(thanks to John Bolch of Family Lore)
There are 45 comments on the state of Rick Kordowski and his website Solicitors from Hell on a page detailing a judge's latest suggestion about what should happen to Kordowski. It seems the judge suggested that the Law Society and the Bar Council should consider taking action against the website. To that end they have consulted Hugh Tomlinson QC (Mr SuperInjunction--much beloved by footballers who can't make up their minds about which sleeping partner is au courant) of Matrix Chambers. A class action might be in the wind. It better stay there. Kordowski has no money. And maybe it's the clients' fault.
I was put in mind of this when reading an article by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian with the strap line: "The higher civil service, once the government's purring Rolls-Royce, has been taken for a joy-ride by the great professions." He follows this with Shaw's aphorism, "All professions are conspiracies against the laity." All the radical changes promoted by the UK government are being thwarted by self-interested professionals.
Doctors object to changes that would privatize the National Health Service, lawyers object to the huge proposed reductions in legal aid that would leave many without legal remedy, teachers and lecturers object to evisceration of schools and colleges. Jenkins is unable to discern other motives for their actions. Oh well, let him witter.
Richard Moorhead's recent report on the YouGov research for the Legal Services Board on legal complaints showed there was a sizeable proportion of complainants, around 33% of respondents. And most of those were to do with delay and poor service. In other words lawyers must do better. Until they do, websites like Solicitors from Hell will persist as well as individual ones (eg. www.cwd-critic.com). It doesn't matter how badly written they may be, they nevertheless express an exasperation, a frustration that must be dealt with. Their complacency will begin to disappear when competition hots up later in the year.
In respect of the complex financial products and mechanisms that were created during boom times e.g. securitisation etc and the complex deals that took place, it was the responsibility of lawyers to advise their clients that these could end up in a financial crisis scenario. The lawyers should have been alert to the fact that, although operating in a soft law type environment, these deals were harmful to principles such as market confidence, protection of the consumer, as well as protecting the system as a whole. It was the lawyers' duty to deter the clients from conducting these deals and they should have reported their concerns to the Government, FSA and international bodies and refused to act for the client. A client may well think these deals are smart, but it is for the lawyer to consider the legalities – that does not just mean loyally making it happen for the client so they can bill and buy an Aston Martin, but also looking at the bigger picture.
So City lawyers are reaping what they have sown here. And if lawyers wish to argue that they could not anticipate the financial crisis then that is more reason to say they are responsible and should be brought to book because it would be negligent for any lawyer advising on finance deals to not have a firm grasp and understanding of economics related to the deal and how the deal fits into the economic system as a whole within that economic climate (e.g. a boom period).
And £20m is sick – why on earth don’t the government deal with this in-house, probably at 1/10 of the cost? And why are these firms on any kind of a panel in which they initially advised on the deals and the institutions that went belly up? This is another example of the David Cameron 'jobs for the boys' mentality that the current Government promote (i.e. work for the Eton and Westminster School alumni, stuff the rest). It is a total disgrace.