Adam Sampson, Chief Legal Ombudsman (ex) Adam the Ant caught with his hand in the Till and got sacked.
Solicitors from Hell .com
Web Search

Adam Sampson, Chief Ombudsman
PO Box 1587
Tamworth B77 9LE
30 April 2012

Dear Sir

Re;.A complaint concerning Desmond Hudson, L S Chief Exec.

In the 9th January I sent a complaint to you concerning Desmond Hudson, Law Society Chief Executive: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/c32-to-adam-sampson.html which by 'phone your office advised it should be sent to Chancery Lane for it to be dealt with. At this point let me quote from your website which states how you differ from the LCS: - http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/practicesupport/regulation/complaints/leo.page
How does it differ from the LCS?.
Practitioners may feel that the new approach does not appear to be very different from the Legal Complaints Service's (LCS) current approach. However, there are some differences:

1. the new scheme will deal with all public complaints across the entire legal sector - so not only solicitors.
2. as a lay organisation its role is to be expert in resolving complaints, not to be expert in the law.
3. as an independent body, it is hoped that the new Ombudsman scheme will be an effective service that adds to the credibility of the profession and gives clients confidence in the service they receive from lawyers.

"the new scheme will deal with all public complaints across the entire legal sector - so not only solicitors".
... am I missing something?

After taking your 'advice' I filled in "The Law Society - Contact us" online form: -
http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/ls-email.html and following Becky West, Head of Private Office, instructions and sent a complaint and supporting documentation to Chancery Lane on the 17th Jan: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/desmond-hudson.html which was three months after I first wrote to Desmond Hudson on the 21st Oct '11: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/c24-wrote-to-Des.html

It seems my complaint was put in the hands of Desmond Hudson the very person my complaint was about; let me quote your predecessor Zahida Manzoor: -
9 Mar '03 "I had one ludicrous example recently where a woman wanted to make a complaint against a law firm. She was told by the Law Society that she would have to take it up with the firm concerned first. She did and found that the solicitor who was to investigate her complaint was the solicitor she was complaining against! This kind of thing has just got to change."
What would you call the 'outcome' of your advice to send my complaint to Chancery Lane?? Zahida Manzoor made the above statement over nine years ago and it seems nothing as changed.
Oh yes, 'maladministration', I will come back to that later.

On the 1st Feb I received a letter from Becky West saying "As the Chief Executives also states, Law Society correspondence in regards to this matter is now closed". Did I hear you say 'ludicrus'??
See: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/c33-rebecca-west.html

On the 8th Feb I wrote to Becky West questioning her 'Complaints Handling Procedures': -
http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/c35-to-rebecca-west.html In the said letter, last paragraph, I stated I would be referring back to you.

The same day (8th Feb) I wrote to the LS President, John Wotton, concerning how my complaint was handled and showing my annoyance: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/john-wotton-ls-president.html

The same day my letter was received at Chancery Lane (9th Feb) a reply was posted back to me from Rebecca Bramble the Presidents PA saying "The Law Society has nothing further to add to previous correspondence from Desmond Hudson and Becky West, and will not be entering into any further correspondence with you on this matter" http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/handler1.html I did reply to John Wotton's PA's letter http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/c36-john-wotton.html but true to her word no "further correspondence" was received. That must be some kind of record a 'One day Complaint Resolution', can you match that? Did I say 'Resolution', Oh dear, I believe I got that wrong!

Concerning my website 'solicitorsfromhell.com' which was registered in 2002 did not list law firms as was portrayed, caused by Desmond Hudson's email to a Journalist, by the news media and published on the www. Furthermore, if you read paragraphs 5 & 6 of my complaint which I referred to Chancery Lane, on your advice, you will see I had previously stated to my ex-solicitors "If you would like to write a 'review' of your thoughts concerning my website its rights and wrongs or whatever I will waive all rights to the Solicitors Confidential rule, allow you to use any document(s) from my file, ..." and also gave Desmond Hudson the opportunity that "if he convinces me there are 'derogatory' comments I will remove them without the need of Court Proceedings" which both declined. http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/desmond-hudson.html#des

"Defamation law in England and Wales states that an action for libel may arise when a.statement is published that allegedly defames an identifiable individual, resulting in loss of trade, profession or reputation. A defendant can refute a claim for libel by successfully pleading a defence of justification, for example that the statement is true."

However, if we revert back to the basics of defamation law; a true statement is.not deemed to be defamatory.
Google defamatory listings: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/listings.html .
Some of the news media websites that carried the defamatory stories caused by the LS Chief Executive careless email he sent to Journalist, Jon Robins: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/attach.html which not one named the correct website (.co.uk).

'History Lesson'!
Possibly the first 'Protest' website on the web was my 'nightmaresolicitors.com' 2000-2004 (now a platform for law firms' to advertise) I registered "solicitorsfromhell.com" in 2002 and clearly is/was not an "offspring" of SfH.co.uk (db 2005) which has been suggested by some.

Back to my question above "... am I missing something?" Clearly I am a member of the "public" Desmond Hudson is the Law Society Chief Executive and the question, is he not part of the "legal sector" if he is, why did you tell me you only deal with complaints of poor service by Solicitors?
. 1 the new scheme will deal with all public complaints across the entire legal sector - so not only solicitors.
. 2 as a lay organisation its role is to be expert in resolving complaints, not to be expert in the law.

How did the 'name-calling' and 'derogatory' comments all come about? The answer can be found at: - http://113-chancery-lane.com/?cID=128 also http://113-chancery-lane.com/ ociety

You may not approve of my website (SfH.com) but let me quote Desmond Hudson from the email in question he sent to a Journalist for the contents to be published; "fair criticism" is "entirely valid" and the need for clients to be able to give feedback is "extremely important", I believe my website (SfH.com) comes under that umbrella. Let me further quote your website; "Key facts - we will not take sides."

Why am I directing you to 'web-pages'? First of all this letter can stand alone the links are only to show support for all of my comment etc. However, I have to date corresponded with the PCC Reviewer, Lt Gen Sir Michael Wilcocks, sent a comprehensive file to the PHSO, on the 21 Oct '11 a letter and numerous documents to Desmond Hudson then, after more correspondence, a large complaints file to yourself (Legal Ombudsman) which you took copies of and, on your advice, I sent a letter of complaint, dated 17 Jan, and numerous supporting documents to Chancery Lane including a fair amount of other correspondence with Joaco Cutto, Information Compliance Officer, Becky West, Head of Private Office, this was followed with a further letter of complaint and enclosures to the President, John Wotton, dated 8 Feb then Rebecca Bramble PA to the President. I'm sure you will be aware paper takes energy and vast amounts of water to produce, I believe, and I'm sure you would agree, we need to reduce our 'carbon foot print' where possible to save our dwindling natural resources. If you do require hard copies it is only a click or two of your PC mouse. Today we live in an 'electronic' world where the humble chequebook is all but extinct and I'm sure you will remember when the Postman made two deliveries a day, now only one and a few more years down the road the humble 'Postie' will become another extinct species in this modern electronic communications world we live in. The complete correspondence with Chancery Lane can be found at: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/#ls

Where do I go from here, well it looks like an Internet 'brawl' played out on the world stage. I have registered a new complaints website to take Rick Kordowski's 'innovation' to a new level. Checkout http://legal-complaints.com where space will be available for the public to place their own mini websites, for instance http://jonesandsmith-solicitors.legal-complaints.com followed by a 'Traffic-light' system of /red - /amber or /green for a rating purpose. There will be a Forum for general discussion on all complaints procedures a Journalist section and even a section for law firms to advertise i.e. http://lawfirms..... Let me quote from the lawgazette.co.uk;
"The Legal Ombudsman is to publish the total number of complaints processed against law firms - but not the details of what they have done wrong."

I will look at the possibility of http://legal-ombudsman..... for aggrieved complainant(s), if they wish, to fill-in what you intend to exclude.

At this point it might be appropriate to quote from a letter sent to Desmond Hudson by the Information Commissioner after he had sort the backing of the IC;

"There is still a considerable lack of certainty concerning the extent to which website operators are legal
responsible for the content they host. ...the instigators of the website content are generally private
individuals expressing their own views. Their activity attracts the s.36 exemption, which emanates
ultimately from Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. ...the law only requires a data controller to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy of personable data. It would not be reasonable to expect a website of this type to check the accuracy of all the personal data on it all the time - particularly where it is quite clear to its users that the website's content consists of personal opinions and 'rants'. It should also be noted that one individual abusing another...does not necessarily constitute a breach of the data protection principles, unpleasant though it may be."

http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/ico-1.html

If Desmond Hudson drags me into the High Court the question that would be asked, why he and others didn't take the opportunity to seek a resolution when it was offered not try shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted. Rick Kordowski took Desmond Hudson to the High Court in a £1m action for allegedly calling him a 'criminal' the Defaming and Derogatory comments about my website, SfH.com, caused by Desmond Hudson's email were there to be seen and I have copies of; maybe my claim would be greater. Let me quote Mr Justice Tugendhat who said in the High Court to Rick Kordowski, he "should take reasonable care in relation to the publication", also Mr Vassall-Adams QC said "...that Mr Kordowski appeared to be willing to publish very serious defamatory allegations without any prior check to establish their truth or accuracy". If you read the letter I wrote to John Wotton on the 20th Feb, that he never answered, I believe it clearly shows he and others are guilty of 'maladministration', remember you advised me to send my complaint to Chancery Lane which I then assumed it would be acted on in the correct manor.

Let me quote from my above said letter;
"I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 9 Feb '12 and note your comment"...and will not be entering into any further correspondence with you on this matter" that's your decision. Your failure to investigate my complaint correctly and follow your own procedures, Desmond Hudson's failure to give answers to my questions and concerns which, I believe would come under "failure to reply" along with "Incorrect action or failure to take any action", "Failure to follow procedures...", "Failure to investigate" and referring to the email Desmond Hudson sent to the Journalist "Misleading or inaccurate statements", makes Chancery Lane guilty of 'maladministration'."
I believe wrong, bad or inaccurate advice comes under the same heading so I must question why you advised me to send my complaint to Chancery Lane.

The law in the United Kingdom says the Ombudsman must investigate 'maladministration'.
The definition of maladministration is wide and can include:

" Delay
" Incorrect action or failure to take any action
" Failure to follow procedures or the law
" Failure to provide information
" Inadequate record-keeping
" Failure to investigate
" Failure to reply
" Misleading or inaccurate statements
" Inadequate liaison
" Inadequate consultation
" Broken promises

May be in this instance you would advise me who is the 'Ombudsman' responsible for investigating 'maladministration'? http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/c36-john-wotton.html#mal

What Desmond Hudson said in his email to Journalist Jon Robins was "...what this website is about is simply a blanket characterisation of all legal professionals as corrupt, and providing a vehicle for pursuing personal grudges and vendettas. It also asks solicitors to pay to have their entry taken down". As his email cause my website to be named he needs to substantiate his comments also that my SfH.com website was asking for a payment to remove 'entries' which some news media websites had accused my .com website of 'extortion'. Desmond Hudson in his own "vendetta" committed the same 'crime' that he accused others of; "a blanket characterisation of all" protest websites, if a 'John Smith' commits some horrendous crime is it right the finger is pointed at some other innocent 'John Smith's' because they were in the vicinity at the same time??

To see a chronological sequence of my efforts to get a resolution to the problem where first of all I only asked for a correction to an 'inaccurate' publication and an apology on 30 March 2011, twelve of my emails were ignored which allowed the web exposure to spiral out of control then the 'self preservation order' kicked in and now over a year down-the-line I have been forced into actions I would rather have avoided; http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/

My Thoughts
First of all I suggest you read my http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/ which documents my own grievance with my ex-solicitors and how the past Complaints Procedures were 'corrupt' to their 'back teeth' and I don't think you could convince anyone there was an honest person amongst them. Furthermore if you access http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/tbw.htm it shows just how 'useless' Thos Boyd Whyte were/are and why they haven't risked taking me to the High Court.

If you access http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/#tbw you can see where TBW thought they had entered heaven and jumped onto Desmond Hudson's 'Merry-go-round' and sent me two threatening letters, it appears Des forgot to tell them just what website he was intending to drag into the High Court, 'pathetic'. Which brings me to today, Nick Clegg recently called the PCC a "Busted Flush run by the newspapers for the newspapers", at this point-in-time you would need to work hard to convince me the Law Society aren't on the same path.


Yours sincerely


B R Gray

PS This page can be accessed at; http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/c37-adam-sampson.html with all 'links' live it will not be visible to others for a few weeks allowing time for some compromise or 'arbitration' if not, Oh well, you can't say I didn't try.

PSS I will possibly cc this letter to the Law Society's Vice President, Lucy Scott-Moncrief, and Deputy Vice President, Nick Fluck, which like yourself and c 'if are not part of the solution then you are all part of the problem'.

Top