Solicitors From Hell founder wins surprise High Court victory

---

Warby J: “not fanciful” to believe that Mr Kordowski could succeed

He has been sued 18 times in relation to the website he founded, and lost each time, but now Rick Kordowski, the man behind SolicitorsFromHell.co.uk, has recorded an unexpected High Court win.

Representing himself, Mr Kordowski successfully applied to set aside a judgment in default and injunction imposed on him by Mr Justice Stuart-Smith.

The High Court heard how Mr Kordowski along with Daniel Beach, were sued by a law firm, identified only as QRS, for publishing “offensive and vilifying content” on a number of websites, including a Solicitors From Hell (SFH) successor referred to as XYZ.net, and for pursuing a course of conduct amounting to harassment.

Mrs Justice Slade granted the law firm’s application for interim injunctions against the two men in August. The following month Mr Justice Stuart-Smith granted the firm’s application for permanent injunctions and judgment in default.

However, Mr Kordowski subsequently claimed that he had nothing to do with the construction and publication of any of the websites listed, and that he had transferred ownership of XYZ.net in December 2011, having nothing to do with it thereafter.

Delivering judgment in QRS v Beach and Kordowski [] EHWC 4189 (QB), Mr Justice Warby said “the evidence put before the court by the claimant stated, without contradiction, that Mr Kordowski had been sued on 18 occasions” in relation to SFH, and that “no case was known in which he had been successful”.

Warby J went on: “For years he provided an outlet for the expression of his own and others’ grudges against solicitors and other legal professionals in a form which involved the harassment of large numbers of individuals.

“His operation of the SFH.co.uk site was oppressive and unlawful and his conduct in proceedings which flowed from his operation of that site was clearly, on occasion at least, vexatious and abusive of the process.”

Against that, Warby J bore in mind that in all of the previous cases Mr Kordowski had admitted publishing the offending material, while if he had indeed been operating XYZ.net, he would have been in breach of the injunctions granted against him in the in November 2011.

Although it was “highly improbable” that Mr Kordowski had nothing to do with XYZ.net, it was “not fanciful” to envisage that his arguments could succeed. The judge reached a similar conclusion in respect of Mr Kordowski’s alleged involvement in creating Mr Beach’s websites and the content on them.

The case against Mr Kordowski was not “so overwhelming as to compel rejection of what he says as unreal”.

The judge concluded “by a marrow margin” that Mr Kordowski had a “real prospect of successfully defending the claim”.

Readers Comments

• David Carruthers says:

  December 17, 2014 at 12:12 am

  Perhaps the recently vacated role of Chief Legal Ombudsman left by Adam Sampson should be offered to Mr Kordowski? That will certainly be noted by the legal profession!!

  Reply
• Nigel J Stanford says:

  May 1, 2015 at 3:30 pm

  On 30 April 2015 non-legal Mr Rick Kordowski conducted litigation on behalf of a defendant. The prosecuting barrister said it was a first but full respect to presiding Crown Court Judge Lucas who in the interests of justice allowed Mr Kordowski to address the court directly.

  Reply
• Hulabaloo says:

  July 14, 2015 at 2:43 am

  I am absolutely delighted at your victory, it’s been a long time coming. Solicitors who are SFH and wrong those they claim to represent should, like any other site, be allowed to leave a review of their opinions of that company published online without threat of prosecution or persecution. People can then be made aware of what others think of their service and whether or not to engage with them such is the purpose of reviews. SFH gave the client that insight with the legal establishment and gave the layman’s voice a chance to be heard. Choice is limited when on legal aid more to the detriment of those they represent who have no choice but to use a SFH but even they have a right to place a review of their treatment in the public domain without retribution from the legal establishment at its highest level. That’s why websites have a review facility. Solicitors are no different they are but another service as is a travel agent for instance. We would be allowed to comment on this service why not Legal.

  Reply
• DEREK says:

  September 18, 2015 at 10:13 am

  Can we now expect the SFH website to be re-instated on the web, because the so called legal profession is far from honest. One firm I reported many years ago, has now been closed down because of fraud committed. I warned the regulatory bodies many years ago of the solicitors wrongdoing, but nothing was done. With the theft of over £8,000 by the crooked firm of solicitors, my last hope was to inform the police of the fraud. They did nothing, but it looks as though intervention by the police finally spurned the SRA to do something.

  I am still waiting for my £8,000 along with interest to be repaid. I don’t hold out much hope.

  Reply
• John Love says:

  June 7, 2016 at 2:24 pm

  The gagging of SFH by the UK Court shows a failure to understand how the Internet works. By gagging in this way served only to create more attention and resulted in SFH getting more site duplicating the same issues outside the UK jurisdiction.

  Reply
• Jericho says:

  February 9, 2017 at 5:24 pm

  The quality of decision making by the Legal Ombudsman leaves the consumer with little option but to post his experiences on the Internet in the hope that someone will listen. Back in the day, I suspect those making decisions at the Legal Ombudsman would not have progressed beyond GCSE level.

  Reply
• Greenland says:

  August 1, 2017 at 5:43 pm

  Solicitors have been able to hide behind that mantra of “I was only following my clients instructions”.
  The time has come to make them accountable and in some case have them prosecuted for conspiracy to defraud.
  They have made a mockery of the 2007 money laundering regulations that other professions must obey. The legal establishment is unlikely to control itself so a body akin to the police complaints authority needs to be established.

  Reply
• Lorna Jamous says:

  October 4, 2017 at 11:41 pm

  Thank god for SFH if it wasn’t for this site many crooks would stil be on the loose .

  Reply
• Bronwen Craigie-Williams says:

  May 7, 2019 at 4:09 pm

  This man was so right about solicitors THEY ARE CROOKS well at least 90% if not 95% of them are. I was told once by 3 JPs (justice of the peace) “the law is an ass”, and how right they were. But the law is only an ass if the solicitors are and there are MANY OF THEM!

  Reply
• Dawn says:

  January 17, 2020 at 8:05 pm

  Such a shame SFH is not still going seems a wonderful idea to me when Solicitors who you are forced to use can then cause a nightmare, cost you thousands, steal from you, lie to you but never resolve the problems then they should be named and shamed

  Reply
• Mike Azur says:

  May 3, 2020 at 11:46 pm

  We need another site that, name and shames Solicitors. For they are still a lot of these Legal Vultures around. And the Legal Aided ones the worst!
  Still explioting the Legal Aid system and their Clients.
  The worst of the lot is the Government Legal team. Totally exploit the Tax Payers, costing Billions of Pounds to the Tax Payers, to line their own pockets.
  And they answer to no one.
  For the latest incarnation of the Solicitor ‘complaints’ (cough) Body – The Solicitors Regulation authority is just as biased as it was in it’s previous ‘Shedered Skins’
  Infact worse.
  For what the Solicitor Regulator Authority does is to dismiss complaints about Solicitors, more quicker and easier than before. This then gives the faulse impression that as a result ,less complaints against Solicitors, means the Legal System is good.
  And makes the Regulator look good.
  The cold truth is its Bad. Very bad!

  Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.