Solicitor’s Settlement with solicitorsfromhell.co.uk
It wasn’t going to be long before a defamation suit landed in their in-tray…
If you aren’t aware of this site; it basically allows visitors to post complaints about law firms and individual solicitors, creating an unofficial blacklist. The postings then appear on Google within 24 hours. As you’d imagine, it’s not quite in the same spirit as the SRA’s published regulatory decisions. Particularly as the site’s owner, Rick Kordowski, appeared to have one eye on its revenue potential.
Kordowski charges £299 to have all current and future traces of firms’ names removed from the site or £99 and £199 to have specific postings deleted. Given that the allegations are published unverified and the charges apply regardless of whether the claims were true or not, we guessed early on that it would be bait for litigators.
Needless to say, Carter Ruck were recently instructed by Scott Eason, principal at Eason Law, to bring a claim for damages of between £50,000 and £100,000 and obtain a High Court injunction against Kordowski after he published “false and defamatory” allegations on his website about the firm.
Under the terms of a High Court order, Eason agreed to drop his claim for damages and costs if Kordowski removed allegations against Eason and Eason Law from the internet; undertook never again to publish allegations referring to Eason or his firm; and wrote to Eason to apologise… Which he did:
‘I would like to apologise for allowing defamatory allegations about you made by a third party to be posted on my website www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk. I did not know at the time of publication that the allegations were false, but I now understand that they are. On that basis, they should never have been published.
‘I have taken the allegations down from my website and agreed not to republish anything about you or your firm again. I understand that, as I have no funds, you have kindly agreed to waive your entitlement to damages and costs.
‘I am sorry for the embarrassment and distress the allegations have caused you to suffer.’
All of which points to a bit of a flaw in the business model he’s pursuing.
June 2, 2010
In a society that tolerates freedom of expression, the hope is that listed complaints at http://www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk will change a firm’s future conduct for the betterment of the legal profession and for the benefit of the public who use them. It should also be noted that if any other firm is thinking of issuing proceeding, the listing(s) will remain until the original complainant or a Judge asks me to remove it/them.
March 7, 2011
If restaurants and hotels can get bad reviews why not lawyers? It’s about time the public are warned against lawyers who have made the lives of others a misery. It is unfair on the exceptional lawyers in practice that the unscrupulous ones should sully the reputation of the legal profession in general. The fact is 99% of the population cannot afford to sue a solicitor for negligence or misconduct and so they get away with it. The public are powerless. It is outrageous that those listed on the webstie should seek to sue the owner of this website. It’s an attack on freedom of expression. I hope solicitorsfromhell (and solicitorsfromheaven too of course) gains wider acceptance so that people can voice their opinions as freely against a bad lawyer as they would against a bad Ebay seller or a bad restaurant.
March 27, 2011
Couldnt agree more. I instructed one highly prominent solicitor to act for me who subequently alleged they didnt know anything about the area of law and terminated instructions within 14 days of a mediation. When I made a complaint to the then OSS, this solicitor alleged in her defence that she was a busy housewife with a tribe of children. It subsequently transpired that the solicitor had invoiced and been paid for work that they had not done but left me in a quagmire of dreck