It’s not over until the European judges sing : Solicitors from Hell owner will appeal High Court order to close website after the ‘suffering’ of lawyers. IN RESPONSE to the publication of MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT’s written ruling in the case of The Law Society, Hine Solicitors & Kevin McGrath v Rick Kordowski which granted the vested interests of the legal profession in England & Wales their demand to shut down the critical website known as SOLICITORS FROM HELL where clients could posts online reviews of their experiences with solicitors, Mr Kordowski, the owner of the now censored Solicitors from Hell website has said he intends to appeal the draconian judgement “all the way to Europe if necessary”.
The judgement, dubbed by many as a blistering attack on free speech and the rights of consumers to express their views on services provided to them by their lawyers details in no uncertain terms the lengths to which the vested interests of the legal profession of England & Wales ‘had gone after’ Mr Kordowski.
In one part of the judgement, Mr Justice Tugendhat brands the Solicitors from Hell website owner as “A public nuisance” who “is in effect a vexatious litigant”. Readers of the judgement will note there is not one single remark in the judge’s opinion which appears to be critical of the legal profession.
As Justice Tugendhat’s judgement continues , the Law Society of England & Wales Counsel, Mr Tomlinson states that the Claimants and in particular, the First Claimant, have no objection to proper criticism of the legal profession or debate about whether a particular solicitor has failed to provide service of appropriate quality in a particular case. Informed debate on these issues is clearly in the public interest and a proper exercise of the right to freedom of expression. But he submits that the Website makes no contribution whatever to such debates but instead sets out to and does provide a forum for the publication of malicious and defamatory allegations about solicitors. The Website operates against the public interest and the Claimants have brought this action with the aim of ensuring that it ceases operation. The Law Society is concerned about the enormous reputational damage that is, and can be, done to firms and lawyers as a result of their being listed on the Website. It is also concerned about the disservice to the public. The dissemination of misinformation to members of the public through the Website may deter members of the public from instructing good solicitors.
However, most see the Law Society’s claims against the Solicitors from Hell website as little more than an attempt to censor consumers online debate of how they have been treated by their lawyers, whether good or bad. The legal profession in general are firmly against clients being able to “name & shame” their solicitors in any venue, and have been known to threaten newspapers who carry reports of “crooked lawyers” with legal action or the withdrawal of advertising. In several well known instances in Scotland, individual journalists have had their careers threatened if they did not cease reporting on “crooked lawyers”.
Diary of Injustice earlier this year revealed the Law Society hoped to use its battle with Solicitors from Hell to dissuade the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) from going ahead with its own policy of naming & shaming “crooked lawyers”, reported by Diary of Injustice here : English, Scots Law Societies ‘team up’ in legal moves against “Solicitors from Hell” in bid to stop Legal Ombudsman ‘Naming & Shaming’ crooked lawyers. However the attempt failed, after the LeO announced naming & shaming is to begin in 2012 reported earlier here : Scots to be ‘kept in dark’ on details of crooked lawyers while Legal Ombudsman’s ‘naming & shaming’ policy ‘will protect’ consumers in England & Wales
In what some may see as a spiteful move against Mr Kordowski, who has been made bankrupt by the legal profession in their pursuit of him, the judgement also revealed the trustee in bankruptcy had also gone after the solicitors from hell website domain and all its contents, gaining an interim injunction to prevent Mr Kordowski handing over the website to someone else to operate.
Quoting Mr Justice Tugendhat’s ruling : As a result of the Defendant's bankruptcy the intellectual property rights in the Website and its contents are vested in his trustee in bankruptcy, but he has not taken any steps to transfer them. Rather, on 2 November 2011, he announced that he had decided to "give the website away" to "experienced owners who operate overseas". The Claimants successfully applied for an interim injunction to restrain this transfer on the basis that it would constitute unlawful data processing and harassment. An interim injunction was granted by Langstaff J restraining the transfer ("the Transfer Injunction"), returnable at this hearing.
The full judgement in the case can be read here : The Law Society, Hine Solicitors & Kevin McGrath v Rick Kordowski
Speaking to Diary of Injustice, Mr Kordowski said : “The judgment contains claims that both the second and third Claimants had long suffered significant damage, upset and could not work who the author of the published allegations were. It is interesting to note that neither of these Claimants ever asked me who the author of the posted allegations were. No letters, emails, nothing! As to why they continued to allegedly 'suffer' in the way for many months without contacting the publisher, one can only imagine.”
Mr Kordowski continued : “My argument was (and still is) that the current libel laws are sufficient to protect the defamed. However, Justice Tugendhat states that even if I could prove that every single listing was true and justified or of honest opinion that harassment & data protection laws supersede the current libel laws. Which is quite simply outrageous.”
“He [Justice Tugendhat] states that I am someone who 'STILL attempts to charge lawyers if they want comments to be removed'. He didn't have any evidence to back this up - as there is no evidence. I do not charge lawyers. Justice Tugendhat also goes on to say that I am a 'Public Nuisance' like an environmental hazard!”
“I will appeal, which will be thrown out, obviously. So it seems that both I and the public will not get justice in this country. I will most definitely take this matter to the European Court in Strasbourg. The High Courts decision is simply tyranny - we are not in China, Iran or an African despot, this is the democratic UK!”
Not all lawyers welcomed the terms of the written ruling which shut down Solicitors from Hell, with one solicitor branding the decision as “costly, unbalanced and in the long run, counterproductive to the interests of the legal profession at large”
COWBOYSOLICITORS.COM, a new website to allow consumers to rate their lawyer online. While the battle for Solicitors From Hell looks set to continue all the way to the European Courts, a host of new websites offering consumers the chance to air their views of how they were served by their legal representatives have emerged, the latest one being COWBOYSOLICITORS.COM. The new website, which is free to become a member of, states Solicitors have ruled the roost for far too long, the law society is completely bias against any complaints. The truth is that many UK legal practices are filth ridden and need exposing. Become a free member and start shaming your solicitor within minutes. Manage all listings from your personalized dashboard.
Solicitors from Hell 2 has returned to replace the original Solicitors from Hell website. The new Solicitors from Hell 2 website which is registered in the USA, and is thus outwith the reach of UK Libel laws, replaces the now censored Solicitors from Hell. As before, clients can rate their solicitors and document their experiences whether good or bad although this time, it may be more difficult for the Law Society to act. The new website states : Solicitors From Hell 2 will allow people to upload articles about Solicitors from within the UK or anywhere else in the world this will be done automatically & free of charge. Should a complaint arise we will require evidence to substantiate your complaint. or the removal of the offending post or words will take place. This will be at the sole discretion of Solicitors From Hell 2 editors. Further should anyone claim that any item is defamatory and can prove the information wrong then the post will be removed free of charge.
So those of you looking for an opportunity to name & shame your poorly performing or even crooked lawyer, there is now even more choice to do so, courtesy of the Law Society’s attack on UK consumers right of free speech.
Hooray!
ReplyDeleteThe more publicity this gets the better, while a wider audience is just what the legal profession have shown themeselves to be desperate to avoid.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
Not very appropriate coming as it does on World Anti Corruption Day Mr Justice Tugendhat?
ReplyDeleteWell done Rick Kordowski for representing the right to free speech in the UK and for sticking up for the whole of society NOT just the elite few who judge in their own cause!
As sensible lawyers have already alluded to this is an absurd judgment, that cannot stand in a democracy and says more about whether or not the judge has the ability to be reasonable.
It may follow that in all future cases decided upon by the Judge in a case, that a barrister could call the decision into question if it does not go their way.
Thanks for the tip!I think I'll head over to Cowboy Solicitors right now!
ReplyDeleteGo for it Rick, great news, crush Law Society injustice.
ReplyDeleteStupid move by the Law Society - now its going to be all over the EU!
ReplyDelete“I will appeal, which will be thrown out, obviously. So it seems that both I and the public will not get justice in this country. I will most definitely take this matter to the European Court in Strasbourg. The High Courts decision is simply tyranny - we are not in China, Iran or an African despot, this is the democratic UK!”
ReplyDelete=================================
Yes Rick I agree, and we see in the judge's and Law Society strategy an intense hatred of clients.
If anyone believes the Law Society protect clients when they complain in house, behind the self regulatory iron curtain they either have never dealt with the Society or are simply insane.
What they are doing to Rick is in lawyers interest. Say 900 lawyers on Solicitors from Hell, all corrupt, so eventually no one goes to the lawyers and other firms will not employ them.
900 lawyers multiplied by the price of a practising certificate (say £700.00) I don't know the actual amount = £630,000.00 lost to the Society.
If this far fetched, perhaps Hudson could enlighten us.
Clearly there is prejudice against Rick and clients and favouritism for lawyers, sums up Mr Injustice Tugendhat's ruling perfectly.
My advice to people, trust no lawyer now.
Great report Peter.
Des Hudson is going to have to earn his 400K now..
ReplyDeletehttp://solicitorsfromhell2.com/law-society-v-solicitors-from-hell-judgement/
ReplyDeleteLaw Society V Solicitors From Hell Judgement by Nick The Nasty Greek Forum on Dec 9, 2011 Law Firms / Lawyers.
Art 10 of the Convention provides: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
What does Tugendhat say. Even if all listings on Solicitors from Hell were true, the site amounts to harassment of lawyers.
Any excuse Tugendhat to protect your own profession. Clients who complain to the Law Society are wasting their time. Web sites rise against legal tyranny, these legal people are so full of their own importance they think they are answerable to no one. Tugendhat is simply against free speech, we cannot be human as far as he is concerned.
Just like Douglas Mill who said people can report about lawyers providing it is positive.
Go for it Rick, it is a good job they do not have a military wing like the Einzatsgruppen (execution squads in the Soviet Union in 1942.
Not all lawyers welcomed the terms of the written ruling which shut down Solicitors from Hell, with one solicitor branding the decision as “costly, unbalanced and in the long run, counterproductive to the interests of the legal profession at large”
ReplyDelete==============================
Yes it is counterproductive, and just proves that this man believes no one has a right to provide feedback on lawyers. It works on E Bay Tugendhat, shutting web sites means no lawyer is above board because any law firm for genuine feedback reasons could go not SFH any anytime.
You and Hudson went for the messenger and simply brushed genuine feedback aside. What we have is a profession who can ruin the citizens of the UK and you want to silence us.
Victory to Rick Kordowski and freedom of speech and expression. Only corrupt professions fear client feedback, beware you nice people out there.
Tugendhat, your Law Society has covered up criminality for too long and the tipping point has been reached, there are too many victims of legal tyranny now and we will never accept your legal dictatorship, and your corrupt one sided ruling.
Wow!
ReplyDeleteSo criticising an industry now amounts to harassment in the UK?
You guys have now surpassed any & all dictatorships on Earth!
Good evening Mr Tugendhat, hats (no pun intended) off to you and Mr Hudson for showing us that "even if all postings on SFH are true" your words not mine you crush Ricks website on the basis of harassment.
ReplyDeleteNow what about the future harassment of potential clients from these scoundrels. You care not about this and if all postings are true (they are) do we thing your Law Society will protect us?
Congratulations to you both for a massive faux pas that will come back and bite you. You now stand not for justice, only legal dictatorship.
This ruling will erode public trust not only of those on SFH web site but all lawyers. I have e mailed all my friends this evening telling them to check Peter's blog. Trust no lawyer.
Quoting Mr Justice Tugendhat’s ruling : As a result of the Defendant's bankruptcy the intellectual property rights in the Website and its contents are vested in his trustee in bankruptcy, but he has not taken any steps to transfer them. Rather, on 2 November 2011, he announced that he had decided to "give the website away" to "experienced owners who operate overseas". The Claimants successfully applied for an interim injunction to restrain this transfer on the basis that it would constitute unlawful data processing and harassment.
ReplyDeleteUnlawful data processing and harassment. That is rich Tugendhat, you talk about harassment when the Law Society of Scotland have never denied client suicides.
Anything to do with ruining teflon criminals is unlawful harassment. Was Peter Cherbi's family not harassed Tugendhat? What about the farmer who killed himself with a shotgun? Oh that is right you ONLY CARE ABOUT LAWYERS, THAT IS WHY THE PROFESSIONS REPUTATION IS HEADING FOR THE GUTTER.
Next you will want us Hung Drawn and Quartered as a warning. I think you have made a grave error of judgement. Victory to the public against legal tyrants.
Trying to control the internet, tells us something, they have a lot to hide. They never protect the public only their rats with law degrees.
ReplyDeletePS Fred the shred Goodwin did nothing wrong, heard it today.
http://www.intmensorg.info/legalaid.htm
ReplyDeleteAs we have been reporting for years Legal aid is the golden goose of the legal mafia. They have been stealing decent men's livelihoods in civil courts to prop up the criminal lawyers making a fortune from defending their serial criminal thug pals
Fourten lawyers reported after being accused of fiddling Legal Aid - but not one prosecution
LEGAL aid bosses have reported 14 lawyers to prosecutors for allegedly fiddling a fortune in taxpayers' cash - but not a single one has been put in the dock. Eleven suspected fraud cases were marked no proceedings, one lawyer was declared insane, one died and the other is still being considered.
===============================
What do you think of this Mr Justice Tugendhat? Close web sites and exonerate lawyers.
If this was a member of the public they would be behind bars. They are a legal mafia indeed. Do you not care about discrimination?
-----------------------------------
Justice is administered politically in the UK (it is about difference) because the principle of universality does not apply. The tyranny of the minority and the oppression of the majority sums it up.
http://www.intmensorg.info/rogues.htm
ReplyDeleteLawyer Paul McBride praises the NOTW hacking journalists while failing to mention they NEVER expose crooked lawyers. The law society's and their members have been getting away with vast criminality thanks to the total control they have over the mass media. If it wasn't for their victims exposing their crimes with massive land, property,business, assets and child stealing we would NEVER know what the hell was going on.
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2011/12/ex-lord-advocate-elish-angiolini-to-be.html
ReplyDeleteEx-Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini is to be called as witness in breach of the peace trial of anti-abuse campaigner Robert Green. Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC, the former Lord Advocate and now Ministerial complaints adviser to Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond is to be asked to appear as a witness in what is Scotland’s longest running & most expensive Breach of the Peace trial against anti-abuse campaigner Robert Green which is now set to begin on 16 January 2012 at Stonehaven Sheriff Court, Aberdeen. The trial of Mr Green, an anti-abuse campaigner representing downs syndrome victim Hollie Greig, who is alleged to have been abused by an Aberdeen based paedophile gang has so far cost the taxpayer HALF A MILLION POUNDS. However it is thought the final cost of the case will rise to around £1 Million after factoring in the SIXTY ONE person witness list, further hearings, legal fees & other costs.
Was she in charge when twelve lawyers who stole legal aid money over five years were exonerated as there was not enough admissible evidence? See the full story.
I heard earlier this week the £150,000 estimate for the Law Society's legal costs is nearer £350,000.Not worth it!
ReplyDelete£350k to take down a website?
ReplyDeleteI think someone has been overcharging the Law Society (for once!)
The legal profession in general are firmly against clients being able to “name & shame” their solicitors in any venue, (THAT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE AS BENT AS THE BACK ROAD TO ARGYLE) and have been known to threaten newspapers who carry reports of “crooked lawyers” with legal action or the withdrawal of advertising.(THEY USE THE LAW TO PROTECT THEMSELVES). In several well known instances in Scotland, individual journalists have had their careers threatened (THEY ARE RADICAL EVIL) if they did not cease reporting on “crooked lawyers”.
ReplyDeleteTHESE MONSTERS WITH LLB DEGREES ARE A THREAT TO SOCIETY, ENGINEERING ANY OUTCOME TO PROTECT THEIR OWN SCUM.
You have protected legal thiefs Tugendhat.
ReplyDelete2009 saw the Scottish Solicitors' Master Policy being exposed for the multi-million pound scam that it is. The University of Manchester's research confirms what everyone has known for years: that the Master Policy exists to protect lawyers - not clients. For years Mill, Platt, Paterson and many other Law Society rogues have lied to the public by claiming that the Master Policy would somehow protect the public at their time of need. Note from the research document that both the Law Society and Marsh REFUSED to supply the researchers with any usable master policy data. Click Here to read the research paper.
ReplyDeleteThe Law Societies are evil, calculating scum supported by corrupt judges.
Yes - I am glad folks here have picked up on that part of the judgement. Even if you write comments which are true (and most of us do write truthfully) you can be subject to a harrassment claim. So now the libel laws are more defendant friendly and a host of meritless cases have been thrown out as honest comment and abuse of process in the last two years, the legal profession can now bring a harrassment claim instead to curtail free speech. An outrage and this is already happening. Several harrassment cases are in the pipeline.
ReplyDeleteThe Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland MDDUS did the same to me. They could not take me to court for naming and shaming a GP, so they sent a letter telling me I would be taken to court for harassment.
ReplyDeleteThe GP was altering medical records to undermine my credibility by stating that I had mental health problems. So he could not take me to court for this because he was a liar, so like Tugendhat they moved the legal goalposts and called it harassment. The Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland never took legal action because they wanted to stop me exposing the corrupt GP, the harassment allegation would never have stood up in court and the GP's name would have been all over the papers.
This lot love dishing out injustice but challenge them and they want to fill your arteries with morphene.
So if any lawyer appears in front of Tugendhat for embezzlement we can safely assume the lawyer will be getting harassed even if the ruined client is telling the truth, providing the client can get legal representation in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI think this judge is unfit to be on the bench.
Good luck to Mr Kordowski and I hope he wins against this censorship thuggery
ReplyDeleteWe should also have a Courts from Hell and a Judges from Hell!
We already have a section for judges.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cowboysolicitors.com/ads/the-honourable-mr-justice-tugendhat/
One thing I would say however - I believe Tudendhat to be a reasonable judge overall. However, I believe he has got too close to this issue in presiding over all of Kordowski's cases. I think he has made a grave mistake concerning the issue of harrassment.
Perhaps any judge would have come to the same overall conclusion in regard to the case against Kordowski in terms of libel but the harrassment part is a complete howler and has very wide implications for people who publish truthful articles about wrongdoing in any industry. Quite simply the judge has inadvertantly
opened the courtrooms to vexatious litigants who are unhappy about being criticised or exposed for wrongdoing.
Kordowski should appeal this section of the judgement - if only to protect free speech against being closed down by people using the harrassment card.
The sooner the entire database of crooked lawyers on Solicitors from Hell is back online the better!
ReplyDeleteThe Law Society and Tugendhat will be getting their rifles and telescopic sites aimed at other websites.
ReplyDeleteIf everyone sets up a web site how are they going to respond? Mass web sites that will sort them.
Tugendhat and Hudson want to keep everything in house where they can whitewash crooked lawyers and let them ruin more people.
The mentality of this idiots amazes me, perhaps they are like Douglas Mill who argued it was against a lawyers human rights not to be allowed to investigate complaints from the public. And this asshole Mill lied to the Justice 2 Committee about a legitimate claim against the Master Policy. If anyone believes Tugendhat and Hudson would deal with complaints differently from Mill they need their heads examined.
The trustee going after the website is really something else and the reasons given for the action are a disgrace to democracy.Disgusting!
ReplyDeleteSolicitors From Hell 2 now has a forum. Yippie anyone can post and apparently be protected by USA libel laws.
ReplyDeletehttp://solicitorsfromhell2.com/forum/
Why is this subject not being reported on the news at ten?
ReplyDeleteIt is definitely serious enough to merit being brought to the wider public's attention?
This goes to the heart of democracy in this country, where one sector of Society seem to enjoy priviledges and rights not afforded to other members of Society.
This could finally mean an exposing of a legal apartheid that exists where the law sees lawyers as different to other members of Society, where some laws do not apply to lawyers, meaning they are above the law and are allowed to escape justice for no other reason than they are a lawyer?
In one part of the judgement, Mr Justice Tugendhat brands the Solicitors from Hell website owner as “A public nuisance.” Tugendhat Rick is not a public nuisance and he is not a self regulating criminal answerable to noone just like you. Like in Scotland who is Lord Hamilton answerable to? Are you thinking how dare you question me?
ReplyDeleteTugendhat does not call Douglas Mill or any of the other criminals a public threat. These bastards hate Rick because they are losing money which is the bommerang effect of their corruption. Just because you are a judge Tugendhat does not mean you are free from scrutiny and we think your ruling on SFH will do more long term damage because you closed it.
You a said even if all postings are true, which means if I gave true evidence in court and it did not suit you you would look for some other way to achieve your goals. This is not justice it is dictatorship.
We will continue to build networks of dissent to drive the criminals out of the industry. Who do you think you are?
Professor Noam Chomsky on Government states that
ReplyDelete... “if we adopt the principle of universality: if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil.
In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow”.
Any legal code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow”.
So Mr Justice Tugendhat rejects the principle of universality, “even if all postings on Solicitors from Hell are true” the public cannot ever criticise lawyers but lawyers can deal with complaints from the public in the private realm of The Law Societies of the United Kingdom.
Where is the balance of power Tugendhat? Your ruling is illegitimate on the grounds of universality. It cannot stand the test of time.
A message for Tugendhat.
ReplyDeleteWe forget the GMC, Law Society, ICAS, Scottish Legal Complaints Commission Macaskills attempt to kill complaints, NHS Complaints system, Law Society of England and Wales, If you want to expose a corrupt lawyer or doctor, accountant only one person can do this, YOU.
The system is a protection racket (for graduate criminals) that wants to kick you aside if you are not a member of it. There is nowhere you can go for a fair unbiased hearing when these gods are corrupt, indeed that is why they are corrupt. Tugendhat's ruling is because Solicitors from Hell is working for you, the client.
Lawyers can steal your family’s wealth. If you get ruined by a lawyer professional loyalty between lawyers and the fact that lawyer’s insurers would be paying your damages ensures you will never get to court. Tugendhat wants to prevent you checking the internet.
THERE IS SUCH AS THING AS LEGAL THEFT IN BRITAIN AND IT IS THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF SELF REGULATION.
TRUST US WHEN WE WARN YOU “TRUST NO LAWYER”. TUGENDHAT'S RULING TO ALLOW LAWYERS TO CONTROL CYBERSPACE HAS ONE GOAL, TO SILENCE US SO THAT WE CANNOT PROTECT YOU. HE IS ALOOF AND TOTALLY ANTIDEMOCRATIC.
A FARMER IN SCOTLAND WAS DRIVEN TO SUICIDE BY THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND. YOUR CHILDREN WILL GROW UP SOON, JOIN US TO PROTECT THEM FROM LEGAL DESPOTISM.
Readers of the judgement will note there is not one single remark in the judge’s opinion which appears to be critical of the legal profession.
ReplyDeleteYes Peter you are spot on but this Judge has the same mindset as Douglas Mill in that they clearly believe by their actions that critisicms against lawyers must be killed off. These people are dangerous, without morals and to use a legal expression there can never be a meeting of the minds with most of them.
Self regulation is their lifeblood, should a Judge be on the bench who states that "even if all postings are true" lawyers are being harassed. Christ Justice and truth are the same. They dont give a dam when the Cherbi family was harassed, when clients blow their heads off with shotguns. I think they are a very sick profession who have had their way for far too long. Self regulation is the mechanism that allows them to work when in normal circumstances they sould be in prison. It is a support not a deterrent.
I look forward to another year of spreading the word and reading your blog Peter. All the best.
Description http://www.cowboysolicitors.com/ads/the-honourable-mr-justice-tugendhat/
ReplyDeleteThis from the recent case of the Law Society against Kordowski. The judge suggesting that harrassment laws can be used as an alternative to libel (i.e where the comments posted about a solicitor are the truth) So free speech can be shut down by threatening harrassment laws for reporting the truth. Using this logic the Yorkshire Ripper could claim harrrassment if I write that he murdered several woman.
The judge:
133. Even if there were evidence that the allegations were true, the conduct of the Defendant could still not even arguably be brought within any of the defences recognised by the PHA. No individual is entitled to impose on any other person an unlimited punishment by public humiliation such as the Defendant has done, and claims the right to do. His conduct is a gross interference with the rights of the individuals he names.
Mr Kordowski’s reply published on a site following the hearing:
Mr Kordowski continued : “My argument was (and still is) that the current libel laws are sufficient to protect the defamed. However, Justice Tugendhat states that even if I could prove that every single listing was true and justified or of honest opinion that harassment & data protection laws supersede the current libel laws. Which is quite simply outrageous.”
I do have some respect for this judge because overall his judgements have been good. Therefore rather than a cowboy judge this is more of a ‘cowboy judgement’ which nevertheless should still come unders scrutiny for the wrong reasons.
Wake up Mr Tugendhat, we are not going to be ruined by criminal like see
http://www.bentjudges.com/ anymore.
Your ruling will not stand the test of time.
As Justice Tugendhat’s judgement continues , the Law Society of England & Wales Counsel, Mr Tomlinson states that the Claimants and in particular, the First Claimant, have no objection to proper criticism (HOW DO YOU DEFIND "PROPER CRITICISM?) of the legal profession or debate about whether a particular solicitor has failed to provide service of appropriate quality in a particular case. Informed debate on these issues is clearly in the public interest and a proper exercise of the right to freedom of expression. But he submits that the Website makes no contribution whatever to such debates but instead sets out to and does provide a forum for the publication of malicious and defamatory allegations about solicitors. (THIS IS INCORRECT) The Website operates against the public interest (NO THE WEB SITE ACTS AGAINST LAW SOCIETY INTERREST) and the Claimants have brought this action with the aim of ensuring that it ceases operation. (THE THIN END OF A DICTATORS WEDGE) The Law Society is concerned about the enormous reputational damage that is, and can be, done to firms and lawyers as a result of their being listed on the Website. (THE LAWYERS ON SFH ARE CRIMINALS, OH THEY ARE NOT CONVICTED BECAUSE THE LAW SOCIETY WOULD ENSURE IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN) It is also concerned about the disservice to the public. (THE LAW SOCIETY IS THE GREATEST THREAT TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TODAY) The dissemination of misinformation to members of the public through the Website may deter members of the public from instructing good solicitors.
ReplyDeleteHOW DO WE TELL THE DIFFERENCE? HOW CAN WE TRUST THE AUTHORITIES? THRUST THE LAW SOCIETY, DO NOT THINK SO.
THE LAW SOCIETY IS A DESTROYER OF FAMILIES, FOR EVERY LAWYER THEY SAVE A CLIENT IS LEFT RUINED.
NEVER TRUST A LAWYER FROM ANY FIRM.
Since SFH was closed more web sites are being born.
ReplyDeleteThis cheers me up. Lovely Jubbly.
a lot of peopel end up having arguments with theyr lawyer just like me only I am not going to go through the writing letters to the complaints people and go round begging more lawyers for their help to fight the crook who has turned my life upside down
ReplyDeleteYou all want to know why well its because I have cancer and whatever I intend do about it is my affair and no lawyer has the right to ruin my death as well as my life or ruin anyone else
Hopefully someone will start a name and shame website for crooked Scottish lawyers AS SOON AS POSSIBLE PLEASE!
ReplyDeleteDissent renews politics, so it will slowly change the attitudes of lawyers who think they can do what they want.
ReplyDeleteYour days are numbered.
Lawyers censoring the internet and getting away with it yet if it had happened anywhere else the same lawyers and newspapers would be crying about freedom of speech being banned!
ReplyDeleteI got rid of my TV licence. Best thing I have ever done, no telephone either only a mobile where my family and friends can contact me.
ReplyDeleteThere are much more important things to learn about than the rubbish reality TV is.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteLawyers censoring the internet and getting away with it yet if it had happened anywhere else the same lawyers and newspapers would be crying about freedom of speech being banned!
=================================
Yes they would want to make money defending free speech. Ironic.
This article has been updated with new information on the Solicitors from Hell 2 website.
ReplyDelete# Anonymous @ 11 December 2011 20:33
I'm sorry to hear about your health circumstances.
If it helps to talk about your situation please email scottishlawreporters@gmail.com
If a solicitor has caused you grief, I urge you to consider naming & shaming them without delay on the new websites listed in the article and if the matter relates to a Scottish solicitor please contact me with further details of your case.
Hudson of the Law Society cleared of calling Rick a criminal and Rick owner of Solicitors from Hell condemned, stopped from suing Hudson and had his site removed from the web.
ReplyDeleteRough justice, Hudson and Tugendhat hate being under the microscope. I Have news for you, the dissent will get stronger.
In political theory we have the public realm and the private realm. Trials are held in the public realm but lawyers oh like the household, the parents administer justice by how they discipline their children.
The Law Society is the professional private realm, where power can be abused with no one except lawyers deciding what is legal and illegal. It is blurring the line of criminality and is an outrage that has had its day, an anachronism. Law Society, your days of tyranny are numbered.
Tugendhat you said "No individual is entitled to impose on any other person an unlimited punishment by public humiliation".
ReplyDeleteWhat about the unlimited punishment the Law Society imposes where lawyers are protective of each other and cannot get legal representation against corrupt lawyers.
I will present your line of thinking this way;
No professional union because of tradition is entitled to continually impose tyranny on members of society because they believe lawyers are more important that the people who lawyers abuse to make money. The Law Society are torturers, evil calculating vermin who prey on innocent people so a club who operate in private can cover up their crimes. No more Tugendhat, and I have read in other instances you are a fair judge, but with Rick Kordowski your judicial bonds are an affront to free expression.
Rick has more guts than any lawyer.
The man called Hudson at the top of the Law Society of England and Wales earns £400,000.00 per annum if my memory serves me correctly.
ReplyDeleteThat is £33,333.33 a month before tax and other expenses, £7692.31 a week.
If websites expose the Law Society of England and Wales for their members corruption how will the lost revenue in practicing certificate income affect our friend Hudson and his cronies?
They are reaping what they have sown, no more cover ups, our networks are getting stronger. The Law Society the most corrupt union on earth.
Nice to see the internet is a big place and not always under the control of crooked Law Societys
ReplyDeleteHow much more money are the Law Society going to spend chasing these websites?
ReplyDeleteThe guy with the cancer (sorry to hear about it myself,best wishes to whoever it is) gives me some ideas
ReplyDeleteBUT I wonder if Jane Irvine and the slcc will barge in demanding cancer victims not be allowed to comment or complain in case they take offence to the usual slcc Law Society whitewash of complaints?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletea lot of peopel end up having arguments with theyr lawyer just like me only I am not going to go through the writing letters to the complaints people and go round begging more lawyers for their help to fight the crook who has turned my life upside down
You all want to know why well its because I have cancer and whatever I intend do about it is my affair and no lawyer has the right to ruin my death as well as my life or ruin anyone else.
==============================
I feel sorry for you, it is bad enough fighting these crooks when we are healthy. Get the lawyers name into the public domain and also the names of the ones who refused to help you.
They are a compassionless profession.
THE LAW SOCIETIES WILL NOT TELL YOU THIS.
ReplyDeleteLawyers can steal your family’s wealth. If you get ruined by a lawyer professional loyalty between lawyers and the fact that lawyer’s insurers would be paying your damages ensures you will never get to court.
THERE IS SUCH AS THING AS LEGAL THEFT IN BRITAIN AND IT IS THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF SELF REGULATION.
ROYAL SUN ALLIANCE INSURE THE LAW SOCIETIES AND THEIR LAWYERS.
THEY INSURE DOCTORS, YOUR GP, ACCOUNTANTS, SURVETORS, LOCAL AUTHORITIES, PARLIAMENTS. SO YOUR LAWYER IS CLAIMING AGAINST HIS OWN INSURERS, YOU GET YOUR LAWYER LEGAL AID MONEY BUT HE WILL NEVER TAKE YOUR CASE TO COURT. IF HE DID THE LAW SOCIETIES WOULD WITHDRAW HIS PRACTICING CERTIFICATE.
ALL OF THESE PEOFESSIONS ARE SAFE FROM LITIGATION BECAUSE THE LAWYERS ARE THEIR TO FOOL YOU INTO BELIEVING THEY ARE ACTING IN YOUR INTERESTS, BUT THEY ARE ACTUALLY PROTECTING THE LAW SOCIETIES INSURERS.
THEY WILL TAKE YOUR CASE TO MAKE LEGAL AID MONEY BUT YOU WILL NEVER WIN. PERHAPS MR HUDSON WOULD LIKE TO CHALLENGE THIS COMMENT, BUT OF COURSE HE KNOWS I AM TELLING THE TRUTH.
If no one can claim damages from the Law Societies insurers does Mr Hudson get a bonus? Perhaps he can advise on this?
ReplyDelete11 December 2011 17:03 - What a wonderful contribution that I totally agree with.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the danger with Judges judging in their own cause is that their true impartiality as a Judge will be tested.
Tugendhat has failed this test in the SFH Case and so it is irrelevant that he may have been a good judge up until this case.
It can now be argued however, by any Barrister appearing before him with a case, who has not been successful, that due to the SFH Decision since that time their may be a question over the reliability of Tugendhat and for his ability to act equitably.
The other reason where Tugendhat has erred is due to the same arrogant stance adopted by the Law Society, whereby they have actually become to believe that Lawyers do have more rights under law than every other citizen in Society because that is the way they have made it and nobody up until now has challenged this positio.
Their position is of course totally unlawful.
From Tugendhat & the Law Society's skewed viewpoint, a deceived and wronged Client has no right to challenge a lawyer and get a way with it (on the explanation that the complaints process's job is to repell as many complaints against lawyers as possible)
So, if only truthful comments about lawyers were made on SFH, this would STILL NOT CORRECT THE DELIBERATE IMBALANCE IN THE SYSTEM AGAINST THE DECEIVED & WRONGED CLIENT.
Ergo, even if untruthful comments were made in amongst the whole on SFH, it could not be considered harrassment as lawyers would be super-quick to move to sue for libel if there was something said that was untrue about them.
Harrassment reserved for a much more continued and persistent repetitive behaviour by one person against another.
What does Tugendhat say. Even if all listings on Solicitors from Hell were true, the site amounts to harassment of lawyers.
ReplyDeleteTudendgat if all listings are true and I believe the majority are then this provides future clients with a database to protect them from the scum listed on the site. Your ruling may have as well come from the Law Society who for decades has left people ruined and you and Hudson are the same.
You throw our Rick's claim against Hudson.
You close the site down.
You are against free speech, yes the Law society are right, the site does wreck law firms reputations. When will you get it through your thick skulls we are not taking any more harassment from lawyer scum who sleep at night because they are simply evil.
If the Law society protected people who would they set up internet sites? These sites are a direct consequence of Law Society corruption where behind closed doors members of the public are left ruined.
We are not going anywhere and you will fail to stop us.
The networks you have called law firms who are reviled when a ruined client asks a lawyer to sue the lawyer who ruined them days are numbered.
We are a network with one purpose in mind. Protecting the public from lawyers and their corrupt union. Through the medium of freedom of expression WE WILL BYPASS THE BRITISH LAW SOCIETIES AND DRIVE CROOKED LAWYERS OUT OF THE INDUSTRY.
Yes Peter as you are doing target the supply of clients to warn them Law Firm A, B, C, are corrupt.
ReplyDeleteLaw society your days for protecting your own are numbered. This profession have corrupt unions and clients have web sites. How dare you speak of harassmant Tugendhat when people are losing their health and life savings. In my opinion you are harassing campaigners.
Solicitors From Hell 2 Forum on Dec 12, 2011 Law Firms / Lawyers
ReplyDeleteIf you have a serious complaint against a Senior Solicitor it is virtually impossible to further it. (TOTALLY AGREE).
There should be an Independent Commission to decide if a complaint is valid and if a complaint goes forward before the Court, it should go before more than one Law Lord. (ONLY RUINED CLIENTS CAN ASSESS IF LAWYERS ARE CORRUPT, AFTER ALL THE OPPOSITE SITUATION IS SELF REGULATION).
Litigants should be allowed to state if they believe there has been misfeasance within their claim. (YES A CONFLICT OF INSURERS).
A Judge should not say they will not listen to legal precedent from a self litigant or deny a self litigent a short break (that would not prejudice the accused) to seek legal advice especially in a legal negligence claim. (THE JUDICIARY ARE TOTALLY UNFIT TO OVERSEE THIS SITUATION).
All hearings in England should be recorded. They should also be videoed. A copy of the recording/video should be available to the litigants as a matter of course and to the public on application. There should be no secret Courts (THE LAW SOCIETY IS A SECRET COURT WHERE THE DOUGLAS MILLS OF THE LEGAL WORLD KILL OFF LEGITIMATE CLAIMS. TRY BEING IN OUR SHOES MILL) in England unless it is a matter of National Security.
If filed documents are taken off the system especially in a legal negligence case or tampered with, there should be an investigation of how this occurred. (WHO IS FIT TO INVESTIGATE).
Judges should be appointed by a lottery system (not a relatively low paid clerk).
It should not be possible for a powerful firm to point a case at a particular Judge to guarantee a particular result!
Judges who set about garnering certain types of cases to bring in a back door privacy law or any other undemocratic law should be fired. (TUGENDAT SHOULD BE FIRED FOR USING A TRUMPED UP ARGUMENT OF HARASSMENT FOR CLOSING SFH, A TOTAL OUTRAGE).
There is a need for a legal complaint forum but people with valid complaints should sign them and leave their contact details.
If the legal system continues to be unaccountable as to behaviour and costs it should not continue to self regulate.
As Justice Tugendhat’s judgement continues , the Law Society of England & Wales Counsel, Mr Tomlinson states that the Claimants and in particular, the First Claimant, have no objection to proper criticism.
ReplyDeleteNow how do we interpret the phrase "proper criticism"? It is like Douglas Mill saying "it is alright to write about lawyers as long as the writing is positive".
Proper criticism is telling members of the public that law firms X, Y, Z are corrupt. Mr Tomlinson our aim is to unite ex clients of law firms and drive the crooked ones out of the courts the same way lawyers interdict members of the public from the courts to protect each other.
When our health and wealth is being ruined by Law Society protected criminals we have the right to fight back, and we will.
The Law Society's argument to the court holds no water.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally your report on the Law Society using the sfh case against the LeO's plan to name & shame paid off.They abandoned their plans a few days after you published in September.
Clever you.
Solicitors (and everyone else in fact) have been given licience by the judge to make harrassment claims for comments they simply do not like. Publish and its true – well you are probably safe against libel but just watch out for that harrassment claim.
ReplyDelete==================================
But the judge knows it is a one way street, I mean a member of the public will be taken to court by lawyers for harassment but the member of the public who claims a lawyers is harassing them will not get legal representation.
How Tedendhat thinks this is just is beyond reason.
# Anonymous @ 12 December 2011 16:09
ReplyDeleteYes, I've been shown information on this ... pity it cant be published.
Dont rule out another attempt at legal action against the Legal Ombudsman once naming & shaming begins ... however I will be here to report it ...
# Anonymous @ 12 December 2011 14:45
I think more should be done to warn, or even educate consumers to the pitfalls & expense of using lawyers for many issues they can and should address themselves.
Hopefully this recession may knock some sense into people to stop throwing tens of thousands of pounds at solicitors for cases everyone in the system knows will never see one day in court, usually ending up in broken promises and the solicitor suing their now former client for faked-up & unjustified fees.
so Cherbi stopped the English Law Society in its tracks too?
ReplyDeleteAs I said before it takes a Scots man (please notice I split the words to avoid comparisons to any unScottish rag bearing a similar name)
Good one Peter and nice to see the legal thugs getting a taste of consumer opinion again!Oh how the lawyers must hate things not under their control!
ReplyDeleteTime for folks to quit talking and take action. It is not just about RK. The comment by the judge has serious and wider implications for free speech. It is not just solicitors who have been given a free licence to issue harrassment claims against free speech. Most worryingly any fool can now take offence at a publication and sue for harrassment.
ReplyDeletePlease visit the two sites listed above. Also this one. Support the website owner who is being taken to court later this week by the first law firm since the Law Society action to bypass libel law in favour of harrassment law.
http://nickthenastygreek.com/forum/index.php
Thanks for posting this Peter and I look forward to see more from the new Solicitors from Hell 2 website soon
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDelete11 December 2011 17:03 - What a wonderful contribution that I totally agree with.
Thanks for your comment.
Yes I agree 100% and they have the attitude, like Shipman, how dare you question us. Their ideolgical stance is that they and only they have the right to decide who has access to justice, and yes I would even go as far as to say clients are subhuman in the sense they want us to be rightless.
What we have is a state within a state, democratically elected governments with an omnipotent dictatorshhip of a judiciary who are so full of their own importance. To be denied rights, especially legal rights is to be excluded from the political community and the rightless are interdicted from the courts to protect self regulating criminals.
It proves that even in a democracy people are not free. In Scotland the Law Society control policymaking in the Parliament to serve their own vested interests.
Lawyers better understand one thing, we are not going away and self regulation will end because too many people have been ruined. They are reaping what they have sown.
THEY WILL TAKE YOUR CASE TO MAKE LEGAL AID MONEY BUT YOU WILL NEVER WIN. PERHAPS MR HUDSON WOULD LIKE TO CHALLENGE THIS COMMENT, BUT OF COURSE HE KNOWS I AM TELLING THE TRUTH.
ReplyDelete=================================
Mr Hudson, you have freedom of expression, that precious right your lawyers want to crush with illegitimate harassment arguments. You are the top man so defend the Law Society. But you know what I wrote above cannot be challenged because it is true, your lawyers do take cases on they know they will never take to court because your Law Society insurers would be paying the clients damages.
I think Tugendhat's ruling ignores the fact that lawyers strategy here amounts to chronic dishonesty, telling their clients they can win cases when the lawyers are paying the premiums to the insurance company their client is seeking damages from.
Do you get a no claims bonus, like I do for safe driving?
Tugendhat the above strategy is evil, calculating and harassing, funny how your legal brain can only lock on to and protect one side, the lawyers. Your judgement is illegitimate.
We need a website dedicated to exposing the Law Societies of Britain.
ReplyDeleteAll of those people out there who have dealt with these dens of evil post your experiences and sink the Law Societies once and for all.
The Law Societies from Hell. Sounds good. I can see the smoke coming out of Hudson's ears. How many cover ups have your staff handled Hudson, and the criminals in Edinburgh.
Mr Justice Tugendhat :
ReplyDeleteThis is a claim for injunctions requiring the Defendant, the publisher of the "Solicitors from Hell" website ("the Website"), to cease publication of the Website in its entirety and to restrain him from publishing any similar website. The causes of action relied upon are libel, harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ("the PHA") and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 ("the DPA"). The claim is brought as a representative action on behalf of all those currently featuring on the website and those who might, in the future, feature on the website.
The law firms and organisations represented by the Second Claimant are referred to as "the Represented Listed Firms". The presently listed individuals represented by the Third Claimant are referred to as "the Represented Listed Individuals". The individual solicitors and other individuals represented by the Third Claimant that are at serious risk of being named on the Website will be referred to as "the Represented Individuals". I shall refer to them collectively as the Represented Parties. The Claimants represented by the First Claimant are referred to as the "Law Society Represented Claimants". An interim injunction to restrain publication of a libel is granted only if there is no doubt that the words are defamatory, and only if there is no defence put forward which a jury, properly directed, could uphold. This is usually referred to as the rule in Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269. But perpetual injunctions to restrain publication of a libel are commonly granted, either after a trial, or after judgment is entered in default of defence. However, in the case of default judgments, a claimant must make an application for an injunction in accordance with Part 23: see CPR Part 12.4(2).
A representative action for harassment under the PHA has been permitted to proceed in a number of cases. Mr Tomlinson was unable to identify any case where a representative action was brought in libel. At the end of the hearing I granted an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from further publishing the Website, in terms to be reviewed on the handing down of the reasons given in this written judgment. These are the reasons.
Günter Verheugen, the European Commission vice-president, said that new laws covering the banks and money markets would ensure that "risks" become more transparent.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking at the European Parliament in Brussels ahead of a gathering of more than 700 business owners to examine the impact of the financial crisis, Mr Verheugen said: "This is the end of an economic ideology which was not based on real experience and social reality: an ideology that told us, 'Don't regulate as the market will regulate', which is obviously not true."
----------------------------------
Adopting this to lawyers Don't regulate as the Law Society will regulate, which is obviously not true.
We campaigners will work ceaslesly to end the ideology of self regulation that has made lawyers believe they are far more important than their victims, do they think we are subhuman?
As Hannah Arendt pointed out in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism "ideologies are harmless so long as they are not taken seriously". She was writing about the Holocaust, but her arguments are applicable here, in terms of the way clients are treated. Lawyers and clients, the issue is political because it is based on difference, therefore inequalities, different rules which mean clients are of little importance.
But the ideology of lawyer investigating lawyer is legal dictatorship and we will crush this out of date unnacountable doctrine. Lawyers will be accountable for their actions because clients regulating lawyers will become the norm, and Tugendhat's ruling is set against this.
Purely coincidentally Mr Justice Tugendhat was of course, in a previous incarnation, a humble lawyer.....but that could never affect his fabled impartiality could it?
ReplyDeleteThe philosopher Plato wrote about the mythical ring of Gyges. Gyges was a shepherd who obtained a ring and when he turned the bezel clockwise he became invisible and vice versa. Naturally this was a great asset if he wanted to carry out criminal acts.
ReplyDeleteThe Law Society is a real life version of the ring of Gyges, where their invisibility from public scrutiny allows them to be do anything they want. The websites are visible evidence from those who have been on the receiving end of the Law societies knives.
Yes talk about shooting yourself in the foot Mr Law Society!
ReplyDeleteI think I'll add my own comments about my former solicitor who is so bent the paintings on his wall are not straight!
http://www.intmensorg.info/rogues.htm
ReplyDeleteWE HAVE KNOWN FOR YEARS THAT LAWYERS HAVE BEEN FORCING CLOSURE OF WEBSITES CRITICAL OF THEIR CRIMINALITY. THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST CASES THAT HAS SPILT OUT ONTO THE INTERNET AS THEY ARE STRUGGLING NOW TO SHUT DOWN THEIR HARASSMENT AND PERSECUTION CAMPAIGNS AGAINST ANYONE EXPOSING THEIR THUGGERY AND MASSIVE CRIMINAL THEFT OF LAND, BUSINESS, PROPERTY AND CHILDREN.
Good on the International Men's Organisation for their coverage against the crooked professions.
From Tugendhat & the Law Society's skewed viewpoint, a deceived and wronged Client has no right to challenge a lawyer and get a way with it (on the explanation that the complaints process's job is to repell as many complaints against lawyers as possible)
ReplyDelete===================================
Yes exactly and the problem with repelling complaints is that the lawyer is exonerated as a consequence. The evidence from Peter regarding Master Policy payouts = £0.00 confirms what you say here. We are back to the statement I have adapted from the political theorist John Stuart Mill made when he said the "first law of self regulators is that they want to impose their rights against clients, but not be subject to any public scrutiny themselves".
As you know the web sites are going to destroy their ability to ruin members of the public with impunity. We have had enough of a dictatorial legal state within a state. Lawyers are going to be held to account for their crimes, it keeps the E Bay community safe, and it will keep clients safe.
"We must be the only country in the world to spend a king's ransom on a palace and then fill it with half-wits" - John Dunn, Glasgow
ReplyDeleteYes, this was a deliberate counter-attack by lawyers on free speach and their attempts to neuter the blogosphere and the Law Society of Scotland are involved too. No surprise there!
ReplyDeleteWonder if they'll chip-in for Des's legal bill's now?
Very silly billy's.
To think they could get away with this blatant and arrogant rewriting of our rights and us 'common people' would be 'too stupid' to notice those skilled and debonaire deceivers!
What a huge mis-judgement, if you pardon the pun!
I was shocked to learn just how corrupt your country is!
ReplyDeleteOprah
So those of you looking for an opportunity to name & shame your poorly performing or even crooked lawyer, there is now even more choice to do so, courtesy of the Law Society’s attack on UK consumers right of free speech.
ReplyDelete============================
Yes that is wonderful Peter. I will not waste another moment.
This is from Solicitors From Hell 2
ReplyDeleteLaw Society Took Complaints From People With Legitimate Grievances And Did Nothing.
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?
But is the SRA any better? All will be revealed shortly
The Law Society, evil people masquarading as decency.
ReplyDeleteReading all the comments here it is not looking good for Solicitors or the Law Society
ReplyDeletePS I like the new Solicitors From Hell 2 website As well as this one
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThis is from Solicitors From Hell 2
Law Society Took Complaints From People With Legitimate Grievances And Did Nothing.
=================================
Hence the rise of dissent, Tugendat strange how you do not see this as harassment of clients. You must believe we are subhuman in comparison to your lawyers.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThis is from Solicitors From Hell 2
Law Society Took Complaints From People With Legitimate Grievances And Did Nothing.
The NHS are the same, a manager who is a nurse did nothing about a corrupt GP so we exposed the corrupt GP ourselves.
Where there is an office and a complaints handler there will always be A, protecting B and so on.
Want to expose a corrupt lawyer or doctor, do it yourself. There is no other way.
Oh I forgot to mention what did the GP's partners do to the patient when their colleague was lying about the patient. They threw the patient out of the practice. They stick together alright.
The Law Society is concerned about the enormous reputational damage that is, and can be, done to firms and lawyers as a result of their being listed on the Website Solicitors From Hell.
ReplyDeleteWell Law Society if you had the same buckets of compassion for the public as you do for lawyers you would not be in the mess you are in now. Power is slipping from your grasp and Hudson hates it so he and Tugendhat use harassment and data protection laws to crush free speech. What you want to do is silence the campaigners because people are learning to post on web sites rather then write to you corrupt private Law society where claims are destroyed no matter what the lawyer has done.
You are desperate now. Save the streets (a pressure group) in New York phoned the police and told them they were having a protest against the Mayor of New York. The police turned out in riot gear, the protesters wore suits and dresses, put up a sound system and player Vivaldi's Four Seasons. They handed out leaflets against the Mayor's proposed changes and had a tea party. One passer by said to one police officer "what are you doing here" and he said "we are protecting the public from this disturbance". The cop without realising it may have well been one of the protestors.
So where am I going with this? Just like Tugendhat and Hudson your decisions are like the policemans, you shooting yourselves in the foot by moving legal goalposts to curb free speech that does not suit your interests.
End of lecture.
Solicitors From Hell 2 state
ReplyDeleteUSA Citizens v UK Laws
Libel Laws in the UK are atrocious, its like the country we used to love has gone back in time to medieval times when British Forces ruled the new world. We adapted most of there laws, but also adapted them with common sense. Something it appears that the Judiciary has none.
Latest news is not just libel laws but freedom of speech is blocked in the UK by other laws. Harassment is the new libel law of the UK and you can tell the truth and still be guilty of it. What a disgrace.
==============================
Yes well said people can be convicted for telling the truth by lawyers twisting the law in their own vested interests.
The British Legal Establishment, a corrupt state within a state.
13 December 2011 19:46
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
Couldn't agree more. Point well made.
The cruelest part of the Law Society of Scotland's deceit of the people is the pernicious way they continually humiliate the Client victim to such an extent that there is irreversable damage done, as if to teach them a lesson for having the timerity to challenge their indefatigable position.
This takes a remarkable degree of calculation, design, spite and vindictiveness that shows that the Decision makers who have been the Office Bearers for the past number of years are truly evil individuals.
13 December 2011 11:00
ReplyDeleteTo Mr Tugendhat:
You seem to be under the misapprehension that a member of Society OTHER than a lawyer would be interested in your attempts at justifying your Decision.
SFH 2 are not listening either, no matter how loudly you shout that it it is not fair and that you must be listened to!
Go Figure, as the good ole boys from the U S of A would say
Here is a topic for discussion:
ReplyDeleteOk, A Scottish lawyer causes untold misery and suffering to his Client, due to his dishonesty and trickery.
The Victimised Client, quite rightly posts the catalogue of criminal actions perpetrated by this Scottish lawyer.
Then the Crown Office, the Law Society of Scotland and SSDT let them off Scot-Free.
The Scottish lawyer (backed-up by the Law Society in the back ground - as they have to make sure they have to appear unconnected or this could lead to a charge of defeating the ends of justice) objects to these postings and claims defamation or harassment.
Here is the conundrum and Mr Tugendhat may have to consider this at some point:
This predisposes that the lawyer has a conscience?
For, they would have to have a conscience in order to be genuinly aggreived to feel defamed or harassed!
However, if a lawyer is deceitful and behaves unlawfully, then they clearly are without conscience, therefore anyone could reasonably expect to say anything about them (post) safe in the knowledge that the lawyer could not be upset...
Thereby, the libel, defamation and harassment laws would be EXEMPT from being used by Society's crooks against honest members of Society who seek to expose those crooks.
Which is exactly the position that the COURTS were INTENDED TO UPHOLD.
TO PROTECT SOCIETY AGAINST MINORITY INTEREST
Mr Tugendhat's view on this is encouraged?
The problem here is that the Legal Profession have the unreserved power of being able to talk complete and utter drivel and have it enforced by Law. Alleged Libel became Harassment instead.... and Data Protection was also mentioned....a bit of a Xmas shopping list of adjectives in this festive season. Mr Tugenhdat could equally have said Turkey and Mincepies as this farcical drama has been a ridiculous debacle rather than a victory for the Law Society.
ReplyDeleteTruth is what the voice within tells you - Mahatma Ghandi
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what the likes of the Law Society of Scotland and Judges seek to crush from our broken bodies.
They want us to believe blindly in 'THEIR TRUTH' because they know what is good for us.
We are no longer treated as human beings, free people, born equal on the earth.
They are acting out a mendacious belief that they are our overlords and we are unthinking, unemotional, undeserving, plebian PERSONS, without any rights in Society.
Mere pawns of the State to be used and discarded as they-see-fit and to be expected to know our place. Do as we are told. Keep Silent. And let them continue to lie, cheat, steal and deceive in their persuit of power.
If the Law Society of Scotland had used as much time, energy & public funding into weeding out the rotten Scottish lawyers over the past thirty years and ensuring they were fit to practice instead of destroying the lives of the Client victims of crooked Scottish lawyers, spending Millions of pounds over the past thirty years, they could have had a properly functioning profession and would not need to be steeped in criminality.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that it was the Law Society of Scotland's long-term holding Office Bearers who have made conscious decisions to take the Scottish lawyer profession down the route of scandal and corruption because they have been allowed to act above the law with impunity.
Maybe SFH 2 will finally provide the Scottish Public to finally receive some true justice.
ReplyDeleteThe Statutory bodies have shown by their actions that they have no intentions of defending the rights of the victims of crooked Scottish lawyers and the Scottish polititions are too meek and afraid to lose their fragile grip of power that they do not dare go against the Law Society of Scotland for fear of their tentacles of total influence
Now the Scottish public will be able to expose them all, so that the information can be brought into the public domain and the wider press can freely print it and we can rid the Country of her evil hanger-on leeches, who's only purpose is to suck the blood from our bones to leave our carcasses husk dry.
SFH 2 is the beginning of the end of the tyranny in Scotland.
ReplyDeleteThink of the fair and just Society we will have once the evil gravy slurpers are gone.
Think of the hundreds of Millions of pounds that will be freed-up and made available to the whole of Society instead of going to just the evil few band of criminals, as it does now.
Given the Solicitor For Hell Two Website that is about to take the Blogosphere by storm and about to expose and name all of the Legal crooks and what they have been up to, in their attempts to cause lawyers victims damage and distress.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if any of them wake bolt-upright in the middle of night with visions of the revelations of what will meet them when they move on from their time of trachery on earth?
In Hell you cannot fix the rules to suit youtselves and your mates.
There are no laws for you to act above.
Oh. What was that.
You don't believe in Hell?
Oh dear!
It's going to be a REAL shock for YOU then?....