Thursday, January 05, 2012

Appeal lodged against High Court’s takedown of Solicitors from Hell, ICO tells Law Society CEO Des Hudson ‘to live with consumer criticism of lawyers’

solicitors-from-hellAppeal lodged against High Court’s decision to remove Solicitors from Hell website from internet. SOLICITORS FROM HELL (SfH) is back in the news for 2012 after its owner, Rick Kordowski revealed he has filed an appeal against the recent High Court decision by Hon. Mr Justice Michael Tugendhat in the case of The Law Society, Hine Solicitors & Kevin McGrath & a cast of others v Rick Kordowski to grant the Law Society of England & Wales its injunction for the removal of the now well known Solicitors from Hell website which allowed clients & consumers to rate their solicitors & post reviews of their experiences with law firms & lawyers from across the UK.

Diary of Injustice reported on the legal action taken by the Law Society of England & Wales against Mr Kordowski and his website:  ‘SolicitorsFromHELL.co.uk’ in November 2011, here : Solicitors From Hell removed from internet as UK High Court grants injunction to Law Society of England & Wales to censor client reviews of lawyers

The injunction, secured by Hugh Tomlinson QC and Sara Mansoori of Matrix Chambers as announced on Brett Wilson LLP’s blog, followed a successful application for judgment in default against Mr Rick Kordowski, the owner of the SfH website. The full judgement in the case can be read here : The Law Society, Hine Solicitors & Kevin McGrath v Rick Kordowski

Speaking late last week, Mr Kordowski said : “I was tempted to leave it and let it go down in  history as one of the most ‘archaic’ judgments of all time. However, now that the Law Society of England and Wales  have been served with the necessary paperwork, this judgment and order is in  the process of being formally appealed.”

Mr Kordowski said : “The individuals who accompanied the Law Society  on the claim against me failed to follow the Pre-Action protocol code. I am also perplexed to why these individuals had not (and still haven’t)  contact me to ask who the authors of the words complained about were.”

Mr Kordowski has also indicated he will take the case all the way to the European Court if he loses the latest appeal in the UK Courts. Mr Kordowski said that in the event of his appeal being  turned down by the higher appeal court here in the UK, with the help of legal advice provided by the mainstream media, he will take this  case to the European Court in Strasbourg where he feels he will receive a fairer hearing and a more ‘balanced’ approach to the matter.

Lawyers & their grudges ? Law Society Chief Executive Desmond Hudson Des Hudson the £400K-A-YEAR Chief Executive of the Law Society of England & Wales who pursued the SfH website through the courts at huge cost to members, commented in a Press Release at the time of the High Court’s decision : “This website has served simply as a vehicle for pursuing personal grudges and vendettas against conscientious and reputable firms and legal professionals. Far from being of any help to consumers, it has been a danger. Some excellent firms have been listed on the website, and exclusion from the site has more often than not been a matter of whether a firm has been prepared to pay a fee to have the listing removed. I feared the website was directing people in real need of help away from professionals best placed to assist them.”

However, it has come to light Mr Hudson and the Law Society received little joy from their attempts to involve the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in their battle to remove the Solicitors from Hell website from the internet, raising further questions over the High Court’s decision to side with the vested interests of the legal profession out to block their own client’s right of free speech to rate and review the service provided by UK based lawyers & law firms.

Diary of Injustice has been passed a copy of a letter from the Information Commissioner Christopher Graham to Desmond Hudson, CEO of the Law Society. The Information Commissioner’s office confirmed the letter as genuine and said they had no objection to it being published in full. The letter can be downloaded HERE

Law Society is told to live with criticism and ‘censoring online comments against lawyers is not a job for the Information Commissioner’ In the letter, Christopher Graham, the  Information Commissioner said to the Law Society’s Chief Executive, Mr Hudson : “We have looked at the website and agree that some of the content that individuals have posted about solicitors is highly offensive, although some of it does strike me as representing, on the face of it, credible accounts of the experiences that some individuals may have had of their solicitors.The inclusion of the ‘domestic purposes exemption in the Data Protection Act (s.36) is intended to balance the individual’s right to respect for his/her private life with the right to freedom of expression. These rights are equally important and I am strongly of the view that this is not the purpose of the DPA to regulate an individual’s right to freedom of expression – even where the individual uses a third party website, rather than his own facilities, to exercise this.”

“The situation would clearly be impossible where the Information Commissioner to be expected to rule on what it is acceptable for one individual to say about another, be that a solicitor or another individual. This is not what my Office is established to do. This is particularly the case where other legal remedies are available – for example, the law of libel or incitement.”

“There is still a considerable lack of certainty concerning the extent to which website operators are legally responsible for the content they host, Although solicitorsfromhell/Mr Kordowski may well be a data controller, and is indeed registered as such, the instigators of the website;’s content are generally private individuals expressing their own views. Their activity attracts the s.36 exemption, which emanates ultimately from Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

“In giving due weight to freedom of expression in cases like this we have to accept that enforcing the data protection principles in respect of the activities of the website owner is likely to entail a disproportionate level of interference with the rights of the contributors, however unpleasant their contributions may be.”

“We also have to accept that contributing to, and using, ratings and customer feedback sites – of variable quality – has become an established part of consumers’ online behaviour.”

Others also question the High Court’s decision to side with the Law Society and grant the removal of the Solicitors from Hell website from public view after it became known the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) is also to embark on a similar strategy of naming & shaming solicitors & law firms who fail their clients, a fact reported by Diary of Injustice in early November 2011, 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.

So, the battle is on to restore Solicitors from Hell to the internet, and thus restore the right of consumers across the country to freely comment on and rate the services of their legal representatives, just like all other consumers purchasing products & services across the land.

In the meantime new websites have emerged to allow clients to post their opinions about lawyers :

Cowboy SolicitorsCOWBOYSOLICITORS.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.

SFH2Solicitors 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.

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

“We also have to accept that contributing to, and using, ratings and customer feedback sites – of variable quality – has become an established part of consumers’ online behaviour.”

Yes we do Mr Hudson.Even solicitors must accept this.If you dont want criticism do your business properly and you wont upset consumers.

Anonymous said...

Instead of Bully Boy Hudson using the Court for his personal vendetta against lawyer client victims, he may have inadvertently defamed poor Mr Kordowski with his vexatious press statement?



Anthony Blair

Anonymous said...

Well, I can probably supply you with a letter from Hudson to me stating that he has no problem with online criticism of solicitors. Just seems he had a particular problem with Rick.

The 'harrassment' part of that judgement is something which I believe is an almightly clanger by the judiciary - not to mention the data protection issue.

So, on the face of it, ample grounds to appeal but will the Libel Reform Campaign and the media actually pick up on the wider implications of the judgement and support Mr K? Probably not. It is time to stick together and pull our resources. Without that unity and focus on the parts of the judgement which have big holes, RK stands no chance and another opportunity wasted.

These solicitors and the Law Society are fighting free speech and criticism by claiming anyone who posts a negative comment is a crank. So far, they are succeeding to some extent.

Regarding Peter's last article which is also relevant to this - the only way to be the hunter (and not the hunted) is to be unified. Individuals will not name and shame until they know they have the full support of sites like this and the Libel Reform Campaign against any 'harrassment' claim. Believe me I have seen people silenced for years by one threat of libel on a bulletin board.

Time for more support. Without that the legal profession will simply carry on as before.

Anonymous said...

Nice of the ICO to tell the LS to get lost.Cant help wondering if the LS tried to make life difficult for the ICO after this letter.Its their usual although I dont need to tell you that do I!

Anonymous said...

This is very odd.

I was told by a Law Society employee this letter you have published from the ICO to Mr Hudson "does not exist".

Can you disclose your source ?

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 5 January 2012 19:12

The Information Commissioner's Office authenticated the letter as genuine and said they had no objection to its publication.You can check with the ICO if you like.

Anonymous said...

Am I to understand the Law Society or some within it have denied the existence of this letter from ICO Christopher Graham to Des Hudson?

More dirty tricks at play?

Anonymous said...

Victory to Rick Kordowski against legal dictatorship.

Anonymous said...

I am full of admiration for Rick Kordowski.

The legal profession routinely use delay and conspicuous obstruction tactics to grind down parties - particularly party litigants - and it is good to see Mr Kordowski has learned from that and is playing them at their own game.....namely unforgiving and unrelenting legal action to the very top.

And all the while gaining additional adverse publicity for the Law Societies of the UK - WELL DONE RICK !

Anonymous said...

I was told by a Law Society employee this letter you have published from the ICO to Mr Hudson "does not exist".

5 January 2012 19:12
-----------------------------------

Not like the Law Society to tell lies?...

Anonymous said...

So, the battle is on to restore Solicitors from Hell to the internet, (BRILLIANT) and thus restore the right of consumers across the country to freely comment on and rate the services of their legal representatives, just like all other consumers purchasing products & services across the land.

HUSDON YOU INVESTIGATE IN AN OFFICE FULL OF LAWYERS.

WE MUST HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO LEAVE FEEDBACK IN THE PUBLIC REALM OF CYBERSPACE. YES THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSALITY AGAIN HUDSON.

BLIND PREJUDICE FROM THE LAW SOCIETIES AND TUGENDHAT, GROW UP HUDSON, WEB SITES HOW CAN THEY BE A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC, NO THEY ARE A DANGER TO YOUR OUT OF DATE LEGAL DICTATORSHIP.

Anonymous said...

Mr Kordowski will not receive a fair hearing in any British courtroom so he may as well start preparing for Europe now.

I wish him well.

Anonymous said...

The key part of that letter "“We also have to accept that contributing to, and using, ratings and customer feedback sites – of variable quality – has become an established part of consumers’ online behaviour." shows a huge gulf between the attitudes of the Information Commissioner and the High Court.

Clearly the Court is out of touch on this and at any rate cannot be trusted to rule impartially as the Courts are little more than a business model run by the legal profession for its own profit - as you have said many times before,Peter.

Good luck Rick and all those who expose corruption in the justice system and the identities of crooked lawyers.

Anonymous said...

The Law Society V Kordowski case is a good judgement for people like myself. I am a cowboy builder and build dodgy extensions for a living.

Unfortunately Anne Robinson and Matt Allwright finally caught up with me and are about to feature me on their programme - BBC Watchdog as a rogue trader.

I was going to sue for libel but realised I could not as all their allegations against me are true.
But I take it from all this I can now launch harassment and breach of data protection proceedings against Ms Robinson?

During the secret filming I was observed relieving myself (three times) in the garden of my client's property and regard this as a gross intrusion into my privacy and for me being named and shamed about my appalling work. I feel harassed!

I intend to seek an injunction preventing BBC Watchdog from further harassment and breaching data protection. Let's hope I get Tugenghat and close them down for good! After all, according to him, the truth is no defence.

Law Society V Kordowski

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.

Anonymous said...

I take it the existence of the ICO's letter was concealed due to the fact the desired outcome of dragging Mr Graham into the fray was not achieved.

You may be interested to know there are rumours circulating the Law Society has spent about £1 million on having a go at solicitors from hell.

What a waste!

Anonymous said...

He wont get far - the court has already sided with the lawyers so it will either have to be Europe or another website.It might also be helpful to the cause to wait and see how the Legal Ombudsman approaches naming & shaming.

Anonymous said...

Your freedom of speech laws are really bad.



Ali Khamenei

Anonymous said...

I'm running a bet with one of our senior partners to see who can bring in the most inflated fees this year.Catch me if you can hahahahahaha

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 6 January 2012 18:14

You will make a mistake and be found out ...

# Anonymous @ 5 January 2012 22:16

I agree with your comments about the court not being impartial enough to rule on this matter ...

From centuries of evidence one could conclude the courts are far too partisan for the vested interests of the legal establishment in their judgements involving cases against the legal profession ...

Anonymous said...

If Hudson or Tugendhat got a builder to renovate either or their homes and the builder ruined one of their houses they would be quick to instruct their wolf pack law firms to come down on the builder like a ton of bricks.

But the same bastards want their own profession protected to the extent their prejudice closed Solicitors From Hell. It would be fine for the builder to face a legal action for damages for Hudson or Tugendhat but the rules change when a client wants to sue or criticise their lawyer. This means lawyers can do whatever they want to members of the public. a total outrage.

The want to use the system to protect their own interests but block the public from protecting their interests. These people are not fit to work in a justice system.

Anonymous said...

Hudson said

“This website has served simply as a vehicle for pursuing personal grudges and vendettas against conscientious and reputable firms and legal professionals. Far from being of any help to consumers, it has been a danger. Some excellent firms have been listed on the website, and exclusion from the site has more often than not been a matter of whether a firm has been prepared to pay a fee to have the listing removed. I feared the website was directing people in real need of help away from professionals best placed to assist them.”
--------------------------------
THIS IS TOTAL RUBBISH, NO WEB SITE EXPOSING CROOKED LAWYERS IS A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC. HUDSON REALLY BELIEVES THIS S**T AND THAT IS WHY THE PROFESSION IS NOT TRUSTED.

ANTI LAWYER WEB SITES ARE THE RESULT OF LAW SOCIETY CORRUPTION, BELIEVE ME THEY HAVE COVERED UP MANY OF THE CRIMES ON THE WEB SITES, THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SOCIETIES ARE THERE FOR. WHERE LAWYER CRIMINALITY IS CONCERNED NO MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN POSSIBLY REASON WITH PEOPLE LIKE HUDSON. THEY BELIEVE THE PUBLIC HAVE NO RIGHT TO CHALLENGE WHAT THEY DO, THEY THINK THEY ARE LEGAL GODS.

THE LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE A LAWYER WHO LEFT HIS CLIENT WITH NO MONEY FOR FIVE MONTHS. WE CAN PROVE THIS FROM DOCUMENTATION. THE REASON THE CLIENT WAS IN LITIGATION AGAINST AN EMPLOYER FOR OCCUPATIONAL INJURY BUT THE LAW SOCIETY AND THE EMPLOYER SHARED THE SAME INSURERS, SO THE LAW SOCIETIES INSURERS WOULD HAVE BEEN PAYING THE CLIENTS DAMAGES, SO THE LAWYER TRIED TO STARVE THE CLIENT INTO SUBMISSION. HE KNOWN WHO HE IS. HE GOT AWAY WITH IT AND IS STILL WORKING.

DO NOT BELIEVE ANY LAW SOCIETY OFFICIAL, THE WEB SITES ARE THERE TO PROTECT YOU FROM A MENDACIOUS NETWORK OF SELF REGULATING CRIMINALS. THEY MAKE A FORTUNE AND THEY CAN ROB YOU OF YOUR LIFE SAVINGS, RUIN YOU, DO WHAT THEY WANT BECAUSE THEY WORK TOGETHER.

THE LAW SOCIETIES ARE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSERS, THEY HAVE SO MUCH CONTEMPT FOR US THEY THINK IT IS FINE TO EXPLOIT US. NO MORE.

Anonymous said...

From centuries of evidence one could conclude the courts are far too partisan for the vested interests of the legal establishment in their judgements involving cases against the legal profession.
==================================
Yes Peter the ruling Tugendhat shutting down Solicitors From Hell is the same way the Law Societies of the UK deal with complaints about lawyers, shut the complaint down.

They all share the same mental attitudes of protecting each other. What we are witnessing is legal profession revulsion of the public, who they believe are fair game for abusing. Is Tugendhat saying all of us who posted on SFH are liars? We are not Tugendhat your profession are the liars and many of you should be jailed for crimes against humanity. These people need to learn their place.

The Law Societies are the sworn enemy of every member of the public said...

The Law Societies like U Boat submariners have one purpose. Sink those like Rick who allow us to post the truth about lawyers the Law Societies protect.

Law Firms going out of business means lost revenue for the Law Societies, that is why Hudson wants to kill of complaints the Law Societies should have dealt with.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I'm running a bet with one of our senior partners to see who can bring in the most inflated fees this year.Catch me if you can hahahahahaha
------------------------------------
Well if you are a lawyer just screw clients and the Legal Aid, who will stop you, Hudson's lot, I do not think so because you are a law unto yourselves, for now.

Who needs advice from Hudson said...

“This website has served simply as a vehicle for pursuing personal grudges and vendettas against conscientious and reputable firms and legal professionals. Far from being of any help to consumers, it has been a danger.
=================================
Okay Hudson, with your excellent legal mind explain to us how "the website is a danger to consumers". As we are touched by your concern for us please enlighten us what danger SFH is?

Douglas Mill a man who was in your position in Scotland lied to the Justice 2 committee, he is on bentjudges.com as I am sure you know. He was protecting the Master Policy against a legitimate claim. Clearly Mill was a danger to consumers. Put it this way I have twelve years no claims bonus for safe driving. I would be shocked if you DID NOT GET A BONUS for killing off claims against claimants in England and Wales.

You are full of the brown stuff Hudson, I would trust any client or web sites before I would trust a man like you.

Mill was sorry not for killing off a legitimate claim, but for getting caught. To use a legal term I know a meeting of the minds with you is impossible, you believe your own spin but you do not fool us. Bentjudges.com these are the criminals who are a danger to the public, you are a biased man out of touch with reality.

All you lawyers out there, people like Hudson are the problem not the solution.

Close the Law Societies said...

Where there is an office you can be sure the bums within will protect their bums outside to ruin you the client.

The Law Societies policy, makes it impossible to identify culprits, so they can go on to ruin more clients. They don't want you reading web sites for a reason, the truth that the Law Societies are corrupt cover up specialists. They are a massive danger to consumers. You will not get Hudson even condemning those on BentJudges.com who like those on SFH are guilty. Lawyers never do anything wrong do they Hudson?

Your advice Hudson, shove it said...

“This website has served simply as a vehicle for pursuing personal grudges and vendettas against conscientious and reputable firms and legal professionals. No Hudson here is the proper statement;

“These Law societies have served simply as a vehicle for pursuing personal grudges and vendettas against clients who have legitimate complaints by leaving them ruined, rightless outside the political community. The web sites are the only means clients have in 2012 for warning others and even if all postings on Solicitors from =Hell are true we shut is anyway".

All you nice people out there, Hudson is a spin doctor and not a very good one. I would rather kiss a Black Mamba than trust a lawyer, at least the snake would kill me quickly, not torture me for life.



I know I have complained to these mendacious lawyers.

Anonymous said...

http://www.bentjudges.com/

MASTER POLICY RACKET FINALLY EXPOSED

The University of Manchester's research confirms what everyone has known for years: that the Scottish Solicitors' Master Policy exists to protect lawyers - not clients. For years Mill, Platt and other senior members of Scotland's legal mafia have lied through their teeth by claiming that the Master Policy would cover clients in the event that their solicitor was negligent or dishonest. Note from the research document that both the Law Society and Marsh REFUSED to supply the researchers with any 'usable' master policy data. What a gang of cowards. So much for the Scottish legal profession's spirit of 'openness’ and ‘accountability'!

Jesus Christ, how can any web site be a danger to the public, he is burying his head in the sand. Hudson Mill had to resign from the Law Society of Scotland as you know, take a reality check man.

Anonymous said...

Those who are afraid of feedback on public forums, are not fit to practice.

TRUST NO LAWYER, I WAS RUINED TEN YEARS AGO AND I WILL STOP FIGHTING WHEN THE HUMAN CONDITION INTERVENES, WHEN I HAVE BREATHED MY LAST.

LAW SOCIETY RADICAL EVIL said...

The following excerpt is taken from the Galloway Gazette's article on the Forster Scandal....

The Gazette reveals how the Law Society of Scotland ignored complaints about disgraced former solicitor John Kennedy Forster for NINE YEARS and only acted after our exclusive coverage of clients' misgivings.

Forster was finally jailed for six and a half years for embezzling over £667,000 from client accounts even though The Law Society had told the Gazette as late as April 2000 that there were no aspects of the Forster case which required their intervention.

But just two weeks later, after further revelations by The Gazette, The Law Society finally handed over the Forster case to the Crown Office for possible criminal proceedings.
One former client told the Gazette this week that he felt betrayed by The Law Society and felt that no action would have been taken had The Galloway Gazette not brought extensive publicity to the case.

Positive Spin

Yet despite this, the Law Society last week sought to put a positive spin on its eventual handling of the Forster case after the former solicitor was finally jailed in the High Court.
Its President, Joe Platt insisted that the Society always worked in the best interests of the public.

He said: “This is an example of the Law Society doing its job well and taking every effort to ensure that the public are protected from any rogue solicitor.”


But Gazette Editor Peter Jeal said: “Far from demonstrating that The Law Society has ‘done it’s job well’ the Forster case has only served to highlight the need for an independent complaints authority to be set up.

What is clear from this sorry tale is that The Law Society cannot possibly serve the interests of its members, solicitors, and the interests of the public at the same time."

“On their own admission, they only started to take this case seriously in April 2000 after The Gazette highlighted client concerns which date as far back as 1991.
“We will be calling on the Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson, to put in place an independent complaints authority to deal with complaints against solicitors.”

Oh and Cathy Jamieson, well she wanted to close down Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers, some Justice Minister. The independent complaints authority she put in place is more bent than the Law Society of Scotland.

Anonymous said...

I intend to seek an injunction preventing BBC Watchdog from further harassment and breaching data protection. Let's hope I get Tugenghat and close them down for good! After all, according to him, the truth is no defence.

6 January 2012 06:29
===================================

Presumably you will also pursue BBC Watchdog and Ms Robinson
bankrupting her in the process and seeking to gain control of the programme and her intellectual rights through the liquidator?

Anonymous said...

To the tosser yesterday at 18:14 who said he was going to steal from his clients

I look forward to seeing your name and firm splattered all over the papers you crook

Law Society rot is catching up with them said...

So Mr Hudson does not like clients having their say. This is because he known deep down the Law Society is as corrupt as hell and they have left many thousands of people ruined over the decades.

Your Law Society Mr Hudson is like the church, there comes a point when children grow up and the truth comes out. Clients of lawyers know from bitter experience the Law Society specialise in Legal exoneration. Behind closed doors you engineer the outcome that protects corrupt solicitors. You do not like spoonfuls of your own medicine do you?

Anonymous said...

If the Law Society wants to make a fool of the UK legal system by using it to shut down consumer review websites then let it.The result will be much less business for lawyers as people become ever more suspicious of who they are dealing with and more websites dedicated to naming & shaming those who claim to be able to obtain justice for their clients while in reality they are milking them and the system.

Anonymous said...

The courts are just another branch of the Law Society as far as justice for anyone who is not a lawyer is concerned. Tugendhat thinks we will stop them any way we can, these uneducated clients who dare question professionals like us.

Time to fall of the plinth you put yourself on Tugendhat, you are nothing special just a man in a powerful job. Your rulings just reinforce what we already know.

1) A member of the public cannot sue a lawyer.

2) Lawyers are intolerant people who want to lord their power over clients but fear feedback from clients.

Hudson known what every lawyer and we know, lawyers can do what they want to people and that is why SFH and other sites sare critical. If structural engineers worked like lawyers they buildings would collapse around us.

Plato's character Glaucon said "we can have secret societies to cover up our crimes and appear respectable to the polity". The Law Society in a nutshell.

Anonymous said...

Appeal lodged against High Court’s takedown of Solicitors from Hell, ICO tells Law Society CEO Des Hudson ‘to live with consumer criticism of lawyers’
=================================
You see Hudson it is YOU and your LAWYER CHUMS who have to face the repugnant reality that Law Society power is crumbling. We have battlescars still raw from being treated as unimportant by office based corruption, and your days are numbered. People have had enough of a profession who want to protect each other and exploit the many. No more Hudson, your Law Society which blocks clients from the courts to save a lawyers career and leave us ruined. As Sherlock Holmes would say "Look my dear Hudson you have to learn your place and face the real consequences of your actions". In a dispute between client and lawyer the latter always win, not due to honesty but due to self regulation.

We Hudson are regulating you whether you like that or not. If I could send my complaint to you or put it on a web site you would never receive it. Complaining to the Law Societies is a frustrating experience and clients have learned, bypass the Law Societies of the UK if you want justice.

It is like World War II on the Eastern Front, like the partisans we target the supply lines (OF NEW CLIENTS) and tell people what the Law societies really stand for. INJUSTICE.

No one will steal your childrens inheritance Hudson, and we will stop your lawyers stealing our kids money too by driving your lawyers out of business. Crooked lawyers are going to be extinct.

Anonymous said...

“In giving due weight to freedom of expression in cases like this we have to accept that enforcing the data protection principles in respect of the activities of the website owner is likely to entail a disproportionate level of interference with the rights of the contributors, (WELL SAID I TOTALLY AGREE) however unpleasant their contributions may be.”

Mr Hudson what is happening here is that you so used to self regulations advantages are attempting to use any means to close web sites. This is an outrage and I can assure you the more you can close the more will appear on the web. The internet is owned by no one, freedom of expression is vital for us. Self regulation is simply avoiding the consequences of actions. It is outdated, outragous and a crime against innocent people who are forced to trust criminals who know they are 100% above the law. Where there is an office there will be a coverup.

Oh and all those good reputable firms you rant about. The profession is not reputable, a law breaking rabble who look after each others interests.

Anonymous said...

This would be like a company using the courts to shut down Which? and their website just because they had criticised products etc

Evidence enough the courts are utterly corrupt.

Anonymous said...

I said before - action is what is now needed.

Peter has stated he wants people to name and shame. People will not do so until libel and harassment laws are clarified. Fact.

Over to you Peter. There will be a great deal going on in 2012 regarding Libel Reform and I hope you continue to play a part. Please understand in the meantime why folks are still on the back foot. These people need support - not words but action.

Still lots of work to be done.

Anonymous said...

There are some fantastic passionate contributions on here...

These Lawyers, Judges, Sheriffs, and Prosecuters claim to deal in the business of TRUTH but instead they trade in lies.

They claim to be righteous with characters above reproach but instead they involve themselves in vice and corruption.

Justice used to be the Pillar of Principle that held the system aloft.

Now sadly, that Pillar upon which Justice was built has been reduced to rubble and sand due to the carelessness and neglect by successive custodians of the system, who have not felt the need to put the work in to maintain the standards required to preserve Justice.

So that we now have 'their justice', which is literally a poor-mans justice.

A hap-hazard, pot-luck justice system, which is no longer determined upon the Legal Principles at issue but can be determined by a variety of variables that are subject to continuous influence.

Quite simply, greed and a system that has steadily and continuously been steered towards self interest has ruined the system beyond repair.

These people have shown by their repeated actions that they are drunk on power and are no longer capable of steering the ship.

There is only one solution and they Lawers will have to reorganise themselves quickly if they are ever going to have the trust of the public again:

(i) The Law Society of Scotland no longer represents its members and has become a power crazed monster.

Disband it.

(ii) There must then be three distinct specialist organisations, all who have transparent and public supported regulation.

Those who Prosecute and they will belong to a distinct separate organisation from those who Defend.

The third separate organisation will be those who Judge, who will matriculate into a new organisation only if and when they have demonstrated an outstanding and longlasting ability to attain the high moral standards, far higher than those shown by their peers, to justify their position.

Each discipline then can concentrate on ensuring the performance of their own members is maintained to a high level of skill and expertise and each discipline will not be holding to one another, as it is now.



Then we will have our Justice back.

Anonymous said...

Look Desmond old boy, are your Scottish chums going to target BentJudges.com or any other of the campainers sites? They are all true too yes Douglas Mill is a crook, so are all of the others but do these sites present a danger to the public.

Let me give you some advice, people in holes should stop digging. If I lied in a Court of Law I would face the consequences. But the lawyers Court of Law in many instances bypasses public courts and allows people like you to deal with your members who pay your Law Society for practicing certificates. If a lawyer is struck off you lose money because he does not need a certificate.

Similarly if a client is entitled to compensation would you lose your no claims bonus. If you watch Michael Moores Sicko, doctors get large bonuses for writing condition not treatable. One doctor confessed this to Congress because people on Medicare are dying when theyr condition is treatable.

People need to start seeing lawyers as bank managers, or insurance company managers, you link justice to money and the lawyer is saved and the insurers DO NOT PAY OUT.

I am not surprised you are on £400,000.00 per annum, you must be saving the Law Societies insurers great sums of money.

PS Watch Sicko, and you will see Law Society practices in the Medicare world. Taking out insurance against illness is a waste of money, the conditions not treatable are infinite.


Oh Blue Chip companies are taking out life insurance policies on their employees. They complained they were losing money because too few of their employees were passing away, see Sicko.

Anonymous said...

David Cameron £4m - Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service

The PM and his wife both come from wealthy backgrounds and enjoy substantial property assets of their own: their London home has been valued at £2.7million and their constituency house at £1million. Mrs Cameron’s work as the creative director of Smythson, the upmarket stationers, earned her a £300,000 bonus. Both are in line to inherit fortunes from their parents: the combined wealth of the Camerons’ parents has been put as high as £30million.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1280554/The-coalition-millionaires-23-29-member-new-cabinet-worth-1m--Lib-Dems-just-wealthy-Tories.html#ixzz1is7DIMSS

Anonymous said...

Joe Platt insisted that the Society always worked in the best interests of the public.
=================================

Just Like Douglas Mill protecting the Master Policy by his mendacity at the Justice 2 committee.

Your family of lawyers may trust you Joe, we do not. Joe, your statement is in direct conflict with the University of Manchester's researchers. It should be called The Liars Society.

Face reality Des Hudson said...

Hi Des Hudson,

Amazon has just introduced seller feedback, going the same way as E Bay. It will become the internet standard. So Des if you buy a laptop from Amazon, or E Bay and you can rate your experience of the seller (which protects other buyers) but you do not want me to rate you, or any of the the other lawyers in Britain. Online we have a balance of power developing, buyers and sellers rate each other. Your faction cannot expect different treatment because you are not selling laptops, you are dealing with individuals life savings, mortgages, wills, etc. Grow up Des, and face reality, consumer attitudes are changing and lawyers because of their onmipotence cannot be exempt from feedback. The culture of the Legal Services industry must change because we will never give up protecting others from the scourge of croooked lawyers. If that is too painful for you to handle resign.

Not being able to rate our lawyers my friend is sharp practice, and what is worse your lawyers take on cases against their own insurers and do not tell their clients.

Those who are afraid of feedback are not to be trusted.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever sat in a meeting and you say something and the person you are dealing with goes silent. It because they know you are right but they want the opposite to be the reality.

This is what happens in Councils where there is a manager protecting corrupt housing officers and it reviles me because someone is being framed because the housing officers colleague has complained about an innocent woman because her grandchildren cannot run through the accused woman's garden. It is an abuse of power and the only way to resolve it is to take the problem onto the streets letting others know what is happening.

Where there is an office,and a compliant from someone connected to the office there will be corruption and I have a hunch. Out there on the streets there are others who have been treated the same way. And housing officers and council employees know when the latter complain even if they are lying the FOI Act will protect them.

So an innocent person could be intimmidated out of their council home.

Just like the Law Society, MacAskill sent me a letter on FOI stating the Law Society is a Professional Organisation therefore exempt. How convenient Kenneth. So professional theives are protected just like council employees. Where is that vital balance of power?

They must never control cyberspace.

LAW SOCIETIES, LEGALISE CRIMINALLITY said...

Mr Hudson,

Joe Bloggs has been ruined by a lawyer. He goes to multiple law firms and cannot get a lawyer to help him. So Mr Hudson, I will tell everyone what the Law Societies should be saying if they were honest.

1) If any lawyer helps a ruined client The Law Societies will withdraw their practicing certificate.

2) All lawyers are insured by the same company so through the Law Societies and the latter do not want their insurers pating damages to anyone.

3) Paying damages will cost the Law societies more through increased insurance premiums.

4) The Law Societies will stop anyone's Legal Aid (if they could get it) and ruin any lawyer acting against another lawyer.

5) The Law Societies want this system as it is because it is profitable, exonerates crooked lawyers and is very efficient at leaving unimportant clients rightless.

Hudson said the web site was a danger to the public. What planet is he on, certianly not planet reality.

Anonymous said...

The Law Societies of the UK are as driven to protect their membership as the Nazi SS were driven to protect Adolf Hitler.

People have resorted to web sites because the Law Societies are dedicated to client injustice. The venom of Hudson and Tugendhat just reinforce this fact.

Anonymous said...

Hudson's comments prove he cannot stand lawyers being on the receiving end of the way they treat clients.

What goes around comes around. The boomerang effect Hudson, crooked lawyers will be extinct.

Anonymous said...

The Law Societies widespread maltreatment of clients over the decades, has destroyed their integrity as regulator of lawyers and protector of the public. Enough of us now know from dealing with them that their Statutory duty to protect clients is a worthless lie.

Put it this way, if everyone made false promises the institution of trust would collapse. In his book In Defence of Politics Bernard Crick wrote "where there is no freedom of speech there is no politics, where there is total freedom in relationships there is no love".

The Law Societies total freedom to cover up lawyer criminality behind office doors has wrecked that vital factor in all relationships of any worth, trust.

People are realising that contacting the Law Societies is a futile waste of time and Tugendhat's ruling against Solicitors From Hell is an attempt to crush the political rights of the public to work together just the same way as the Law Societies do, with one major difference, clients are telling the truth.

The Law Societies are staffed by intelligent people, but intelligence and common sense are not the same thing. Their years of abusing clients has got to the stage, few people in the know trust any lawyers.

The Law Societies would shut every internet site if they could. Their treatment of Rick Kordowski proves that they see clients as enemies, fair game for expliotation and Tugendhat has stamped his seal of approval as being anti client. He has shot the messenger rather than deal with those like myself who have posted the truth on Rick's site. I thank Rick for giving me the opportunity to do what the Law Society are against, naming and shaming their crooked membership,