Solicitors from Hell .com . . Search

Matthew Rippon Director at Particular Limited, Darlington

Matthew Rippon quote "I like to read and to write and I’m too old now to do anything other than speak my mind...Oh, and I’m a director of *particular, a law firm that focuses on the commercialisation of new ideas".

Firstly Matt…may I call you "Matt" or would that be classed as 'derogatory'? …as you "like to read" first read the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of a letter I wrote to; Ms Janet Paraskeva, Chief Executive, 113 Chancery Lane in Nov 2003 2yrs before any protest websites appeared, except my own two which 5mths later (May '04) 'Dickie the Chair' (Chair of the Compliance Board at that time) thought he could close me down and that would be the end of it (lol), I warned the Law Society in that Nov 2003 letter what would happen "with the advent of the 'Internet' the potential is immense" but they thought they were the 'Master Race' and couldn't loose the war. Well in 2011 they spent £150,000 (some say it was twice that amount) but only made the situation worse. I suppose we could say they 'Shot themselves in the foot'…lol.

I first warned Lord Falconer at the Department for Constitutional Affairs a month earlier in Oct 2003 about the powers of the 'Internet' "…remember the story of 'David and Goliath', for it might just be found the 'Internet' is the 'pebble' that 'slays the giant'". At that time he thought himself and the Law Society was 'Teflon' coated…but who knows, the "giant" might still just come tumbling down…

"I like to read" . Have a read of a letter I wrote to Adam Sampson, Chief Ombudsman, concerns Desmond Hudson, Law Society's Chief Executive, big mouth that caused all the confusion with protest websites, even you are confused. But as usual the 'Protection Team' covered his arse.

Matt...after you have read all this info have you got the 'Balls' to write about how, when and why 'Protest' websites came into being, if you ain't how the 'HELL' do you look yourself in the mirror????

Matthew if you read a letter I wrote to Desmond Hudson dated 21 October 2011 then you just might get some idea what websites are what and that you have wrongly accused the (.com) website of "lawyer-baiting", "extort money from solicitors", "publishing tirades of questionable provenance" I believe that is defamatory and libellous. To quote Mr Vassall-Adams QC who said in Court "...appeared to be willing to publish very serious defamatory allegations without any prior check to establish their truth or accuracy" also Mr. Justice Tugendhat "...should take reasonable care in relation to the publication". What you have done and let me quote Desmond Hudson " simply a blanket characterisation....providing a vehicle for pursuing personal grudges and vendettas" is what Des Hudson said in a email to that idiot, Jon Robins, did and what you are also doing about all 'Protest' websites.

The first protest website was my in 2000/1 and followed by my .com SfH website which was the 'original' that came online Feb 2003 some 2yrs+ before any other and Rick K's SfH was a 'copycat'. If you access "" you will see my .com had on the first occasion been closed down by presure on my hosting company by the Law Society's Richard Hegarty, Chair of the Compliance Board, in May '04 a year, which list both my nightmaresolicitors and my SfH, before Rick K's had appeared. Let me once again quote you "I’m too old now to do anything other than speak my mind". Have you got the 'Balls', while putting the world and us 'Baddies' to rights, to put your hands-up and tell the www you have got it a little wrong??

If you believe the complaints procedure worked in the past then you haven't looked at my website in any depth (without any prior check to establish their truth or accuracy). Gordon Luckhurst the Senior Partner didn't show-up for two meeting the third request he wrote telling me if I wanted to complain to the CCS, who I had already contacted for help, just ask my Solicitor and she would give me any help I needed, I did and six weeks before the Trial I was sacked because the Noble Ethics Committee advised TBW in an exchange of phone calls (violation of the rules) I had, by my complaint, brought about a 'Conflict of Interests'. Gordon Luckhurst said in a letter 2 years later, when at my insistence my complaint file was eventually opened, to the CCS "I do fully appreciate that Mr Gray's complaint was not dealt with appropriately", he was guilty of Professional Misconduct. One Judge said my litigation should have been complete in 12 mouths but it took 7 years, a Barrister said they were negligent and incompetent, Ann Abraham when she was LSO said in a letter to me that "their work was so bad" and my own solicitor said in a Attendance Note "I had not been treated very well by her predesesors" and two case numbers at Court being randomly used when 15mths later my Solicitor wrote in an Attendance Note "the Court is getting to a muddle"...this is only the tip of the 'Iceburge'.... Purthetic, but the system covered Thomas Boyd Whyte's arse. Why am I so annoyed...Click here Re: "After seven years, with new and 'competent' solicitors...."

Matthew a ten minute read for you that I'm sure you will find interesting that shows how 'Codes of Practices', 'Rule Books' and whatever are manipulated, altered or a "genuine human error" will replace all...

There are no list of law firms as you have described or ever have been on that you have suggested and Rick Kordowski has never been involved or had any connection with my website or have I had any involvement with other protest websites and your suggestion that my is some sort of "legacy" with the "" website is rediulous...just where are you gathering all this 'shit'?

If you would like to email me at I will publish your reply. , . . .. ,/chancery-lane.html . . . . . /dead-end-street.html . . . . . /

Solicitors From Hell?

Posted on 12/05/2014 by matthewrippon

I received the following email from an individual named Rick Kordowski today. He is the former proprietor of the lawyer-baiting website, the premise of which was to extort money from solicitors in return for not publishing tirades of questionable provenance. As far as I was aware, he had been put out of business and the “phoenix” business that has arisen has, according to its home page at been created to fulfill his “legacy”. However, as you’ll see from this email that Mr Kordowski does still appear to be very much involved.

(By the way, I believe that English is Mr Kordowski’s first language, despite indications to the contrary.)

Hey there at satan’s business,

This is the current editor of the online portal called .

This site principally caters for the disenfranchised legal consumer; in other words, those members of the public who are convinced the official route has not served or will not serve their needs or the justice of their grievance. There are times when the establishment’s complaints handler gets it wrong – for whatever reason: occasionally there are cover-ups with the retort “insufficient evidence” being used to protect the wrongdoer.
We are contacting you with a formal and “needs to be sent heads up” regarding a soon to be published article.

In the last few days we have been in contact with a former client of your law firm. He claims, and in our opinion, it clearly shows that you lack the respect and dedication you claim to show all your clients.

The communication he sent is attached to this message. You can see exactly what we will publish; we did, however, covered all private data, i.e. contact details and transaction details.

As we do not operate as a usual daily newspaper your point of view regarding these accusations is not mandatory.

The article will be showed on our website starting with tomorrow morning.

Rick Kordowskim , former

Well, obviously I couldn’t let an opportunity like this pass unexploited. I dispatched the following email in reply:

Dear Mr Kordowski

Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, the attachment containing the promised information was full of gobbledy-gook. I suspect that this is because you assume that as a solicitor, I must be a Microsoft user. I am not.

I see that you allege we claim to show “respect and dedication” to all of our clients. I must record that I don’t ever recall writing such meaningless rubbish, that being the sort of dribble that conventional commercial law firms use in their boardroom brochures. We are not a conventional commercial law firm and never will be.

I should also mention that you refer to “a former client” of my firm. We have no former clients. All of our clients, whether we are currently engaged on their behalf or not, remain precious and valued. I know that the professional conduct rules diluted the rules on conflicts of interest a few years ago to refer to “current clients” but I don’t hold with that. As far as I’m concerned, every business that becomes a client of *particular remains a client for life.

I find it hard to believe that in a practice as small as ours, we could have had, in the three years since our founding, a client so disgruntled as to wish to record his or her dissatisfaction on your site, though I suppose it’s always possible. I write this with some confidence, however, given that most of our work is done in the commercial creative and tech sectors and, I mean no offence by this, I can’t imagine any of them would wish to be associated with your site. This kind of activity would hardly endear them to their investors and customers.

In addition, we like to think we offer market-leading levels of transparency. All of our clients have access to all documentation relating to their files at all times, even after they have been closed. This includes invoices, time sheets, correspondence, documents and everything else. This also includes a complaints policy, which they find in the Records section of the file at opening, and a document that spells out our mission, values and behaviours, to which we ask them to hold us to account.

You can see, therefore, that discouraging you from publishing the dissatisfaction of an irritated client would be totally against the grain for us. Indeed, it would entirely undermine our values. I am sure that you will have taken the trouble to conduct reasonable enquiries to satisfy yourself that the information you intend to publish is accurate and that the facts contained therein are true and not misleading. That being the case, please do proceed. We have, as a firm, yet to receive anything close to a complaint from our clients since we opened our virtual doors but I have, during my long and varied career, always tried to receive every grumble, whether justified or (in my opinion) not, as an opportunity to impress upon those concerned my commitment to client service. I’m sorry that the client concerned didn’t feel that the views s/he has shared with you couldn’t be disclosed to me directly – or maybe they were hinted at but I was too obtuse or focussed upon what I was doing to notice.

So, though it pains me as an atheist to write this, please do “publish and be damned” as the saying goes. I guess that given the name of your website, you will have no shortage of company. I look forward to reading the article tomorrow.

Kind regards and thanks for your interest in our firm,

Matthew Rippon

PS. I see that you remain very much involved with the ‘Solicitors From Hell’ movement but on the homepage of the website, much store is placed upon the new domain as being a part of your “legacy”. You are referred to in the past tense. I wonder whether that has something to do with the various court proceedings to which you were subjected?

Matthew James Rippon
Particular C&L Limited

Sadly, my email appears to have bounced so I have resent it this time to the address I found on the “Contact Us” page of the website. I can’t wait to see what appears tomorrow. I guess that if nothing else, at least that means somebody considers as serious enough contendors to warrant this kind of attack. If only he knew just how tightly Mrs Mc grips the purse-strings…

*** UPDATE ***
09:45, Tuesday 13 February 2014

Just checked the “latest entries” page on the website and was disappointed to find that we are not yet listed. What is the world coming to when you can’t rely on a character like Rick Kordowski to follow through on his declared intention to publish this kind of material? Well, he did say he wasn’t a newspaper. Maybe he’s not an early riser either.


Julie Meyer on the Mistakes That Entrepreneurs Make
Matt got his wires well tangled "Not reading the…documents thoroughly. I once had to break the bad news to a (not stupid) guy". "There are many [mistakes]…15 years I've been doing this" "These are some that can be deadly..."

I must say, though very bad for an "entrepreneur", Matt has put his hands-up that he fell-down on the job and has admitted it and published an apology (well of sorts ha ha),

I’m Doing the Best I Can
Posted on 03/03/2016 by matthewrippon