Original - Solicitors from Hell .com Est. Feb 2003

"fair criticism" is "entirely valid" and that the need for clients to be able to give feedback is "extremely important".
Desmond Hudson, Law Society Chief Executive - 23 March 2011 09:49.

As can be seen the Law Society are still trying everything they can think of to shut down the remaining websites of 'discontent' that shows just how badly their complains procedures are "European Court of Justice's ruling on the right to be forgotten online"

I have had dealings with three Legal Ombudsmen, first Ann Abraham a complete waste of time then Zahida Manzoor now this one had no idea what her job was and clearly was running a 'Law Society Protection Racket'. She said I had accused her of 'sexual discrimination' which clearly was the case and she sent me a solicitor's letter from Mace & Jones Solicitors whom she had instructed, what did they came-up with "If you were to institute proceeding, our client would apply to strike out the proceedings on the grounds they are out of time and would also seek an order for cost against you" (see last paragraph of letter) these people know all the tricks which of course we don't and they know it.

Then I met Adam Sampson who had his hand in the Till and the MoJ commented "...was not a fit and proper person to continue to hold the position of Accounts Officer..." and clearly had carried on the 'Law Society Protection Racket', he lied to me and said the Law Society does not come under his jurisdiction and he sent me to meet the Law Societies Pitbulls

Law Society targets anti-solicitor
websites as it turns up heat

27 June 2014
Posted by Neil Rose

The Law Society is planning to use the European Court of Justice's ruling on the right to be forgotten online to challenge anti-solicitor websites, Legal Futures can reveal.

The Law Society is currently monitoring 12 anti-solicitor websites in the wake of the in 2011 to bring down Solicitors from Hell.

According to papers seen by its membership committee last week, the society periodically takes and preserves screenshots, and logs and investigates all complaints from members about the sites, but none are generating the volume of complaints necessary to justify legal action.

However, the committee was told that the Google v González case "may provide a new legal basis for a representative complaint to Google about harmful websites, and if that does not succeed, to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)".

The papers explained: "The aim would be to see Google remove the links to a site from their search engine results. If successful, it would vastly reduce the damage sites can do. The aim is to utilise this approach for the site with the highest number of complaints to see if it works."

Readers Comments

" Frank Knight says:

June 27, 2014 at 12:01 pm

Even if successful, Google 'right to be forgotten' applications only effect google.CO.UK and not google.COM. I hope the Law Society and SRA don't waste more time & money on this matter. It may be more efficient for the LS and SRA to simply investigate the claims the anti-solicitors websites are alleging?
Reply


" Geoffrey Negus says:

July 3, 2014 at 4:20 pm

I for one deplore the "right to be forgotten" European ruling, believing that we all have an over-riding "right to remember".
The Independent is reporting that former Law Society President Robert Sayer has used the European ruling to get himself removed from Google hits. But how could one forget Mr Sayer?
Reply

" Edward says:

July 9, 2016 at 9:09 pm

That's right, Let the SRA and the Law society clear its bad history up so in the future people have no reference on these organisations. They haven't even got the cheek to use the Politicians get out of trouble clause, LESSONS TO BE LEARNED, Just wipe off the history of bias and old school networks workings, Its disgusting
Reply

" Edward says:

July 9, 2016 at 9:13 pm

One more thing, if we come out of Europe does this "Right to be forgotten rule" get lifted?
Reply

Wayback Machine
GOOGLE
Webseacrh