lies were a form of diarrhoea Attorney Carolyn Elefant would never be
out of the toilet.
Law Offices of Carolyn Elefant (LOCE) in Washington D.C.
> Announcements > Post Removed Regarding Solicitors From Hell
Post Removed Regarding Solicitors From Hell
Posted on April 23, 2010 by Carolyn Elefant
I do not do much in the way of post removals, but a few months ago,
I made a mistake in a post, having confused the site Solicitors
from Hell (a site that generates no revenue, according to an email from
the owner) with Solicitorsfromhell.co.uk, a site that allows clients
to post complaints about solicitors and allows firms to pay a fee to
seek removal, according to this story. I suggested
that in my opinion, the "fee for removal"
could seem like extortion - and Brian Gray, owner
of Solicitors from Hell sent an email complaining that I had criticized
his site. In reality, I had confused the two. Despite the
emails from Gray, I couldn't figure out my error until he sent a
subsequent email to a colleague, where it was stated more clearly.
For the record, I had invited
Mr. Gray to post a correction at my site, but he declined,
preferring to take this approach.
my readers are well aware, I am more than happy to correct mistakes,
but I need to understand what they are. If you feel that I've mis-posted,
please send an email explaining the error clearly or give me a call.
Links to blogs that reference this article
Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Elizabeth - April 23, 2010 8:52 PM
Wow - he is a piece of work! Based on his rhetoric,
I don't think you have to worry about anyone taking him too seriously,
including the Washington State (?!) Bar Association.
Good on you for owning up to the mistake, and
condolences on having to deal with such an unpleasant person.
Vivian Rodriguez - April 26, 2010 7:13 AM
Wow, indeed!Whatever happened to the messenger
being responsible for delivering a clear message? (As in he should have
clearly explained the issue). Not surprised
he didn't take you up on posting on your blog to clear up the misunderstanding:
it would have robbed him of the opportunity to get on his own soapbox
and rant at you.On the other hand, your owning
up to the error clearly shows you are the grown-up.
Anne Carey - April 26, 2010 9:48 AM
Elefant - April 26, 2010 4:00 PM
Elizabeth you seem to forget the fact Ms Elefant made unwarranted accusations
against a person who was not guilty of any. It is irrelevant what you
may think of his own website that was not doing what he had been accused
of. Second he had the decency to wait for Ms Elefant to reply, apologise
and remove the false allegations but Ms Elefant refused because it appears
she was 'confused'. May be in America everyone is guilty until proven
innocent, shame on you Elizabeth.
I honestly did not realize that I had made a mistake
so I was loathe to apologize. I could not
understand the original email. Had Mr. Gray sent me a post, I would have
put it up for him.
A while back, I had a disagreement with another
subject of a post. He called me by phone
and we talked and I understood my mistake. I posted a full entry from
him, and subsequent correction.
Anne - April 27, 2010 5:56 AM
Vivian why does the "messenger" have to prove he's innocent,
when clearly he was? Why is the accuser right in their false allegations
until the accused proves he's innocent? Why should he be "forced"
onto his "Soap Box and Rant" his 'innocents'. Finally, if
false defamatory allegation were made against you on the www would you
'Rant' or just smile. Your comment "ownin up" does
that mean that if you go to Court on criminal charges and you "own
up" to the fact you committed them you will be found 'innocent'
of all offences? Vivian, you leave me 'confused'.
Tom Crane - April 27, 2010 8:55 AM
Good job, Carolyn. If you make a mistake, even if understandable, admit
the mistake and move on. Its just good client relations skills.
Anne - April 27, 2010 11:03 AM
Carolyn you have set yourself up as Judge, Jury and 'executioner' and
when the accused protested his innocents you ignored his plea and insisted
your punishment must stand (your www public humiliation). The "Manga
Carta" signed by King John at Runnymede on the 15 June 1215 (No
freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or
exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save
by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land) and was
included in the United States Constitution, how come you have more powers
than this ancient document and the United States Constitution?
Brian - April 27, 2010 11:31 AM
Hi Tom, First I don't believe there is a, client relationship, involved
Carolyn has put defamatory, false allegations on the www and at one
point refused to remove them, clearly you must be a Lawyer who else
would consider a disaster like that. A Good Job!
Larain - April 28, 2010 4:55 AM
Carolyn on April 26 you use the word, honestly, what I read on the accused
web pages he clearly shows your version of the facts different to his?
The fact is he told you the allegations you had made were, not true,
surely the onus is on you to investigate your facts meticulously for
error and not for him to investigate how you got the information although
he asked you to forward the information you had, which you failed to
I notice, you say, this is not your first mistake.
You state, I was loathe to apologize, I haven't spotted any apology
at the moment??
Vivian - April 28, 2010 5:40 AM
No need to be confused. As I am responsible for
the message (comment), I will explain:
It is not uncommon to have similar domain names.
What is wrong, for example, with the gentleman explaining that his site
does not extort and give a link, and even "challenge" Ms.
Elefant to point to the alleged extortion content?
If I want a particular result-in this case, a
corrected post or removal altogether--don't I have to point out where
the error occurred?
-April 29, 2010 1300pm
Yes, it is often found that domain names are similar or, in this case,
the same that is why great care must be taken in the suffix of domain
names, if you know this why didn't a Attorney of 22 yrs experience who
virtually lives on the internet?
The gentleman did, from what I see, explain in an email to Carolyn on
4 Apr that her facts and allegations were not correct , at this point
it appears the gentleman was not aware of where all of Carolyn's info
had come from and explained the part he was aware of that Carolyn had
failed to read correctly. In the second email he asked for all the evidence
Carolyn had against him which he did not receive but would have to prove
his innocence for the allegations to be removed. Carolyn made the outrageous
allegations and the onus was on her to substantiate the facts not for
the innocent party to prove his innocence. Why in America are you guilty
unless you can prove you are innocent?? We do know now that the gentleman,
who there now appears to be hate campaign against, told the truth and
the allegations were unwarranted.
Larain - April 29 21.50pm
Vivian, the gentleman in his email, second line, asked Carolyn to supply
him with evidence of Extortion as you suggest he should but she did
not do this. He clearly tells Carolyn what she published was untrue
and the link you suggest is as clear as the nose on your face (the website
domain address that would show if the accusations that are made were
correct). The case of the prosecution is to prove the person in the
dock is guilty and not for the innocent to prove they are not guilty.