SolicitorsFromHell.net is the successor in title to Rick Kordowski’s SolicitorsFromHell.co.uk.

Normal service has resumed under new owners. We believe that Kordowski’s legacy must be preserved and continued in this new format. By way of paying tribute to Kordowski we are reproducing the best segments from SolicitorsFromHell.co.uk - particularly past editorials

To those of you who want to use the official channels of complaint dealing with solicitors’ conduct being the Legal Ombudsman or the Solicitors Regulation Authority then as a first port of call we advise you to do so.

This site caters for the disenfranchised legal consumer; in other words, those members of the public who are convinced the official route has not served or will not serve their needs or the justice of their grievance. There are times when the establishment's complaints handler gets it wrong - for whatever reason: occasionally there are cover-ups with the retort “insufficient evidence” being used to protect the wrongdoer.

To illustrate our point on the subtleties of establishment manoeuvres we need go no further than refer you to The Abused Solicitor link on legaljackass.co.uk - a website many of you will be familiar with from Kordowski’s SolicitorsFromHell.co.uk. Legaljackass.co.uk is a website set up by a London solicitor out of which sprang the book Solicitor v. The Establishment (2009), credited with the following accolade:

Cover up and humbug in the English legal profession is featured in this unique exposé. Small beginnings. English duplicity at its best can be seen in the subterfuge of the so-called 'professional’ man when trying to pull a fast one. See how it's done in fascinating detail, by the Great Brits, in our real life case study. Warnings are given and solutions offered.

What the Law Society Gazette said about the landmark ruling established by the story within this book:

Writing derogatory and potentially libellous comments about law firms does not necessarily count as bringing the profession into disrepute, according to a recent Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) adjudication seen by the Gazette.

The SRA has ruled that a website set up by a London locum solicitor detailing strident complaints against a law firm he worked for 'does not amount to a breach' of rules governing conduct. The ruling could mean less worry for lawyers who want to use the web to speak out about conduct and practice...

The adjudicator said: 'Bullying in the workplace, unfair practices and exploitation of employees are issues which are worthy of serious debate; what [the website owner] published was a contribution to that debate.'

Gazette 22 March 2007

The Law Society was determined to silence this particular solicitor who was only trying to highlight bad practice in the profession. This brave lawyer drew everyone's attention to the fact that "low to mid-level property fraud involving clients and their colluding solicitors will not be investigated by the Law Society due to economic pressures and work overload". Thankfully, the independent Adjudicator saved the solicitor from receiving a “severe reprimand” from the Law Society by ruling that legaljackass.co.uk did not bring the legal profession into disrepute. So how much more difficult can it be for the layman when trying to confront vested interests in the legal profession?

LegalJackass.co.uk highlighted the case of solicitor fraudster Dixit Shah who in the year 2000 fled the U.K. with millions of pounds worth of embezzled client account funds in spite of the Law Society being warned of suspected irregularities by members of the public. The Law Society claimed at the time they did not have the staff to handle the complaint. Dixit Shah made the Law Society look like jackasses. This is where SolicitorsFromHell.net can be of use - as an early warning system to suspected fraud. Think of this website as a fire alarm.

If you think your lawyer falls into the Legaljackass category then we want to hear from you.

If you fall into No-man’s land then we want to hear from you.

If you are too daunted by the Complaints procedure then we want to hear from you.

Be advised that Des Hudson, Chief Executive of the Law Society, thinks that you the public are unfit to post complaints on a site of this nature: just in case you don’t know what you are talking about or bear grudges or are liars or cranks. But as was so eloquently put by one recent Law Society Gazette blogger responding to the End of the line for Solicitors From Hell article of 16 November 2011:

‘And if there are any cranks out there they were probably quite normal before whatever experience they suffered at the hands of the legal profession and their attempts to complain through the normal channels fell on deaf ears’.

And there is nothing wrong with bearing a grudge if it is justified.

The legal establishment would do well to remember that it only takes a single dishonest/deceitful/duplicitous act from a solicitor in an otherwise unblemished career to make that solicitor deserving of reprimand. There are many examples of the odd rotten egg in very reputable firms. For sure such firms will, on the whole, give proper and considered advice. But that does not mean that public exposure should not be given to one-off acts of serious transgression.