Law Society’s database on solicitors “Too Toxic” to publish, public access to complaints info, horrific treatment of clients ‘may bankrupt’ law firms

Would consumers still trust lawyers if they were able to access full information on solicitors & law firms ? CALLS for the Law Society of England & Wales to share its database on solicitors with comparison websites have been resoundingly rejected by the legal profession, almost certainly on the basis of fears that clients & consumers will quickly desert law firms & solicitors across the country if consumers were to have access to the true scale of complaints against the legal profession. The claims made by campaigners & information access reformers come after it was reported last month Des Hudson, the £400K-A-YEAR Chief Executive of the Law Society of England & Wales swiftly rejected calls from the Legal Services Consumer Panel for regulators to opening up their professional registers so that the websites can provide basic information to consumers about the different services offered by law firms.

A report carried out by the Legal Services Consumer Panel looked at the barriers facing the emergence of comparison websites based on interviews with the industry. One practical barrier identified was a lack of access to professional registers held by approved regulators, meaning that comparison websites cannot obtain, in a usable form, even the basic information about lawyers, such as their contact details and areas of specialism. The report, which can be downloaded here : Legal Services Consumer Panel's report on comparison websites in legal services (pdf) recommended that approved regulators open up their professional registers for this and other purposes.

Elisabeth Davies, Chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, said: “Comparison websites are a welcome new feature in legal services as they could make it easier for consumers to choose lawyers and boost competition. But experience in other sectors has shown there are also risks – we are calling on website operators to demonstrate their commitment to consumer protection by signing up to some common sense good practice standards.”

She continued : “It’s staggering that so many lawyers are refusing leads generated through comparison websites. Consumers are unlikely to use these services again if they get turned away – it’s a massive own goal by the profession. There are a series of hurdles that comparison websites need to overcome before they are a major influence on consumer choice. Approved regulators could help break down these barriers by opening up their professional registers so that the websites can provide basic information to consumers about the different services offered by law firms.”

Predictably, the Law Society of England & Wales refused to share its own data on solicitors, its Chief Executive, Des Hudson who recently ended the right of clients to post their reviews & comments on experiences with solicitors on the well known website Solicitors From Hell, said the Law Society would not be sharing its data with the Legal Services Consumer Panel, or any other website not under the control of the legal profession.

One access to information campaigner from Brighton who has been involved in a long running campaign to free up solicitor’s complaints records in England & Wales told Diary of Injustice : “Clearly the Law Society of England & Wales do not want its own data on its solicitors, data which contains the appalling regulatory history of tens of thousands of solicitors & law firms across the country from falling into consumer hands, simply because if clients were to find out what their supposedly trustworthy solicitor has done to other clients, they will run a mile”

While the Law Society of England & Wales have refused to share data on their solicitors, consumers can still visit websites such as Solicitors from Hell 2 & Cowboy Solicitors from Hell to find out more about their solicitor, or perhaps post a review of their experiences at the hands of a lawyer.

Readers will of course be well aware the same problems exist in Scotland, where clients & consumers are not able to find out anything about their solicitors complaints records or how they have handled other legal work for clients. However, unlike in England & Wales, Scots consumers of legal services have no organisation such as the Legal Services Consumer Panel to call for a complete disclosure on all solicitors records to be made to the public.

The Law Society of Scotland’s own ‘too toxic to publish’ database on the Penmans, O’Donnells, Lockharts, McCabes, Danskins and more would probably shock so many Scottish clients, they too may do a runner from their lawyer’s office, and deservedly so.

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’

Appeal 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 :

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.

Solicitors From Hell removed from internet as UK High Court grants injunction to Law Society of England & Wales to censor client reviews of lawyers

UK High Court grants injunction to Law Society to remove Solicitors from Hell website from internet. SOLICITORS FROM HELL, the well known website which allowed clients to post online reviews in their own words of experiences with their legal representatives has been REMOVED from the internet after the Hon. Mr Justice Michael Tugendhat, sitting in the High Court in London granted an injunction to law firm Brett Wilson LLP on behalf of the Law Society of England & Wales, a so far unidentified law firm and a solicitor. 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.

Speaking to Diary of Injustice earlier today, Rick Kordowski said : “The Law Society issued an application for 'default' judgment. Justice Tugendhat, after perusing many avenues with Hugh Tomlinson QC as to the most appropriate course of action to stop me publishing, including at one stage the Public Disorder Act, decided to issue the default judgment along with two injunction with immediate effect.”

Mr Kordowski continued : “"Of all the 'Acknowledgement of Service' forms I have sent to the court in the past, I find it 'strange' that the one relating to The Law Society's class action, had not been lodged”.

The Law Society of England & Wales have now issued a press release on the decision, however a source already commented : “.. some of its members were happy the website had disappeared from existence”

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 : “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.”

While noting Mr Hudson’s comments, consumers have themselves, witnessed first hand the power of lawyers pursuing personal grudges & vendettas against clients who raise complaints with the Law Society of England & Wales & Legal Ombudsman (LeO), or in Scotland via the Law Society of Scotland & Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC).

Cases brought to the attention of Diary of Injustice over the years where lawyers have pursued personal vendettas & grudges against clients reveal instances of people being denied legal representation, being denied access to courts, being hounded by Police and other public agencies, coincidentally all occurring after a client had lodged a complaint against their solicitor. The grudges & vendettas all apparently helped along by equally prejudiced & vindictive officials at the Law Society of Scotland.

In on example, one elderly client who raised a complaint against their solicitor with the Law Society of Scotland, was threatened with having his pension taken away from him and being made homeless after his solicitor provided a false statement to Police & Benefits officials and the pensioner’s Housing Association, where a relative of the solicitor worked. No action was taken against the pensioner when all three agencies investigated the allegations and found them to be false. However, for some reason, the authorities took no action against the solicitor who provided the false information in order to intimidate his former client, and this same solicitor is known to have been the subject of many complaints to the Law Society including frauds against deceased client’s estates.

On a personal note, if Mr Hudson is looking for examples of lawyers pursuing personal grudges & vendettas against clients, there are many, usually involving the fabrication of evidence against former clients, or a more extreme example, where in one case a still-working solicitor asked one of his criminal clients to pour petrol through the letterbox of a client who raised a complaint about a £300K will fraud.

The Solicitors from Hell website has operated for a number of years, enabling clients of solicitors to write their own reviews of their lawyers work in their own words, something the Law Society of England & Wales have found difficult to accept, culminating in the Law Society’s use of the courts to silence the right of consumers to write about their own experiences and thus alert others as to the potential dangers of dealing with a solicitor or law firm which had already failed their clients.

A long campaign by the Law Society of England & Wales against the Solicitors from Hell website ensued, which at times drew highly personalised & bitter attacks on its owner, Mr Kordowski. In one now widely reported instance Des Hudson the £400K-A-YEAR Chief Executive of the Law Society of England & Wales was alleged to have branded Mr Kordowski “a criminal” after a BBC Radio debate with Law Professor John Flood, Additional coverage on the Law Society v Solicitors from Hell battle over naming & shaming 'crooked lawyers' has been reported by Diary of Injustice in earlier articles,, HERE.

A legal observer commenting on the decision branded lawyers use of the courts against consumers of legal services as“vile” & “degrading to free speech”. He said : “There is clearly a problem with the legal system when lawyers and their lobby groups can use the courts to prevent clients talking freely about the level of service they receive from their legal representatives.”

He continued : “The removal of Solicitors from Hell from the internet simply because a profession feared it was losing business because its clientele were able to write the gory details of how badly their solicitors handled their legal affairs is an attack on free speech and will rightly leave people even more suspicious about dealing with solicitors.”

An official from a well known consumer group, speaking to Diary of Injustice on the matter commented : “Whatever the rights & wrongs of the website, censorship is never to be welcomed in a democracy. With cases such as this, the perception of our legal system is that the courts are giving more rights to convicted criminals & terrorists than consumers who want to write about their own experiences in the legal world or alert others about the poor treatment they have suffered at the hands of the legal profession.”

While the Law Society of England & Wales, its members, and apparently the Law Society of Scotland are happy today over the demise of the Solicitors from Hell website, the legal action to delete SFH from public view, legal action which both Law Societies were planning to use in a similar way to deter the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) from 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.

Legal Ombudsman was to be subject of desperate personal attacks from lawyers in attempt to thwart official naming & shaming by LeO. Some within the legal profession of England & Wales have branded the Legal Ombudsman’s decision to name & shame lawyers & law firms who fail their clients as a “witch hunt” however, details of just how solicitors hoped to ‘persuade’ the Legal Ombudsman not to go ahead with a naming & shaming policy are nothing short of a witch hunt on their own, where material disclosed to Diary of Injustice indicated key officials from both the Scottish & English legal professions discussed angles of attack against the LeO which clearly inferred members of the Legal Ombudsman’s staff were to be subject to the same types of personal & public criticism by the legal profession against others who reported on ‘solicitors wrongdoings’ if the LeO went ahead with naming & shaming.

Attempts by the legal profession throughout the UK to persuade the Legal Ombudsman against naming & shaming ultimately did not succeed, with the Legal Ombudsman announcing last week it will be naming & shaming solicitors in certain circumstances, beginning next year in 2012, reported in more detail 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.

A final message from Rick Kordowski on the Solicitors from Hell website, before it was ordered removed by the High Court stated : Your right to ‘Freedom of Speech’ - Preserved!

I would like to thank the dozens of authors who have taken the trouble to write and send in a Witness Statement confirming that what is posted on this website is true. I would also like to thank the lawyers and barristers who have contacted me offering their pro-bono help and expressing their concerns about the Law Society’s High Court action to have this website shut down.

However, past experience has taught me that regardless of how much evidence I present in the High Court to support my defence or claim, the judicial system will always side with the law firm, solicitor, or in this case The Law Society.

In order to secure the future of this website and your right to freedom of speech, I have decided to give the website away. The new experienced owners, who operate overseas, will be taking this site to the next level in terms of world wide promotion and ease of access by the public.

All current reviews will need to be re-entered and they will be posted automatically on a new style website (similar to TripAdvisor). Authors will be able to edit and update their listings at any time. Others can make further reviews and solicitors can post a response. Full rating system and the ability to upload evidence, to name just a few advantages. All totally free of charge and out of the reach of The Law Society of England and Wales.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone again for their previous support and kind words. Godspeed.

This article has been updated to include the Press Release from the Law Society of England Wales and additional material. It is very clear to this journalist from this situation, and all clients who have fell by the wayside before it, that a lawyer harbouring a grudge and pursuing a personal vendetta against clients who are forced to complain about the quality of their legal services, is most certainly a greater threat to society at large than any consumer advocate.

Criminal in nature ? Law Society Chief Des Hudson off the hook over ‘criminal’ jibe against Solicitors from Hell website owner as judge dismisses case

Law Society of England & Wales Chief Des Hudson will not face court over “criminal” remarks against critics of crooked lawyers. Des Hudson the £400K-A-YEAR Chief Executive of the Law Society of England & Wales will not face further court scrutiny of his remarks branding the owner of naming & shaming website SOLICITORS FROM HELL “a criminal” after the judgement in the case published earlier today revealed Mr Justice Tugendhat has dismissed Mr Rick Kordowski’s claim for damages against the Law Society Chief who is alleged to have told Law Professor John Flood in reference to Mr Kordowski “That man is a criminal” and “He should be closed down”. The ‘disputed remarks’ were apparently born out of the Law Society’s frustration and it’s inability to prevent members of the public documenting their experiences at the hands of crooked lawyers on the Solicitors from Hell website.

The ruling in the case states that Mr Justice Tugendhat said Mr Kordowski’s complaint against the Law Society could not go ahead because he had not also complained about Mr Hudson’s alleged remarks being republished by others including Professor Flood. The judge said there was no evidence of any real or substantial harm to Mr Kordowski and also held the case brought against Des Hudson was “an abuse of court process”. The judge said : “Whether or not there is a good reason for refraining from suing in libel on the words posted by Professor Flood, that is not relevant to my decision that the action for slander on the words spoken to Professor Flood [by Hudson] is an abuse of the process of the court.”

Diary of Injustice reported on the claims in an earlier article, here : Naming crooks is criminal ? Law Society of England & Wales Chief Des Hudson to face legal action from Solicitors From Hell owner over "criminal" jibe

In this latest case, the Law Society of England & Wales was represented by QC Hugh Tomlinson, who is also representing the Law Society of England & Wales in their court efforts to have the Solicitors from Hell website taken down and all its content deleted forever from public view. It is understood Mr Tomlinson is the only QC who agreed to represent the Law Society in their attempts to have the Solicitors from Hell website taken offline.

Professor Flood’s statement to the court. Mr Hudson’s remarks against the Solicitors From Hell owner were corroborated by Professor John Flood in a written statement. Professor Flood’s statement read : I John Flood [address removed] provide the following statement of fact : It was about 12.30 on 21st July. I and Des Hudson had finished our live on-air discussion about Rick Kordowski and his website “Solicitors from Hell” on the BBC Radio 4’s ‘You and Yours’ programme. We were being led out of the BBC and as we were going through the doors at the BBC, Des Hudson said 'that man is a criminal' referring to Rick Kordowski, to which I replied, the police rejected that. Des Hudson further said 'he should be closed down' after that he went his way and I went mine".

Mr Hudson, responding to the allegations, told the court in his own statement, which has not been published in full : “Professor Flood suggested that our actions were likely to make Mr Kordowski a martyr and we would be seen as muzzling free speech. I replied that our actions were focussed on an issue that had nothing to do with free speech but rather his methods of collecting payment to remove comment. I believe that I said 'in my view this amounts to criminal behaviour which is why we have reported him to the police'. Professor Flood told me (and by this time I was almost at the main doors of the entrance hall to Broadcasting House) that the police would do nothing, and I remember speaking over my shoulder to him as I walked out of the room 'we'll see'. I did not say to Professor Flood 'that man is a criminal'. I would add that indeed it is my belief that the actions of Mr Kordowski are criminal in nature…."

A legal observer commenting on Mr Hudson’s submission challenged the Law Society Chief Executive's belief Mr Kordowski’s actions “are criminal in nature”. He said : “As far as I am aware, the Police are having nothing to do with the Solicitors from Hell website, and I think any reasonable person may think naming crooked lawyers so other consumers can avoid the same fate as ruined clients before them, is simply providing a much needed service to consumers of legal services we currently do not have. Naming and shaming crooks is certainly not an act which can be branded criminal in nature.”

The full judgement in Kordowski v Hudson can be read here : Kordowski v Hudson [2011] EWHC 2667 (QB). It is understood Mr Kordowski was ordered to pay £14,000 in costs and his application for permission to appeal was refused although Mr Kordowski said he would be appealing the judgement.

Speaking to Diary of Injustice, Professor Flood commented on the High Court decision against Mr Kordowski, saying : “At some point the legal profession must stop trying to shoot the messenger and listen to the complainants' voices and work to recreate the professional bargain of caring for clients.”

A legal insider speaking to Diary of Injustice this afternoon partly blamed the Legal Ombudsman for as-yet failing to use its powers of naming & shaming rogue solicitors as a factor in ongoing court attempts by the Law Society of England & Wales to pursue websites which name & shame the worst elements of the UK’s legal profession.

He said : “The Legal Ombudsman in England & Wales already possess the necessary power and backing to identify poorly performing solicitors in published decisions. If the LeO had already begun publishing the names of solicitors who fail their clients, I believe the Law Society’s case against the Solicitors from Hell website with an aim to having it taken down would also have been thrown out. ”

LEGAL OMBUDSMAN STILL TO NAME & SHAME CROOKED LAWYERS :

Legal Ombudsman for England & Wales is expected to decide on naming & shaming before end of the year. AS DEMANDS GROW from consumers of legal services in Scotland & throughout the UK for an independent and transparent ratings system for lawyers & law firms, insiders from the consumer world report the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) which regulates complaints against the legal profession in England & Wales is expected to decide by the end of the year at the latest on how it will finally proceed to identify ‘crooked lawyers’ who have been found guilty of failing their clients after being subjected to investigations by the independent law complaints regulator.

Legal Ombudsman for England & Wales, Adam Sampson has backing to name rogue lawyers & law firms.As the LeO’s plan to identify solicitors & law firms in complaints judgements has the backing of consumer organisations such as Which?, and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), the UK Government and the Legal Services Consumer Panel, more of which cab be read in an earlier report here : Legal Ombudsman moving to name & shame crooked lawyers in England & Wales, crooked Scottish solicitors records to remain protected by secrecy for now, observers in the consumer world say the time has now come for the LeO to act on the matter at hand, as consumers are being put at an ever increasing risk of using the wrong lawyer they know nothing about, particularly in these tough financial times where clients cannot afford to get into long running & costly spats with their legal representatives over misrepresentation, negligence, or even fraud.

USE IT OR LOSE IT – SOLICITORS FROM HELL

Solicitors from Hell website allows clients to comment on their experiences with lawyers. While the Legal Ombudsman takes the time to decide on how to proceed with naming & shaming ‘crooked lawyers’, the website “SOLICITORS FROM HELL” currently offers clients an opportunity to write about their own experiences with their lawyers, whether good or bad. I suggest consumers use the Solicitors from Hell website to comment about their own experiences with lawyers and find out all they can those in the legal profession who are best to be avoided.

Naming crooks is criminal ? Law Society of England & Wales Chief Des Hudson to face legal action from Solicitors From Hell owner over "criminal" jibe

Law Society of England & Wales Chief Des Hudson is accused of branding owner of critical website “a criminal” for naming crooked lawyers. THE LIMITS of what the UK’s ‘control freak’ legal profession will stand or even allow in terms of public criticism have taken a new twist after information emerged on a Law Professor’s blog detailing a conversation in which Des Hudson the £400K-A-YEAR Chief Executive of the Law Society of England & Wales is alleged to have branded Mr Rick Kordowski “A CRIMINAL” for his SOLICITORS FROM HELL website’s consumer reviews of poor solicitors & criticisms of solicitors. In response, Mr Korwowski, the owner of the increasingly well known UK based website which names & shames crooked lawyers from all across the UK, has announced he is to sue Des Hudson for defamation, seeking “substantial damages”.

The incident came to light after the Law Society Chief Executive took part in a joint interview with well known Law Professor John Flood of the University of Westminster on BBC Radio FOUR’s consumer programme “You and Yours” which discussed the Solicitors From Hell website and its policy of naming & shaming lawyers who fail their clients by allowing consumers to write their own reviews of how they were treated by their solicitors. The interview with Des Hudson & John Flood can be heard in full HERE.

After the interview had taken place, Professor Flood wrote on his web blog in an article dated 22 July 2011 : “As I came out of the BBC yesterday with Des Hudson, the chief executive of the Law Society, he said Rick Kordowski was a criminal. I reminded Des that the police didn't think so. He wasn't happy.”

The battle by Mr Kordowski to keep the Solicitors From Hell website inline in the face of a coordinated campaign by the legal profession in England & Wales who appear to be out to personally ruin him for his website’s publication of criticisms the legal profession and allowing consumers to write their own views of their poor experiences in the legal world, can be read in more detail on the Solicitors From Hell website HERE and in yesterday’s Independent on Sunday newspaper HERE

Rick Kordowski, writing on his website revealed the Law Society have also demanded he surrender the domain name “Solicitors From Hell”. He wrote : “During negotiations, I offered to re-engineer my website to The Law Society’s specifications and parameters at my expense. The Law Society rejected this offer and further added: "A pre-requisite will be that the site in its current form – with all its content/postings – is taken down forthwith. You will also need to surrender the domain name [......] If not then there is no point pursuing discussions further and the matter is best left for the High Court. And then sent me a letter of claim insisting that I shut down this site and promise not to do it again. "

Mr Kordowski added : “Tyranny at work, springs to mind! Why should The Law Society stifle public criticism of allegedly shoddy lawyers? Are the public too stupid even to have the right to criticise, as The Law Society seem to be suggesting?”

Professor John Flood, Professor of Law an Sociology at the University of Westminster. Speaking to Diary of Injustice today, Professor Flood commented on the Law Society of England & Wales battle against Solicitors From Hell. He said : “What I can say is that the Law Society should be thinking about the clients who feel so aggrieved that they are compelled to write to SfH. That to pursue Rick Kordowski is to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the substantive issues in the complaints.”

He continued : “Lawyers must realise there is a new culture present, one that is less adversarial, one that is focussed on resolution, as the Legal Ombudsman is trying to show. I'm not sure the Law Society has fully grasped this.”

Last week, I reported the legal profession’s battle against Rick Kordowski & Solicitors From Hell, here : English, Scots Law Societies ‘team up’ in legal moves against “Solicitors from Hell” in bid to stop Legal Ombudsman ‘Naming & Shaming’ crooked lawyers after an investigation in Scotland turned up discussions at the Law Society of Scotland who were keen to support moves to kill off Solicitors From Hell in a joint attempt with the Law Society of England & Wales to ‘scare off’ the Legal Ombudsman’s intentions to identify poorly performing solicitors & law firms in published complaints decisions & investigations.

Crucially, consumer group Which? & the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP) both said the court action against Solicitors From Hell would probably not be going ahead if the Legal Ombudsman had already begun naming & shaming law firms who fail their clients. The Legal Ombudsman has held a consultation on naming & shaming solicitors & law firms but has yet to make a decision on going ahead with the policy, which is supported by consumer groups, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) & the UK Government which I reported on in an earlier, article, HERE.

Consumer group Which? gave their comments on the LeO’s plans to identify crooked lawyers in England & Wales. A spokesperson for Which? said : “Which? strongly supports the principle of the LeO publishing complaints data under a strict and published policy , including in some circumstances the name of the law firm concerned. We set out our position in our response to the LeO consultation (page 51: opening up regulatory data)) pointing out that it is the expectation of Government that complaints handling bodies are as transparent as possible.”

Asked for their comment on allegations the legal action against Solicitors from Hell was part of a plan by the Law Society of England & Wales to prevent the Legal Ombudsman from naming & shaming ‘crooked lawyers’, the Which? spokesperson said : “The action being taken against Solicitors from Hell by the Law Society is partly due, in our view, to the fact that LeO does not yet publish complaints data. We consider it far more sensible that complaints data is published under a clear policy framework by an ombudsman scheme. Given this, we would find it regretful if any legal action were to be brought against the LeO by the legal profession in England & Wales if "naming & shaming" is to be adopted by the LeO as a future policy.”

Speaking on the LeO’s plans to publish complaints data & the identities of law firms who perform poorly for clients, Elisabeth Davies, Chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP), said : “Research shows that UK consumers are now leaving well over 100 million comments online every year about their experience with businesses across the economy. Lawyers cannot escape this welcome emergence of consumer power, but instead should seek and then use such feedback to improve the service they offer.

She continued : “The courts will decide the fate of the Solicitors From Hell website. However, such websites fill a vacuum that exists because official complaints data about lawyers is not publically available to help consumers identify good quality lawyers. The Panel will continue to push the Legal Ombudsman to name those law firms who regularly provide poor service.”

CRIMINALISING CRITICS : Law Society of Scotland official told journalist : “Anyone who criticises the legal profession must be a criminal and should be treated like a criminal”.

The sentiments apparently expressed by Mr Hudson who attempts to criminalise Mr Kordowski and critics of the legal profession are startlingly similar to opinions expressed in Scotland by the most senior officials at the Law Society of Scotland, individual solicitors, law firms and the Legal Defence Union, who have all attempted to close down critical websites naming & shaming crooked lawyers who are still working and whose clients are unaware of their poor records as solicitors.

In one of several examples of over-the-top attacks on critics of the legal profession, notes taken by a journalist working for a Scottish newspaper revealed a senior Law Society of Scotland figure made a variety of bitter, hate-fuelled remarks against critics, in one, expressing : “Anyone who criticises the legal profession must be a criminal and should be treated like a criminal”.

Leslie Cumming, former Law Society Chief Accountant – His assault was used by Law Society of Scotland officials in attempts to censor, imprison critics of legal profession in Scotland. In another example, involving the attack on former Law Society Chief Accountant Leslie Cumming, senior Law Society figures including Douglas Mill blamed websites including “Diary of Injustice” (which was only two weeks old at the time) for the attack on Mr Cumming, with Scotland on Sunday reporting in an article dated 29 January 2006 : “Senior figures in the Law Society have made it known they feel some of the websites criticising lawyers are tantamount to incitement to violence.”

An insider who had knowledge of the Scotland on Sunday story and how it was developing confessed the direct comments from Law Society officials “were too strong to put into the final version which appeared in the newspaper”. A journalist who was privately briefed by senior Law Society officials including former Chief Executive Douglas Mill who was forced to resign after a well known episode at the Scottish Parliament, described some comments from Law Society officials which are confirmed in notes, as “highly defamatory”. He went onto say “I felt I was being set up to write a piece implicating critics of lawyers in the attack.”

Further reports in the media linked the attack on Leslie Cumming to crooked lawyers within the Law Society itself who feared Mr Cumming’s department ‘were onto them’, however the hunt for the attacker was scaled down after several years had passed without an arrest.

Later, journalists working on the case discovered spurious statements were provided to Lothian & Borders Police by Law Society officials who were eager to blame outspoken critics of the legal profession in Scotland. The rumour was the Law Society of Scotland wanted the Police to silence those who exposed ‘crooked lawyers’. Evidence of these comments & statements have recently been provided to those who were targeted by the Law Society in this way, and journalists looking further into the case have reported a relative of Mr Cumming was a serving officer in Lothian & Borders Police.

Several Scottish newspapers reported earlier this year an individual has since been arrested for the attack on Mr Cumming however no further reporting on the case can be made at this time due to contempt of court laws. The accused is due to face a trial in October 2011.

Given I know what kind of pressure, tricks, threats, and indeed connections the legal profession will be using against “Solicitors From Hell”, may I extend my best wishes and support to Rick Kordowski for his exemplary effort in bringing the issue & discussion of criticism of the legal profession into the mainstream media and for the continued existence of “Solicitors From Hell” and the consumers right to exactly document for themselves their experiences, whether good or bad, at the hands of the legal profession throughout the entire UK.

At least in England & Wales, the debate is live, while here in Scotland, there are no moves to name & shame crooked lawyers where all discussion of it appears to be censored by the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.