"In these circumstances we have a special procedure governing the way we investigate such complaints. This will involve The Law Society instructing an independant solicitor to investigate your complaints.
I am therefore passing this matter to the Intervention and Disciplinary Unit..."

What happened? Well the 'Protection Team' covered it up and when I asked questions about the 'Intervention and Disciplinary Unit' no one would reply. Aman Virk, Manager, Quality & Service Standards, would only say he (Richard Hegarty) was carrying out Law Society business and had rung me to discuss an "issue" which I had "raised" although no one could identify just what that "issue" was that I had supposedly "raised. As can be seen from enclosure (3) Law Society 'transparency' goes out the window when members of the Law Society are being 'Protected' and this was after the LSO stated Richard Hegarty should be asked to give his version of the 'phone call and why he made it.

I have enclosed a copy of a letter written on behalf of Richard Hegarty in his capacity as Chair of the Law Society's Compliance Board when he instructed Willoughby & Partners to take action against me and who advised the only course would be to threaten my Hosting Company. As Richard Hegarty was acting in his capacity as Chair of the Compliance Board the Law Society clearly knew of my website's existence on the Internet as far back as November 2003. As you are part of the Law Society Board you must have been aware I was the owner/Author of the .com website and you should have taken "reasonable care" when you made the comment to the Journalist, Jon Robins, for publication.

"I believe you need to get together with the Journalist, the newspaper, the PCC and Sir Michael Wilcocks the 'Independent Reviewer' who has no powers of 'review' and find some solution to the problem caused by yourself and the Journalist, Jon Robins".

In the same letter I stated;

"Let me quote you; "fair criticism" is "entirely valid" and the need for clients to be able to give feedback is "extremely important". I believe my website comes under that umbrella".

I think that comment could just come back and 'bite' you.

I note Rick Kordowski took you to the High Court for allegedly calling him a 'criminal', let me quote from the: -
Mail Online

"The conversation, as posted by Prof Flood on his weblog, went: '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.'
.
Mr Hudson's case was that he did not say Mr Kordowski was a criminal but told Prof Flood that Mr Kordowski's methods of collecting payment to remove comments from the website amounted to criminal behaviour.
His defence to the claim at London's High Court also included a plea of justification."

Mr Justice Tugendhat said there was a conflict of evidence 'Nod nod, wink wink', I don't suppose Professor John Flood's witness statement that he gave would have been classed as being from a 'creditable' Witness.

Yours sincerely

B R Gray

PS My thoughts
It doesn't take a genius to work out just how badly you handled Rick Kordowski, like some authoritarian father you took down his pants and strapped his arse, so you thought, but clearly you have shot yourself in the foot. If you look at the 2nd enclosure it shows websites like Rick Kordowski's, because of the way you treated him and the action you took against him, are springing-up like Mushrooms on the Internet with off-shore Hosting Companies. As they say; 'Better the Devil you know...' or was it; 'Better the Devil you knew'.

The Law Society has this 'authoritarian' attitude but with the advent of the www this must or should I say, will change but you just have not got the message yet.