Solicitors from Hell

No surprise that the Law Society has picked up on the existence of the ‘Solicitors from Hell’ website, which it says is ‘not a credible source of reliable information about solicitors’. The only surprise is how its taken this long, but apparently as a result of some recent media attention (none that I have seen) the Law Society is now recommending that individual firms referred to on that website should consider whether or not they have grounds to pursue an action for defamation.


The Law Society is also seeking counsel’s opinion as to whether the site’s modus operandi – removing references to firms in exchange for payment – amounts to extortion.


I sense there will be more on this story in due course…

10 thoughts on “Solicitors from Hell

  1. It is like anything in life Familyloo, we all need a guide in life of what is good service and bad. Would you go to a restaurant if it had been reputed to be of poor standards with rats running amok in the kitchens. Its for clients to make an informed choice about where to get the best services

  2. Solicitors should not be exempt from critique. If they are providing a quality service then there is nothing to worry about.

  3. Elliott Lancaster

    To melthemoocher

    the problem with your position is that the criticisms levelled may be baseless and does not give the solicitor in question any opportunity for retort.

    I am sure there are a handful of firms on there that thoroughly deserve to be. However, I am equally sure that this would only be a handful.

    A client may go and see a solicitor and receive advice that they don’t like. This advice may be legally correct & proper but, as the client doesn’t like what they are hearing, deems the solicitor ‘useless’ and ‘not fighting my corner’. This site simply gives such individuals a forum to rant and even defame because they’ve been given correct legal advice. This can’t be right.

    There is a complaints system administered by the Law Society (now the SRA) which investigates such claims appropriately and gives all sides a fair opportunity to outline their position.

    To resort to bickering on a website is grossly unfair. Unfairness being precisely what the patrons of such a site are arguing about in the first place. A substantial slice of irony.

  4. Mel, I think the problem with this partular site is that it is *not* providing, or even pretending to provide an onjective service to help people chose reliable solicitors or avoid unreliable ones – the owner has made it very clear that he will remove any unfavourable comments about a firm if that firm pays him to do so, and will, for a further payment, ensure that no mention of a particular firm appears.

    He makes no pretence of doing any kind of fact checking to see whether the comments made are accurate, and unlike most similar kinds of site (think sites such as ‘Tripadvisor’, for hotels etc) there is no opportunity for those concerned to respond.

    As Elliott says, it’s common for people to blame their legal advisors when they are given unpalatable (but correct) advice, or to blame their solicitor for the fact they they lost a case, even where they had been advised that they had a weak case.

    I do not oppose sites which provide genuine reviews and help people to make an informed choice, but this particular one doesn’t do that, it simply provides a forum for peopel to make potentially very damaging and defamatory comments.

  5. […] who have had or expect a poor service from lawyers or the family justice system (see for example my previous post on Solicitors from Hell) and I am alive to the suspicion and distrust with which we are often regarded. Sometimes that is […]

  6. It’s just like reading The Good Food Guide.

  7. Paul Randle-Jolliffe

    Well even the SRA does not consider it “proportionate” to investgate criminal allegations against solicitors, things like Public Funding Fraud and other things!

  8. I recently told a solicitor about this website after also telling her that I had reported the law society and the solicitors they failed to investigate to the AGO.If they want to sue, let them. they will have to prove that what we have said is not true and I am sure we could also issue a counter group claim if need be. the law society is themselves corrupt and everyone knows this and they protect their own.

    • Actually, if they were to sue you for defamation the people making the remarks would have to prove that what they have said was true, not the other way around.

  9. The trouble with most solicitors is they just want all your money.they could tell most people getting divorced that they could do all the forms themselves for free, I have never heard them do that.the fee remission option in the court is not encouraged by the dodgy staff in the county courts either. So if one of you is on a low income, the whole divorce could be done for free much too the disgust of the leeches mentioned above.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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