Solicitors from Hell website with an aim to having it taken down would also have been thrown out. ”
LEGAL OMBUDSMAN STILL TO NAME & SHAME CROOKED LAWYERS :
Legal Ombudsman for England & Wales is expected to decide on naming & shaming before end of the year. AS DEMANDS GROW from consumers of legal services in Scotland & throughout the UK for an independent and transparent ratings system for lawyers & law firms, insiders from the consumer world report the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) which regulates complaints against the legal profession in England & Wales is expected to decide by the end of the year at the latest on how it will finally proceed to identify ‘crooked lawyers’ who have been found guilty of failing their clients after being subjected to investigations by the independent law complaints regulator.
Legal Ombudsman for England & Wales, Adam Sampson has backing to name rogue lawyers & law firms.As the LeO’s plan to identify solicitors & law firms in complaints judgements has the backing of consumer organisations such as Which?, and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), the UK Government and the Legal Services Consumer Panel, more of which cab be read in an earlier report here : Legal Ombudsman moving to name & shame crooked lawyers in England & Wales, crooked Scottish solicitors records to remain protected by secrecy for now, observers in the consumer world say the time has now come for the LeO to act on the matter at hand, as consumers are being put at an ever increasing risk of using the wrong lawyer they know nothing about, particularly in these tough financial times where clients cannot afford to get into long running & costly spats with their legal representatives over misrepresentation, negligence, or even fraud.
USE IT OR LOSE IT – SOLICITORS FROM HELL
Solicitors from Hell website allows clients to comment on their experiences with lawyers. While the Legal Ombudsman takes the time to decide on how to proceed with naming & shaming ‘crooked lawyers’, the website “SOLICITORS FROM HELL” currently offers clients an opportunity to write about their own experiences with their lawyers, whether good or bad. I suggest consumers use the Solicitors from Hell website to comment about their own experiences with lawyers and find out all they can those in the legal profession who are best to be avoided.
54 comments:
Judiciary protecting their own pals once again by the sounds of it.
If you dont mind me saying so no one has a fucking chance against the justice system if their case has got anything to do with lawyers.
Its just like Libya under Gaddafi.The only difference is the French took out their dictator and we are left with all of ours sitting on the benches or in lawyers offices.
Oh well you know what they say - there's no such thing as bad publicity!
I imagine all these headlines are great for consumers who will be wondering just how corrupt their own lawyers are now.Fantastic work everybody and SfH!
Dont worry about it.We know who the REAL criminals are and its not those who are exposing this filth who are paid up members of the legal mafia.
So censorship is alive & well in the English courts when the Law Society needs its critics shut down?
This is going to end up one of those bizarre cases where people outside the country will be able to read all about our crooked lawyers while those of us daft enough to use these same crooked lawyers wont be able to find out what is really going on.
Oh no wait a minute that was yesterday.Now we have the internet all Mr K needs to do is host his website in another country and we can all still participate unless of course the Law Society demand our homes be searched and kids taken away from us if we squeal on their criminal members.
Totalitarian Britain here we come (sounds from your other story this week Scotland is already on the road)
The Law Society has yet again found itself in the public eye for all the wrong reasons; this time for unfairly dismissing one of its disabled employees. Should it undergo a wholesale change in culture?
Elizabeth Marshall
Elizabeth Marshall
http://www.thelawyer.com/unfair-play/1009707.article
The Law Society may be the trade union of solicitors, but it has badly let down one of its own, as an employment tribunal found at the end of August.
Its victim was one of the more vulnerable of Chancery Lane’s members and employees: 44-year-old solicitor Elizabeth Marshall, who has been battling cerebral palsy throughout her life.
Little doubt in my mind who to believe,this would be Professor Flood.
Since reporting on the naming & shaming issue, Diary of Injustice has been approached by a Scottish solicitor acting on behalf of others who is apparently keen to steer this reporter away from further reporting on the Legal Ombudsman’s moves to identify law firms & solicitors who fail their clients. Additionally, a financial incentive was offered in an apparent attempt to persuade Diary of Injustice to drop reporting on the Solicitors from Hell case. Readers can rest assured, neither of the two incidents will have any effect on this journalist’s reporting on the legal profession or campaigning for reforms of consumer protection against the closed shop world of lawyer regulating lawyer and lawyers covering up for their colleagues, all the way up to the highest positions in the judiciary.
===============================
Yes Peter they think they can buy you off. It will never happen that is why we all trust Peter Cherbi.
Rogue traders on television, why should Hudson's lot be exempt from feedback. You are off the hook Hudson, well no shock there, one law for Rick Kordowski and another for you.
Justice interupptus I think.
FACT FROM THE SOLICITORS FROM HELL WEBSITE. IT WILL BE THE SAME IN ENGLAND AND WALES MR HUDSON, SO HOW IS RICK KORDOWSKI A CRIMINAL?
SO YOU WANT TO SUE A SO CALLED PROFESSIONAL?
Although the same applies if you go up against many other professionals - who are insured by the same insurers, Marsh, Royal Sun Alliance, let us say you want to sue your lawyer.
If you try and sue a lawyer, you will find your lawyers are insured by Marsh & RSA, your crooked lawyer and their lawyers will be insured both by Marsh & RSA, the Sheriff or Judge in your case is a subscribing member of the Law Society of Scotland and this is also be insured by Marsh & RSA, and several of the Scottish Courts Service staff, as well as the Auditor of the Court, have similar insurance arrangements.
I think anyone would agree there is a problem in that - a client is fighting a system where everyone except the client, pays into the same insurance arrangement the client is trying to claim against.
There is certainly a conflict of interest, which time & again, prevents negligence claims against crooked lawyers from ever getting a fair hearing.
How can a member of the public go into court when everyone except themselves is insured by the same insurers and ALL except themselves will benefit if their claim & case are dismissed !!
Most people would call that a fit-up.
Lawyers will take cases on because they make money from Legal Aid but you will NEVER GET TO COURT.
Try complaining to the Law Society, a waste of time.
I know I have been there.
Post you complaint here on Solicitors from Hell (It will make you feel better - Guaranteed!)
BUT MR HUDSON DOES NOT WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW THIS AS HIS LEGAL CHUMS WILL LOSE MONEY. ONLY A LAWYER COULD CALL A PERSON A CRIMINAL AND GET AWAY WITH IT.
The ruling in the case states that Mr Justice Tugendhat said Mr Kordowski’s complaint against the Law Society could not go ahead because he had not also complained about Mr Hudson’s alleged remarks being republished by others including Professor Flood.
Bullshit, Tugendhat is simply protecting his own insurers, any excuse is used to keep Hudson protected. No wonder this profession is an a mess.
The ruling in the case states that Mr Justice Tugendhat said Mr Kordowski’s complaint against the Law Society could not go ahead because NO ONE SUES A MEMBER OF THE LAW SOCIETY.
UNNACOUNTABLE JUDGES WHO DO THEY ANSWER TO? THEY ARE SO CLOSE YOU COULD NOT GET A FEELER GAUGE BETWEEN THEM.
Law Society of England & Wales Chief Des Hudson will not face court over “criminal” remarks against critics of crooked lawyers.
===================================
They are again above the law, and fanatical in their hatred of clients who complain. Hudson and the judge are nothing special, just human beings who police their own. No profession with the life changing decisions they make can remain above the law.
As far as I am aware, the Police are having nothing to do with the Solicitors from Hell website, (BUT THE LAW SOCIETY TRIED THE TO GET THE POLICE INVOLVES) and I think any reasonable person (YES BUT LAWYERS ARE NOT REASONABLE) may think naming crooked lawyers so other consumers can avoid the same fate as ruined clients before them, is simply providing a much needed service (YES A CRITICAL SERVICE) to consumers of legal services we currently do not have. Naming and shaming crooks is certainly not an act which can be branded criminal in nature.”
YES INDEED. THE LAW SOCIETY, LOOK THEIR FOR CRIMINALS, WHY BECAUSE THEY LIKE DOUGLAS MILL TRY AND KILL OFF LEGAL AID FOR CLIENTS RUINED BY A LAWYER. CLIENTS COMMITTING SUICIDE. PEOPLE LIKE HUDSON ARE USED TO GETTING THEIR OWN WAY AND WHEN THEY DONT THEY THROW THE DUMMY OUT OF THE PRAM. RICK KORDOWSKI IS NO CRIMINAL, HE PROVIDES A PLATFORM IN PUBLIC WHERE THE LAW SOCIETY KEEP THEIR DIRTY LAUNDRY HIDDEN AND SAVE RATBAG LAWYERS WHO RUIN MORE CLIENTS. GET OVER IT HUDSON, THE PUBLIC HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF A UNION THAT ARE A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES. NOT ANY MORE. YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED.
No surprise to me the courts sided with the Law Society once again!
On the other hand if the judge says no damages was done to Kordowski's character over the "criminal" slur then the same applies to the Law Society's hurt feelings over what fee paying clients are writing on the Solicitors from Hell website.
Aint that right Mr judge or is it one law for the Law Society and another for anyone brave enough to criticise your 'learned' legal colleagues for being crooks?
Now that's something you don't see every day,a lawyer calling someone a criminal to get out of a scandal!lol!
Who does this person answer to? Mr Justice Tugendhat. A law unto himself.
Sounds like 'one law for the lawyers......' - you know the rest I'm sure.
And why the deafening silence from Which and the Scottish Consumer Council?
Mr Hudson clearly believes lawyers should never be scrutuised by the public. He is a human holder of Victorian attitudes, next he will want people like Rick Kordowski hung drawn and quartered.
Clients are now lawyers trading standards officers, and we will use the internet to expose those who ruin with impunity. Grow up Mr Hudson, your legitimate complaints channels suit you because they protect lawyers like the judge has protected you. I would love to hear feedback from your clients, perhaps you are terrified you will end up on a website. You know your background so perhaps this is your real fear. Time will tell?
Mr Hudson The Law society of Scotland refused to investigate my sisters solicitor when she was injured at work. He is a criminal because her
employer, lawyer and all doctors including her GP were insured by Royal Sun Alliance. Now in my world if I keep claiming my car insurance I will be uninsurable eventually.
So her lawyer was insured through the Law Society Master Policy by THE COMPANY SHE WAS SEEKING DAMAGES FROM.
Everything he did ( we still have all of Ross Harpers documents) favoured the employer for the above reasons. He is on Solicitors From Hell, because her GP lied about her mental health but could not produce the psychiatrist. The GP terrified that the case would go to court stopped her incapacity benefit. Ross Harpers would not help her, why because her case was NEVER GOING TO COURT. Mr Douglas Mill would have been furious if the Law Societies insurers had to pay my sisters damages.
This is what you are alarmed at Mr Hudson you are all directors of Royal Sun Alliance, a mendacious cohort of criminals taking on litigation cases you have no intention of winning.
As soon as an unsuspecting client signs Legal Aid forms you lawyers and doctors make money covering up the clients injuries and if that person can never work again it does not phase you one iota.
Mr Hudson wants all of this covered up. Why dont you tell the public Mr Hudson you share all of the same insurers that your clients are claiming against? And you call Rick Kordowski a criminal. You display the same psychology as all self regulators, everyone is wrong and mendacious exept lawyers. I do not think so.
Quotes from SOLICITORS about the planned action by
The Law Society to close this website down:
“The more I think about it the more idiotic it seems to me. Here we have the Law Society which is supposed to protect us all against bad lawyers, now trying to protect the interest of bad lawyers”.
“I think this is incredible. Imagine Trading Standards bringing a representative action on behalf of traders who are most seriously at risk from the "Rogue Traders" program. The mind boggles”.
“There is no way of knowing how good a particular lawyer is until they have sent their bill and you have asked about them. That is when you find out you have been overcharged. It is just big firms wanting to keep things as they are”.
“I had a legal aid practice under the Legal Aid Contracting regime and at the end of every case we were obliged to send out a client questionnaire which asked our clients to comment on us and we had to keep these for review by the Legal Aid Board. Why shouldn't private practices be under the same scrutiny”.
“What you are up against is that there are a lot of complaints about big firms because they actually charge huge amounts and a lot of the lawyers in them are just in it for the money and have little concern for their clients”.
“It seems to me that this claim could be subject to all sorts of challenges in law. I have never seen anything like it and it does smack of suppression of freedom of speech. If someone wrote in a newspaper that they had a bad experience with a lawyer or any other professional, it is a matter of libel laws which say that you have to prove that it is not true to succeed”.
“This action seems to be trying to circumvent libel laws because it just tries to do a complete body swerve around the issue of whether the posts are true or not. If they are true then they are publishable”.
“I think it is extraordinary that the Law Society would bring an action on behalf of solicitors who are at risk of being named on the site, ie., the bad lawyers. In other words, they are representing precisely the sort of solicitors who need to be criticized”.
“It is ridiculous. I would be hugely surprised it they succeeded and a good Barrister with a sense of justice would have a field day with it in court”.
“We were asked to become involved in the group claim but declined”.
"I am an English solicitor but I don't consider myself at serious risk of being named on your site because I have a good reputation. So, do the Law Society represent me in this action? "
===================================
Mr Hudson, you are shooting the Law Society in the foot. You being a law unto yourselves will not continue as we see there are factions of the Legal Profession on our side. Victory to Peter Cherbi, Rick Kordowski, Bentjudges.com, Victims of the Legal Profession Society. I suppose in your view we are all mendacious criminals Mr Hudson?
These websites are critical to protect the public, victory to all of them, victory to our values of freedom of speech because Mr Hudson the latter is what politics is about. You want to silence all campaigners because you know the web sites tell it as it is.
I agree the ombudsman is party to blame for all this carry on over Solicitors from Hell.
In the meantime if sfh does go down it wont be too much trouble to mirror the site and put up many more, say 1000 mirrors all over the world sell t shirts posters you name it and all the publicity and censoring by the Law Society will make it even more of a freedom of speech issue.
I'm looking forward to it!
Anonymous said...
I agree the ombudsman is party to blame for all this carry on over Solicitors from Hell.
In the meantime if sfh does go down it wont be too much trouble to mirror the site and put up many more, say 1000 mirrors all over the world sell t shirts posters you name it and all the publicity and censoring by the Law Society will make it even more of a freedom of speech issue.
I'm looking forward to it!
==============================
100% correct it will rise like a pheonix from the ashes. People do not like being told they cannot do something. Rick we admire your tenacity to stand up to these people who think they ARE THE LAW.
A student on Peter's diary of Injustice once told me to "get a grip on my views" and I replied "my views were formed by dealing with the criminals you will look to for your traineeship".
Mr Hudson if a fool because we will create more sites if he threatens Rick Kordowski. Your problem Mr Hudson is that too many people have been ruined by lawyers and I am not a Christian but there is much truth in the statement "as you sow so shall you reap".
The torture some members of the public have went through is criminal. We now regulate you Mr Hudson, and you should not complain because when the situation is vice versa you think that is fair. We are driving the crooks out of the industry because we can, you target SFH to close it because you KNOW THE POSTINGS ARE PUBLISHABLE AND TRUE. No more Law Society cover ups, NO MORE.
Judge protecting lawyer, here we go again.
I suggest consumers use the SFH facility. However, as readers will also be aware, the Law Society of England & Wales, apparently supported by their Scottish counterparts the Law Society of Scotland, are trying to close down Solicitors From Hell on the basis the SFH website gives too much free speech to consumers to name & shame their lawyers over failures we should all have the right to know about.
"TOO MUCH FREE SPEECH" A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS. THERE IS A NEW ONE. THEY WANT TO NAIL OUR FINGERS ON THE DESK AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARDS. SO WE CAN SPEAK FREELY ABOUT LAWYERS PROVIDING WE PRAISE ALL OF THEM. I THINK THESE PEOPLE BELONG IN A PSYCHIATRIC UNIT. THE SFH WEBSITE CANNOT GO DOWN BECAUSE OF THE DOMINO EFFECT.
CATHY JAMIESON TRIED TO SHUT DOWN SCOTLAND AGAINST CROOKED LAWYERS, AND NOT THE LAW SOCIETIES ARE GANGING UP ON ONE MAN.
SELF REGULATION ALLOWS LAWYERS TO FLOUT THE LAW, AND IT WILL NOT CONTINUE. IF THEY CANNOT STOMACH THAT THEY CAN REACH FOR THE PROZAC.
The judge said there was no evidence of any real or substantial harm to Mr Kordowski and also held the case brought against Des Hudson was “an abuse of court process”.
Lawyers are abusers of human rights as Tugendhat knows, client suicides, no prosecutions in Scotland for Legal Aid fraud over six years as there is not enough admissible evidence, quangos filled with people who call clients "frequent flyers".
Criminals all of them.
According to an MP I know who has read your stuff you are 100% accurate on the link between the Legal Ombudsman delaying their publishing of solicitors identities concerning complaints and the Law Society's legal action to shut down SfH & Kordowski.
Nice to know someone is on their case even though everything was being discussed "in secret" including the threat of legal action against the LeO if he goes ahead on "naming & shaming".
This case is more about solicitors wanting to erase criticism of them on the internet for business purposes due to the fact all law firms are suffering just like everyone else in the recession.
The Guardian wrote about this last year http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jun/29/web-savvy-lawyers-gain-online and you could tell from the profession's reaction to Solicitors from Hell the lawyers are extremely worried about members of the public writing the truth about what happens between a solicitor and their client when things go wrong or get out of control.Its bad for business so the Law Society's attitude is censorship is good for business.
The Guardian also reported this latest tiff between the Law Society & Rick Kordowski http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/oct/21/solicitors-from-hell-law-society?newsfeed=true
Now I personally dont think Mr Kordowski was right to sue for slander because it looks obvious the case would have gone nowhere however if he did sue for slander to maximise the headlines and attention for SFH he did the correct thing and more people will now be looking at his site and able to see which lawyers to avoid.
Honestly after reading your own reports about how bad it is in Scotland and knowing as I do how bad it is in England,one could be forgiven for thinking its best to avoid any lawyers in the UK.Perhaps the good folks at the EU will come along and save us,introducing a law where we can use much cheaper legal representation available on the continent than what we have available to us on our own shores.
The Law Society of England & Wales, apparently supported by their Scottish counterparts the Law Society of Scotland, are trying to close down Solicitors From Hell on the basis the SFH website gives too much free speech to consumers to name & shame their lawyers over failures we should all have the right to know about.
Bizzare statement, "too much free speech", if they want to control this at all it is not free speech. How do you measure free speech? If the free speech was all praise for lawyers the Law Societies would rejoice, they cannot handle the truth and they are the cause of the lack of trust in lawyers in Britain today.
Too much free speech means the truth is coming out, that lawyers are a dangerous profession.
Well its like this.
We need journalists like Peter who are willing to write about the worst end of the justice system because no one else will do it.You dont need me to tell you why.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchdog_%28TV_series%29#History says BBC Watchdog has been on tv since 1980 so how come in 31 years they never tackled the subject of crooked lawyers?I've watched it for years and cant think of any examples where people who have been ruined by their lawyers and struggle to get justice in the courts have ever appeared on their show.
This must be some kind of a record in television history and it is very noticeable.
The absolute farce of this situation is epitomised by the fact the same qc who represented Kordowski is also representing the Law Society in their bid to have Kordowski's web site shut down.
The judge might have done well to observe this in his ruling.
As for Professor Flood.Maybe he should sue Hudson for defamation given the ruling and quote from Hudson's witness statement seems to infer the Professor is lying.
My money is on Professor Flood.He speaks more sense than any of them in this debate apart from yourself of course.
Keep up the good reporting.
To the earlier comment at 18:40 today you have made an astoundingly good point about Watchdog.
How on earth can a programme supposedly dedicated to consumer protection and paid for by us through the license fee go out for 31 years without a decent investigation of lawyers and how they rip off their clients?
Its incredible if you think about it but of course its no accident is it.
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/ombudsman-reveals-83m-operating-costs-first-six-months
Ombudsman reveals £8.3m operating costs in first six months
Adam Sampson
Tuesday 19 July 2011 by Rachel Rothwell
The Legal Ombudsman has spent £8.3m in operating costs in its first six months since it came into being on 6 October, according to its annual report published yesterday.
The Ombudsman’s combined implementation and operation costs have been £21.4m from 1 July 2009 when the project first began, to 31 March this year.
Of this, £13.2m was funded by a grant from the Ministry of Justice, with the rest funded by a levy on the professions collected by front-line regulators including the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
The report noted that the Ombudsman had been set up ‘on time and under budget’, and its operational costs for the first six months had also been ‘well within the budget set’.
Ombudsman Adam Sampson (pictured) received a total annual remuneration of £161,245 including pension and other benefits in the year to 31 March, according to the report.
In the six months of its operation, 38,155 people contacted the Ombudsman by telephone, email or letter. Of these, LeO accepted 3,768 complaints for investigation.
Sampson said the organisation had had a cost-effective and efficient start, and was proving to be an effective model.
I MUST SAY I WOULD NEVER TRUST THE OMBUDSMAN, AS I HAVE DEALT WITH THEM BEFORE. ONLY WEBSITES WILL DO THE JOB WHERE RUINED CLIENTS REPORT ON LAWYERS.
Due to the solicitor/client relationship of confidentiality . Solicitors are duty bound to tell me that they 'cannot' discuss any aspect of a complaint with me.
However, having tried to ‘verify’ complaints with lawyers in the past I generally received one of four responses in this order:
1. No response.
2. Complete denial of the allegations.
3. Threats of litigation against me.
4. Solicitor/client confidentiality issues.
Further, The Law Society reported me and this website to the Police. I was interviewed by two detectives from New Scotland Yard (4 hrs) who insinuated that ‘verification’ before or after publishing could be construed as extortion.
Verification from the complainant is all I will ever get, invariably because solicitors cannot or will not co-operate at any level.
Rick Kordowski
Would anyone like to comment on:
How this website is ‘harassing’ the listed solicitors.
How is it that publishing ‘reviews’ is a breach of the Data Protection Act.
(I am a registered data controller at the ICO)
Rick as you know true postings have the defence of veritas (Truth) in defamation law. So they say you are harrassing solicitors because they cannot take you to court for postings such as Warning all law firms read this, or lawyers names because of their corrupt insurance arrangements. The Medical and Dental Defence Union tried the same with us, accused us of harrasing doctors (no police investigation because they were liars) when we proved publicly one doctor was a liar in medical records.
The just keep using the law to silence campainers when the latter have no rights in law. They will fail to close your site.
Regardless of what many of you think of the judgement I think Mr Justice Tugendhat did Rick Kordowski a favour in going to the lengths he did in what he said.
Its all there in the judgement just read it and believe who you want to believe.
The fact Flood's statement is published in full by Peter and only a small part of Des Hudson's statement makes it to the decision tells its own story.I too believe Professor Flood and if Mr Hudson wants to try and prove him wrong I look forward to more beneficial headlines to those who expose corruption in the legal profession.
Anonymous said...
Oh well you know what they say - there's no such thing as bad publicity!
I imagine all these headlines are great for consumers who will be wondering just how corrupt their own lawyers are now.Fantastic work everybody and SfH!
21 October 2011 17:53
COMPLETELY AGREE!
Good writing Mr Cherbi.I saw this posted in the Law Gazette and you have not disappointed.A very fair analysis of events including your revelations about the Legal Ombudsman which I must confess I knew nothing about.
To those wondering why your favourite crooked lawyers fail to appear on your favourite consumer television programme you need look no further than the array of dramas composed of adventures in the legal world where allegedly brave solicitors and counsel risk their lives to obtain justice for their clients.Clearly the broadcasters would much rather feature guff such as Garrows Law etc than film a drama where a senior advocate in Edinburgh well known for taking bungs to get clients off criminal charges uses his connections to escape prosecution for distributing child porn and soliciting rent boys on the streets of Edinburgh.
Be under no illusion the legal profession is as dirty as all others and a little bit more.
You must be an expert on this one Peter after all Douglas Mill and the Law Society of Scotland tried to fit you up over the Leslie Cumming attack using the Scotland on Sunday to call for all websites criticising lawyers to be removed.
They must have looked bloody stupid when Lothian & Borders had a go at them over it and isn't it such a surprise Cumming had a relative in the Police too?
What were the Law Society playing at there I wonder?
Had the power gone to their heads so much they thought they could order the Police and newspapers to silence all their critics?
I suspect if it were up to the Scottish Law Society you might even be dead by now along with anyone else who managed to make complaints about their lawyers.All this will just get worse if Scotland ever goes independent because the lawyers have made it clear who is calling the shots with Salmond et all.
Good discussion here!
What a good thing this Solicitors from Hell story is because its bringing out lots of gossip about lawyers and their corruption.Great stuff keep it up!
Its all in the judgement here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2667.html
Nice to see the Law Society of England making as big an arse of itself as the Scottish end usually manage to do each week
Two peas in a pod
Naming and shaming is a brilliant idea however can we really trust the Legal Ombudsman to name all the crooked lawyers?
There is really no need for the slcc and lss anymore because shortly we will be monitoring the legal scum and reporting to all.
Watch this space.
I enjoyed reading your blog Mr Cherbi and wish you all the best over your own problems with the Law Society of Scotland.
Your account of what this Mr Penman did to your family is a fine example of why such lawyers should be named in the media and more.
By the same token the judge should rule the Law Society's case against Rick Kordowski/Solicitors from Hell as an abuse of process.It certainly IS an abuse of free speech!
I think it's all pathetic...he said this..he said that...boo hoo. I think the court was right to throw it out and stop wasting everybody's time. Put some real criminals away who have actually hurt some people.
And to the first post who said it's just like Lybia and Gadaffi. Seriously??!!! No, no it's not.
Yes I think on balance Kordowski wins on credibility here once again because anyone trying to stop someone naming crooked lawyers or crooked anyone for that matter looks like well .. you know what I mean.
Free speech is a good thing even when its criticising the lawyers!
Looks like Mr Justice Tugendhat drew the short straw with this case, having to come up with this absurd decision.
If Rick Kordowski is forced to pay costs (which is the Court clearly being vindictive) then the public should group together to pay this for him.
As for this Legal Decision; it does create a Legal Precedent in that the law now deems it OK for a person to describe another as a criminal who is 'clearly performing a public interest function by reporting on crooked lawyers'.
Using this same 'Precedent', and given that the Law Society and Law Society of Scotland both have a Legislative 'public interest duty of care', then by operatio-of-law it-can-be-held that, it is similarly OK for persons who 'are acting in the public interest' can by describing the Law Society and Law Society of Scotland 'Criminal Organisations' and their staff members 'Criminals' by virtue of the fact that they have failed to uphold the basic requirements of the legislation.
What an advertisement for English & Welsh Lawyers: Their Chief Executive, Des Hudson you would think would be the first person to know their own rules?
Rule
11.01 Deceiving or misleading the court
• (1) You must never deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court OR knowingly allow the court to be misled
Ah, but of course....he's not a lawyer...
'The ruling in the case states that Mr Justice Tugendhat said Mr Kordowski’s complaint against the Law Society could not go ahead because he had not also complained about Mr Hudson’s alleged remarks being republished by others including Professor Flood.'
21/10 @ 22:24
100% TRUE.
Because if the Judge had made this known at the time then all Mr Kordowski would need to have done was to add Professor Flood's name too and the Judge would be tongue-tied (so unbuttoned is his thinking)
Using the Police to threaten solicitor's clients (who have valid complaints against their crooked lawyer) Making malicious and vexatious complaints to police about individuals providing a public service (Des Hudson v Rick Kordowski) Making complaints and false allegations to Crown Office who then 'drop' criminal cases against lawyers. Interventions/ lobbying to Crown Office over Legal Aid Fraud lawyers.
Common theme anyone??
If it looks like a duck
If it quacks like a duck
If it waddles like a duck
Then guess what it is a DUCK.
THIS IS INSTITUTIONALISED CRIMINALITY.
LAWYERS, ESPECIALLY SCOTTISH LAWYERS ARE ABOVE THE LAW.
THE SCOTTISH POLICE ARE HAM-STRUNG AND IMPOTENT TO BE ABLE TO STOP IT
THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THEM IS TO STOP USING LAWYERS.
'To the Anonymous English Solicitor poster'
22 October 2011 12:07
Fantastic contribution and one that is seems to be genuinely provided by an honest English Lawyer, as evidenced by the apparent naive bubble from which you perceive. (This is more a compliment and testiment to the fact you are honest).
You see, Des Hudson knows (as do the Law Society of Scotland Office Bearers) that most lawyers are crooked.
This is why he MUST go on the offensive against SFH and similarly why the Judge MUST repel any notion of Rick Kordowski's success.
It is precisely because crooked lawyers have been 'protected' and allowed to flourish unabated for years that now 'the public interest test' has to be applied in the most counter-intuitive way because it would no longer be 'safe' for the public to know what has been going on behind their backs in, which is unlawful to protect lawyers!
It would be most honest of you to reflect on this truth and that you were not prepared to represent Rick Kordowski or post your name (like all the other anonymous posters). The reality being that these people could put your honest lawyers practice with goodwill out of business within weeks! FACT
Ah.......yes........CRIMINAL......the word I have LONGED to say all these years....as I watched 'my' SOLICITORS perform extraordinary machinations in order to deny any wrong doings on their part. But now I can shout CRIMINALS as loud as I want.....as Mr Desmond Hudson and his 'courtiers' appear to have confirmed that it is fine to brandish around such allegations. But I am still a little worried about shouting CRIMINAL because I fear that it is only right to do so, if the person is clearly NOT a criminal, or doesn't mind repeating the allegations themselves. Unfortunately, I fear that 'my' Solicitors would not fall into either category. I always feel very perplexed at the seeming duplicity of thought that SOME in the legal profession exhibit but I assume this must have arisen from the seemingly perpetual conflicts of interests that they are embroiled in.
Post a Comment