9 December 2011
Hudson, Law Society's Chief Executive
Dear Mr Hudson
Thank you for your letter dated 21 November 2011 and I have received a letter from the Society's Information Compliance Officer who state they "...aim to respond formally by the 14th December..." However I do not agree with your assessment in this case that "if you disagree with information published by news media that is a matter between you and the news media organisations concerned".
When Journalist Jon Robins made contact with you at the Law Society you knew your written reply was going to be published in the news media and the Law Society knew there were a number of 'Solicitors from Hell' websites on the Internet with different approaches to their individual discontent, if you did not make it clear who you were directing your comment at and caused the wrong website to be named I feel you are guilty of making derogatory comments. Let me again quote Mr. Justice Tugendhat "you should take reasonable care in relation to the publication" also what Mr Vassall-Adams QC said in Court "... very serious defamatory allegations without any prior check to establish their truth or accuracy".
. "the Law Society knew
there were a number of 'Solicitors from Hell' websites on the Internet..."
Mr Peter Williamson, President of the Law Society
Mr Kevin Martin, Deputy Vice President of the Law Society
Mr Richard Hegarty, Chair of the Compliance Board
Falconer of Thoroton, Lord Chancellor's Department.
Janet Paraskeva, Chief Executive
Complaints Department, Office for Supervision of Solicitors
Laura Pagan, Team Manager, Complaint Centre 2
Alison Crawley, Direct of Relation Compliance
Amanda Malloy, Customer Assistant Unit
Aman Virk, Manager, Quality & Service Standards
Jonathan Gray Compliance Officer, Information Commissioner's Office
Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls.
If you require web addresses for the above correspondence, still published on my website, I will email them if you supply an email address.
during the evening of 6 November '03 Richard Hegarty, Chair of the
Compliance Board, made a threatening 'phone call to me concerning
content on my SfH.com website, on the 5 December I wrote to Richard
Hegarty but received no reply so, on the 23 December, I made a complaint
to the Law Society.
On the 18 February 2004 Amanda Malley from the Customer Assistance Unit wrote to me saying my complaint concerning Richard Hegarty's evening 'phone call;
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.In my letter dated 21 October last I stated;
your lack of interest in rectifying the problem it seems you feel justified
that your derogatory comments against me should continue to remain on
the Internet and justified the title; "Website
that has become the scourge of all lawyers, good and bad"
being bestowed upon me caused partly, if not solely, by your comment.
In the same letter I stated;
I think that comment could just come back and 'bite' you.
note Rick Kordowski took you to the High Court for allegedly calling
him a 'criminal', let me quote from the: -
"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 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.
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.encl (1), (2) and (3)