3 July 2012
Sampson, Chief Ombudsman
PO Box 6803
Re; A complaint concerning Desmond Hudson, Law Society Chief Exec.
Thank you for your letter dated 10 may 2012 which you state "...your letter appears to relate to matters concerning yourself and the Law Society's Chief Executive, Mr Desmond Hudson". No, it concerns a 'careless derogatory worded email' sent by Desmond Hudson the Chief Executive on behalf of the Law Society (Journalist's request "Can you give me a Law Society line" sent to ...@lawsociety.org.uk on the 21 March 2011), where he, to use Desmond Hudson's own words, made a "blanket characterisation of all" protest websites sent to a Journalist for publication. Let me again quote Mr Vassall-Adams QC who said "...appeared to be willing to publish very serious defamatory allegations without any prior check to establish their truth or accuracy".
From your letter I get the feeling of an underlying tone of annoyance and that coming from someone who states "we will not take sides" also it is unusual for you to send your post by 'Recorded Delivery' that seems to me you are saying, as stated to me by Desmond Hudson, "Accordingly I consider our correspondence closed" and John Wotton, after you had advise I should send my complaint to Chancery Lane, who said he would not be "...entering into any further correspondence with you on this matter". However your last sentence does state "If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me".
You state in the fourth paragraph of your letter "They will each have in place governance structures to address any matters or complaints that are raised". If you (again) read my covering letter of my complaint concerning Desmond Hudson's email that I previously sent to you (dated 9 Jan 2012) in the last paragraph I asked, regards the "governance structures" - "If this is the case would you please pass my complaint to the appropriate department which handles such complaints" but instead you sent me back down Chancery Lane's 'Blind Alley' where for the second time I was 'bounced' back by the person my complaint was against and the second attempt to the LS President I met the head of the 'Protection Team', John Wotton. May be you would tell me why you failed to refer my complaint directly to the appropriate department, as stated I had asked you to do, instead of just copying it and sending it back to me? http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/c32-to-adam-sampson.html
In your letter you say; "I suggest that you contact the Law Society Council with your concerns directly", I think you are giving me the 'run-a-round' until I get fed-up. As we know the Law Society are never wrong, always get their facts right, and their website can always be relied upon to have the correct information! Again if you access their website they are still saying 'About the Legal Ombudsman' "...the new scheme will deal with all public complaints across the entire legal sector - so not only solicitors". Oh yes, don't let us miss their "Client care" pages i.e. "Measures will include a consultancy service to support around 200 solicitors' firms who have been identified as most in need of client care assistance", all that from Chancery Lane, the home of the Law Society, who don't understand anything about their own 'preachings'. Clearly Chancery Lane have no "...governance structures to address any matter or complaint that are raised" and the LS are clearly saying on their own website that it falls under the Legal Ombudsman!
Section (2): You say, concerning your advice to send my complaint to Chancery Lane, "This advice was correct" now you tell me to "contact the Law Society Council...directly". Get real! In both scenarios top of the tree is John Wotton, President, and the Executive Management Board is headed by Desmond Hudson where the Portcullis has already been lowered and the Drawbridge raised. It appears to me both yourself and the LS are guilty of 'maladministration' but both of you hold 'exemption' certificates. Please again read my letter dated 8 Feb 2012 to Beck West: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/c35-to-rebecca-west.html and my letter to John Wotton: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.me.uk/john-wotton-ls-president.html. It appears to me the Law society and the Legal Ombudsman expect us 'Peasants' should go 'Cap-in-Hand' to the Masters, the Wat Tyler Peasants Revolt era was some 630yrs ago although that seems hard to believe at the present time: - http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/preface.htm.
Further to section (1) you say "I do agree that the Law Society's definition is open to misinterpretation" I don't see there can be any "misinterpretation" it is quite clear in what it states although you are going to "request" they change their webpage. That is 'Bolting the Stable door after the Horse as Bolted'.
If you look at enclosure (1) which shows an 'up-market' law firm, Kingsley & Napley, was still confusing my website fourteen months after Desmond Hudson's careless email that he had sent for publication and even after I email the KN author on the 16/12/2011 it was still live in May this year with the link to my .com website. Furthermore an apology was never given as I requested which just show the lack of integrity by law firms, but what else would be expected when they are led by the likes of John Wotton and Desmond Hudson!Enclosure (3) shows one of many media websites that are still carrying the defamatory comment, which clearly name my .com website all caused by Desmond Hudson's email to Jon Robins dated 23 March 2011 and subsequently published three days later.
Where to now? If you look at enclosure (2) maybe all the 'Protest' websites could end up on TV who knows ITN might even start a series as they are always looking for something different. At the bottom of enclosure (2) I think you might recognise a current high profile Solicitor offering to act free of charge if I'm bulled which clearly I am being at present. Maybe the LS might put pressure on him to change his mind? But first of all there would be a question of his integrity and second that email just might be a form of contract freely given and accepted in good faith!
It appears it cost the Law Society £170,000.00 taking Rick Kordowski to the High Court (although some quarters said it was twice that amount), but if it ends up on TV the LS might find Desmond Hudson's 'run-away-train' cannot be stopped at any price.
I believe the LS and the Legal Ombudsman need to look at their strategy before that 'run-away-train' gathers momentum and this 'Protest' website is forced to show the 'New-Broom' does not sweep clean and in fact is no better than its predecessors. If I have to expose, through TV, how the system still 'leans' towards the Law Society members and, as in Rick Kordowski's case, are still trying to stop our 'Freedom of Speech and Expression' under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, so be it.
B R Gray