Thomas Boyd Whyte get confused and believe this website belongs to Rick Kordowski and send me a letter believing we are on the way to the High Court. 'Poor Things' are they in for a shock!

I reply to TBW's threatening letter.

6 June 2011

Re: Solicitors from Hell Website

Dear Sir

With regard to your letter dated 26 May received 2 June '11, you have falsely accused me of entering a 'defamatory' post on Mr Kordowski's "Solicitors from Hell Website". I have no connections with Mr Kordowski, his website or any past or pending court proceedings there are or might be and on my own website there is a disclaimer to this effect.

As you are aware Mr Kordowski is the owner of 'www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk' (.co.uk) and I notice he has two Thos Boyd Whyte Solicitors listed on his website, Bryan Collins and Mark Hussey both at '132 Broadway'? As you will be aware from your records these two Solicitors have no connection with me whatsoever. However, I have read both (ex) clients' comments and apart from one the English/grammar being a little iffy (not that great myself) they appear to be giving fair assessments of their experiences.

If you feel you must join the horde of other law firms that hide their anonymity behind others to have your listing removed from Mr Kordowski's website please do so, if however you believe I have made any "inaccurate" comments against Thos Boyd Whyte please point them out and I will consider your objection(s) and even publish them.

I find your letter to be along the line of intimidation by the threat of making public information from my file, also a threat of Court proceedings to be taken on behalf of law firms by, as you say, the Law Society (which you have decided to join) against Mr Kordowski the owner of the said "Solicitors from Hell Website" that you have referred to who, as stated above, has no connection with me. This is in my opinion an attempt by you to try to stop my freedom of speech. I feel at this point I must quote the Law Society's chief executive, Desmond Hudson, "fair criticism" is "entirely valid" and that the need for clients to be able to give feedback is "extremely important". Obviously you don't share Desmond Hudson's views.

You state "You can obviously avoid any information about your case entering the public domain by instructing Mr Kordowski to immediately remove the offending posting". In my case, if you carried out your 'threat' I believe it would only add to your further embarrassment not mine. As I have never had any "postings" on Mr Kordowski's website would you care to be more specific with your allegations!

Let me quote you "If you are still unhappy about the way in which your case has been handled by this firm, you can of course pursue your complaint though the proper channels". How's your memory? First you must, according to the Law Society, take up your complaint with the law firm that you have a grievance against. I asked to see Gordon Luckhurst, Senior Partner, three times the first time he did not turn-up but allowed the Solicitor who my complaints were against to take the meeting, the second time he and Geoff Smith, Senior Litigation Solicitor, failed to show-up allowing the same Solicitor again to hear my complaints and the third time he refused point-blank to see me, in a letter he wrote he sarcastically told me if I want to complain to the OSS (Office for the Supervision of Solicitors) just ask Sandra Durrant (my Solicitor at the time) for any information I needed and it would be supplied. http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/oss.htm#oss

Let me quote a statement made by Zahida Manzoor the LSO at the time: -
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."
As we know this one was a first class prized idiot along with Gordon Luckhurst and Thos Boyd Whyte.

After making a complaint to the OSS and waiting over two years for my file to be allotted to a Caseworker Thos Boyd Whyte sacked me as a paying client because, they said, I had brought about a 'Conflict of Interests' by making a complaint, which Gordon Luckhurst had suggested and the OSS had advised me to do after I had asked them for help. My case was concluded by a competent law firm and I won but the seven years wasted by Thos Boyd Whyte allowed two brothers to unload their large construction company onto another family member, their homes into their wives' names along with their large German car and made themselves jobless and Bankrupt losing me thousands of £'s.

The irony of this is the two Oakes brothers are today gone from unemployed bankrupts and are back running the same large Oakes Construction Ltd Company in Erith and laughing their socks off how a stupid law firm were so inapt that they (Oakes') made fools of the system. Three Cheers for Thomas Boyd Whyte and their merry band of in-house idiots. If I was asked would I recommend Thos, Thomas or whatever Boyd Whyte what do you think I should/would say?????

A Barrister said Thos Boyd Whyte were 'incompetent' and 'negligent' Ann Abraham (the lSO at the time) said in a letter "their work was so bad...", Sandra Durrant said in an 'Attendance' note "I don't think Mr Gray was treated well by my predecessors and would be entitled to taxation at the end of the day" even Tula Fitzpatrick in her final Attendance Note could not explain why things had not been carried out as they should have and Gordon Luckhurst admitted to the OSS/CCS he had not handled my complaints appropriately; http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/no4.htm#gl1 One judge said my litigation should have been completed in twelve months but after seven years you sacked me for complaining. Oh maybe you forgot you had two case numbers at Court that caused countless problems for over 15 months and the Court Clerk had to write and tell you about it, pathetic.

Doubt what I'm saying? Read part of a letter I wrote to Zahida Manzoor the LSO at the time;
http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/omblet5b.htm#sack

All in all Thos Boyd Whyte were a 'disaster' and as we know 'Leopards don't change their spots' and the listings on Mr Kordowski's website show things there have not improved so maybe you should make public your version of how Thos Boyd Whyte handled my litigation on your own website http://www.tbw.uk.com/ if you have the 'Balls'. I will in the next week or so publish this letter and your recent correspondence dated 26 May 2011.

Let me again quote you "...you have put details relating to your case out into the public forum, and accordingly it will be necessary for this firm to disclose details of your case in order to deal with the false allegations that you have made". 'False allegations'! I look forward, after nine or so years, of what "disclose details" you might be able to divulge to prove I have made "false allegations" I just can't wait. 'Bring it on'.

I will make one final comment which is that of Mr Justice Lloyd Jones who said "Kordowski was responsible for all postings on Solicitors from Hell, even if he was not the author". Clearly the 'authors' of the comments on Mr Kordowski's website are not responsible for what's there and the intended forthcoming Court proceedings do not or will not involve any of them. This raises the question that as the 'authors of the comments' will not be prosecuted will law firms, yourself included, be allowed to divulge information from some 950+ personal files, if not, your threat would be in violation of Rule 4: Confidentiality and disclosure? On the other hand if a Judge ruled, in this case, these 950+ personal files could be used by law firms so putting them "in to the public domain" then you could be pre-empting a Law Court ruling and then of course such a ruling could raise the head of 'Human Rights' of the authors who made comments that were published on Mr Kordowski's website. Could be messy and where would this leave you with your threats of disclosure?

I believe by making threats and trying to intimidate you are on thin ice, remember Desmond Hudson's comment above, "fair criticism" is "entirely valid" and that the need for clients to be able to give feedback is "extremely important"; all or most authors of these comments believe(d) what they said to be "fair criticism" when they posted on Mr Kordowski's "Solicitors from Hell Website" which no doubt Mr Kordowski will say he published in good faith.

I'm sure as 'Master Mind Gurus' of the legal profession and its laws no doubt you have your 'arses covered' and hopefully you won't be caught with your 'pants down'.

Yours faithfully

Brian R Gray

PS. Thos Boyd Whyte when sacking me only consulted with the Ethics Committee via telephone
http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/ethics_committee.htm#tf, let me quote from the Solicitors rules at the time: -
A solicitor who fails to honour an undertaking is prima facie guilty of professional misconduct. Consequently, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors will expect its implementation as a matter of conduct.
4. The giver cannot unilaterally withdraw from an undertaking once the recipient has placed reliance on it.
5. The OSS has no power to order the release of a solicitor from the terms of an undertaking. This is a matter for the Court, or the person entitled to the benefit of the undertaking.

Tula Fitzpatrick spent 15 minutes illegally discussing the contents of my complaints file with a Mr Fise at the OSS before it was allocated to a case worker (at this point no information should have been 'reveal' from my file) to find a reason to sack me;
Data Protection Notice
We will use the information you give us to investigate your complaint. We will not use that information for any unconnected purpose without your consent. We will have to reveal your information to the firm or solicitor you have complained about
http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/fitzp.htm

PSS. I will wait fourteen days for an adequate reply, if not received I will refer my complaint to Adam Sampson, the Chief Ombudsman.

TBW still haven't got into their heads what website is what and write to me again.

I try again to straighten out TBW's heads!

Re: Solicitors from Hell Website

Dear Sir

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 8th June 2011.

From your letter dated May 26th it is clear your "...class action against Mr Kordowski, the owner of the above website" is in a joint 'action' with the Law Society ("We have decided to join that action") and the 950+ law firms named on Mr Kordowski's website. If as you are saying the 950+ who posted on the said website will all be in Court there will be 950+ defendants and their representatives, 950+ law firms, say two per firm, a minimum grand total of over 4,000 which appears, by what you are saying, to be the Law Society's intentions, or on the other hand 950+ individual Court cases which the Law Society wants to avoid to save money. The way I understood it was Mr Kordowski only was being taken to Court by the Law Society on behalf of the listed law firms but going by your letter of the 8th June, again trying to 'intimidate' me, which advises me to seek "specialist litigation solicitors" to represent me at that trial where there will be almost a 1,000 up before the Judge and their defence Lawyers, also the law firms prosecuting people. If it's the latter, which you seem to think, then the Judge will have to give some 950+ individual verdicts, mind boggling! So which one is it to be or are you just as confused as I am?

I would just repeat two comments in my letter dated 6th June;
"...if however you believe I have made any "inaccurate" comments against Thos Boyd Whyte please point them out and I will consider your objection(s) and even publish them" also "As I have never had any "postings" on Mr Kordowski's website would you care to be more specific with your allegations!" You have failed to give any answers so how do you expect me to react or know what action to take?

Bearing in mind the difference between "fair criticism" and defamatory content, if what I have published is true and can be substantiated with evidence then we have the situation of the Law Society's chief executive, Desmond Hudson's, view "fair criticism" is "entirely valid" and that the need for clients to be able to give feedback is "extremely important".

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship.

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

Back to Mr Kordowski and his "Solicitors from Hell Website", you appear to be under the impression the .com website of the same name is owned by Mr Kordowski and that recent Court proceedings against him were those against the .com website. Your confusion would, I believe, stem from an article published by the Guardian and copied copiously by other media and further published all over the www.

If you believe the Law Society have me in their sights and you are relying on this to hide your anonymity behind others you will be disappointed. If you look at the enclosure you will see the Guardian has admitted their error when they wrongly 'misidentified' the .com website for Mr Kordowski's .co.uk which means the information put out by the Guardian that spread all over the www was incorrect.

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, of which I have added several which hopefully you would comment on and I will publish it in a prominent place on my website. Of course 'defamatory' content, as in my case, will need to be established with evidence in support. I have added some Law Society guidelines on in-house complaint procedures; perhaps you could make a point of explaining your lack of any when I asked to see Gordon Luckhurst and if the system has improved at the present time.

The 'Ball' is in your court.

Yours faithfully

B R Gray

PS. The few copy documents, mentioned above, taken from my files which are enclosed, you might wish to present to the "...instructing solicitors to proceed with an application for an Order..." against me, they might just be in agreement with the Law Society's chief executive, Desmond Hudson, comments of "fair criticism".

PSS. Looking through my large box of records I came across my chronology from December 1993 when I first had an appointment with Iren Long to 2003 when I started my website where it was continued and I am amazed just how badly I had been treated by the people I was paying to act for me. I have decided during the winter months when I have time on my hands to publish it in full along with letters and documents on my website as I believe I have a 'duty to provide information' to others.

Recent events have shown 'Gagging Orders' cost money. Of course everything is for sale at the right price.

Defences

When threatened with a defamation suit, most people focus on whether or not something is defamatory. But there is another, more useful way to look at it. The important question is whether you have a right to say it. If you do, you have a legal defence.

If someone sues you because you made a defamatory statement, you can defend your speech or writing on various grounds. There are three main types of defence:

* what you said was true;

* you had a duty to provide information;

* you were expressing an opinion.

For example:
* You can defend yourself on the grounds that what you said is true.