crookedlawyers.com and rate-your-solicitor.com

Tom Young

Recently I have been directed to look at the two websites in the subject bar of this thread for a couple of reasons:

1. Malicious Falsehood/Injurious Falsehood/Slander of title;
2. Service of documents on the dotnets servers which host same; and
3. The issue of lay litigants demanding responses from judges in quite often the wrong courts, wrong lists and wrong circumstances while blaming counsel and counsels agents (solicitors) in the wrong and posting comments on websites hosted in foreign jurisdictions.

The above sites use a whois privacy service on administration but is hosted in the US on dotnet servers. Under Order 11 technically the sites could be served with summons' and indeed so could the authors who sign off.

How would you feel in your first few weeks of practice either as a solicitor or barrister to have to deal with lay folks (well intentioned or not) who decide to demand your name from a judge with the intention of making remarks and indeed potentially injuring your career prospects before you've had a chance in the profession?

Well let me tell you folks, this is happening. While we are all aware we can be sued for professional negligence I firmly believe this practice is not acceptable.

There are a number of US based legal ecommerce instruments which could be used to notify and have the sites removed, the question is, is there any point?

Tom

nuac

Agree that legal professionals are subject to much unfair criticism through web sites like those. I know solicitors and barristers who have given consistent good service to clients have been pilloried on these web sites. They seem to be run by and supported by cranks.

I recall one lady barrrister in COrk area did get some orders against an Irish citizen who claimed he had nothing to do with rate your solicitor, but the offensive remarks were removed.

evercloserunion

Didn't really know of this but it seems terrible. Much worse than rate-your-teacher which everyone made such a fuss about ages ago. Nobody cares if a student complains about a teacher, it's wat a student is supposed to do. But in a profession like law where everyting depends on your name this has the potential to destroy careers.

Tom Young

nuac wrote: »

I recall one lady barrrister in COrk area did some orders against an Irish citizen who claimed he had nothing to do with rate your solicitor, but the offensive remarks were removed.

She still gets the odd mention, which I think is also wrong.

Now of course the law is administered in public and there is an angle which says Freedom of Expression should be allowed or upheld. However, within the boundaries of good taste and not to the detriment of careers.

It might help if the basis of the adversarial system was understood by those who try to operate in it, many of whom are untrained. I wish they'd go off and find some legal professionals who would take their work either at a reduced rate or pro bono they do exist! ....believe it or not!

But in a profession like law where everyting depends on your name this has the potential to destroy careers.

Indeed, one might consider whether or not the sub judice rules here need to be looked at a little more. Personally, if I was sitting on the bench I know what I'd do.

maidhc

Some of the comments posted probably are defamatory. Some are also funny and (unfortunately) even true. Because something bad is posted about a solicitor or barrister does not mean it is wrong.

If someone feels they have been defamed, then I think it is self evident they should have the skills to get, or arrange to get, the material removed. If they are incapable of this, then i think I think there is an arguable case that the negative comments may have some basis in reality!

And to be fair, a client who checks these websites before they call into you is one you can do well without! And a solicitor who checks these websites before hiring a barrister, well, come on....

dermot_sheehan

Easiest thing is just to ignore those websites/cranks.

Any client who avoids you based on what he found alleged on a website is a client best not having to deal with,

There are many cranks out there with a victim complex where they think the system is trying to persecute them, suing them for defamation and getting injunctions just vindicates that belief and adds air to that victim complex.

As an aside, under american law the provider of an internet service provider is held not to be the publisher of a libellous comment (see s. 230 of Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 codified at 47 U.S.C.. § 230), so the american ISP is immune. The Irish resident publisher of those statements of course can be sued in the irish courts, the problem is how do you compel the anonymising agent to reveal the identity of the irish resident.

It appears you'd have to take action against the anonymising agent in an irish court seeking a norwhich pharmacol order, if the u.s. based agent refuses to comply, a request would have to be sent the the u.s. courts via letters rogatory for a subpoena to issue to have the agent answer questions of who the owner of the website is by means of a deposition.

All a very long drawn out exercise, much easier just to remember the old adage about sticks and stones.

Tom Young

The Norwich Pharamcol Order would be irrelevant on the basis that the other parties to the action [other than the ISP who according and currently under US law acts as a mere conduit as a status that I contend will modify] would be publically and readily available by virtue of their appearances in the courts or in facie curie.

The Norwich Pharamcol Order only to operates in or on the basis of non-party discovery with costs of same paid.

On the basis that the host is irrelevant, the authors, as rightly pointed out above, are liable for action and actions accruing.

Tom

Tom Young

maidhc wrote: »

Some of the comments posted probably are defamatory. Some are also funny and (unfortunately) even true. Because something bad is posted about a solicitor or barrister does not mean it is wrong.

If someone feels they have been defamed, then I think it is self evident they should have the skills to get, or arrange to get, the material removed. If they are incapable of this, then i think I think there is an arguable case that the negative comments may have some basis in reality!

And to be fair, a client who checks these websites before they call into you is one you can do well without! And a solicitor who checks these websites before hiring a barrister, well, come on....

I don't think that's the point.

I believe the reality is that the records remain unmodified, the Defamation unactiontionable or questionable in terms of valid action in vindication of the persons [lawyers - personal rights to earn a living, to freedom of expression, right to indemnified litigation privilege and indeed right to privacy] rights.

I'd love to see a scenario where a solicitor or barrister takes a case 'free of charge' on one of the cases listed on crookedlawyers.com .....and does something right after being wrongly impugned or named by these folks on this or one of their websites [and again, I am not saying they are necessarily negatively intentioned].

The main issue here is a broad brush or scattergun catches many! ~

I know that if the business model in which I operate has a marketing media e.g., the Internet, or indeed the the back of a bus, and I check the record, the one moment I decide to select a lawyer, I land on some website like one which has incorrectly elected to Defame me, where do I stand?

...........I can continue but should I ..?


It's fundamentally wrong, it's almost like kicking a puppy.

There you go.

Tom

PS: I take your point on the actioning the matter. I ask the same question in my OP, I know how to but the law does not. FOR THE MOMENT.

maidhc

Tom Young wrote: »

I believe the reality is that the records remain unmodified, the Defamation unactiontionable or questionable in terms of valid action in vindication of the persons [lawyers - personal rights to earn a living, to freedom of expression, right to indemnified litigation privilege and indeed right to privacy] rights.

I don't understand!

Do you mean the defamation is unactionable because of legal or practical/jurisdictional issues?

Obviously you can't defame an ill defined group of lawyers, that was well settled in the Shatter case.

nuac

Maidhc, ref an earlier post of yours I doubt if any solicitor would choose a barrister on the basis of one of those web sites. Most solicitors tend to work with barristers they know. If specialised expertise is required it is very easy to get reliable info from other colleagues either solicitors or barristers.

THe difficulty with these web sites is that defamatory comments are posted anonymously and the publishers seem to be immune from action.

The difficulty for all self employed professionals is that existing or potential clients might believe some of the derogatory remarks.

maidhc

nuac wrote: »

THe difficulty with these web sites is that defamatory comments are posted anonymously and the publishers seem to be immune from action.

I thought the general rule is that if a website is put on notice and fails to act they cannot avail of the "mere conduit" defence.

I think as the SABEM/Tiscali/Scarlet saga finally reaches a definite conclusion the liability of service providers (and by extension websites) in the EU may be settled. At the moment the law is very much in flux... and even then dealing with a website hosted somewhere like Mauritius will be a pain.

Tom Young

maidhc wrote: »

I thought the general rule is that if a website is put on notice and fails to act they cannot avail of the "mere conduit" defence.

I think as the SABEM/Tiscali/Scarlet saga finally reaches a definite conclusion the liability of service providers (and by extension websites) in the EU may be settled. At the moment the law is very much in flux... and even then dealing with a website hosted somewhere like Mauritius will be a pain.

Eh, I am working on Scarlett and have been for years. Its an entirely different issue. While I'd accept that it may touch on mere conduit status given recent developments it would appear to favour the retention of that status.

Tom Young

maidhc wrote: »

I don't understand!

Do you mean the defamation is unactionable because of legal or practical/jurisdictional issues?

Obviously you can't defame an ill defined group of lawyers, that was well settled in the Shatter case.

There's nothing ill defined in the case mentioned above. People are openly named but my point is that many of the allegations are baseless and conceived of a basic lack of comprehension of the legal system and rules of court and indeed engagement. Questionable in terms of valid action in vindication of the persons rights - lawyers have rights too, albeit possibly tempered by their knowledge.

maidhc

Tom Young wrote: »

There's nothing ill defined in the case mentioned above. People are openly named but my point is that many of the allegations are baseless and conceived of a basic lack of comprehension of the legal system and rules of court and indeed engagement. Questionable in terms of valid action in vindication of the persons rights - lawyers have rights too, albeit possibly tempered by their knowledge.

No one is questioning but that lawyers have rights, but anyone who wants to enforce that right must clearly;
a) Prove they have been defamed etc and that freedom of speech in this instance should be overidden (no easy task to begin with)
b) Actually enforce the finding of the court (depending on where the server is located this will vary from easy to utterly impossible).

This is one of those wonderful situations where legal "rights" are utterly useless.

And I think Sabem will inform a lot of thinking in this area, for servers located within the EU

Tom Young

maidhc wrote: »

No one is questioning but that lawyers have rights, but anyone who wants to enforce that right must clearly;
a) Prove they have been defamed etc and that freedom of speech in this instance should be overidden (no easy task to begin with)
b) Actually enforce the finding of the court (depending on where the server is located this will vary from easy to utterly impossible).

This is one of those wonderful situations where legal "rights" are utterly useless.

And I think Sabem will inform a lot of thinking in this area, for servers located within the EU

Yes, it possibly will. They will soon realise that it is possibly beyond the wit of man {at the moment} to prevent the file sharing and dictate use of one type of software to be the panacea for the music industry.

I note music rights cases have been taken in most common law jurisdications now save for UK, who are working on legislation. I guess the rights holders expect the flood gates to open. Will be watching the Commercial Court here closely from Jan 19th.

maidhc

Tom Young wrote: »

Will be watching the Commercial Court here closely from Jan 19th.

Going a bit OT here, but are IRMA not a bit screwed right now given the fact the (sabam) case they seemed to be relying on was overturned? Will they just adjourn it until they get a favourable precedent?

I really hope it is thrown out and Eicom get costs.

Brendan Hegarty

Hi there, I am new on here and I have had experiences with solicitors that I am happy to share with you, bearing in mind that we must all operate within the law.

In haven't read all the history on here but I suspect some side with the solicitors while others side with those who claim to have been wronged.

My own summary view is that this is only the tip of the iceberg and while there are ‘hangers on’, there is also a can of worms, and which can be little surprise given what has gone on elsewhere in self-regulated institutions and ‘professions’. Please also consider the vast sums of money involved here and which in my estimations bear on national security and certainly are a slight on democracy.

Someone commented that lay people don’t understand the law and while that is correct, that doesn’t mean they don’t know right from wrong and which the law is supposed to uphold. I know many solicitors who do not act in the know of the difference between right and wrong/legal and illegal.

I attended a case in The Disciplinary Tribunal of The High Court and at the conclusion of which the leading member of the party representing the solicitor before the tribunal entered the room where the 3 adjudicators had retired to come to a decision. Does one have to be lawyer to know that this is criminal?

I have also witnessed a solicitor and a Fire Officer supplying a faked fire cert. Before you doubt me can I suggest you try to remember The Stardust.

I attended VLPS meetings and there was representatives of solicitors there to see what was going on, and also trying to con vulnerable people into surrendering confidential information. They ran away on occasion people copped onto them.

Yes there are a number of people who try and jump on the band wagon, thinking that they might get a slice of something they know they have no entitlement to. But believe you me, for every attendee at these meetings there are hundreds who don’t even know they have been wronged. And we are talking massive sums here.

Around the time of my case with The Disciplinary Tribunal there was a case of another solicitor who The Bank of Ireland claimed was engaging in dubious activity with using the same deeds as security for multiple property purchases. After 20 minutes The Bank of Ireland were told to go home. The solicitor in question now owes the tax payer €200m. I got 2 days as I had absolute proof and te solicitor had to admit what he did. And then look at what happened.

The corruption of my affairs are blatant and some of those involved hold significant public contracts while others are harboured in political parties.

All Rate Your Solicitor etc did was allowed freedom of expression and yes there was some rubbish and it is only a fool who wouldn’t see that postings by certain people were silly, and so no damage would be done.

I know of a solicitor who did pursue such a site yet he had double charged for the same work, and he never returned the monies when he was caught out.

My sole purpose in exposing what I have seen is that the system will be changed; self-regulation is dangerous. Remember that solicitors knew all about institutional abuse and advised The Church on how to handle it.

To anyone whom doubts the credibility of my assertions, all I say, and I don’t mean top be offensive, but ‘have we learned anything?’ I am using my true and actual name here and so if anyone knows of any reason why I might not be genuine then let’s hear it. The solicitors involved won’t engage publicly because they know their predicament. It is so sad and Ireland will be a lesser place for a s long as it prevails. My advice to anyone dealing with ANY solicitor is BE VERY CAREFUL. If they turn you over THERE IS NO SAFETY NET, apart from what is a lead life jacket. I tried it on, I know!

Tom Young

That's fine. This thread won't be turning into a quasi-RYS.

Thanks.

Brendan Hegarty

Hi Tom, and hopefully this site is not a quasi/mouth piece for organised white collar crime either? You tell me, you are the boss? The media sector is now flush with pro-democracy/freedom of speech channels and I am only happy to spend time where it gets results. As a matter of interest Tom, what is your own view on self-regulation of solicitors? What did you think of the €21m the Brian Curtin case cost the state? Many victims are not the best at articulating their cases and yes, some are dubious, but not nearly as dubious (or vicious) as the solicitors who are effectively licensed to take people down as they adjudicate on themselves. Did you read what I said about The Disciplinary Tribunal? I have addressed it to the then President of The High Court and he had no answers and those involved remained in their posts, despite the truth having emerged about what was going on. And it is still rife. The UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Nordic states have long addressed theses issues and are consequently rated better than us in global ratings, Eg Transparency International Corruption Perception Index, etc. Such ratings were never more critical and they impact on Inward Investment, tourism, etc. Where is our 'new broom' on this?

Some time ago the government invited ideas and suggestions from the public and as it happens I raised the Curtin issue with individual cabinet ministers. The solicitors involved are in receipt of state contracts so I made then point that they cannot have it both ways. Brendan Howlin instantly criticised my initiative and then we find out that the barrister involved was an ex Labour appointed AG and I am aware of other incestuous links. I am so sorry for saving Howlin €1.5m, the amount they were eventually cut back; they had threatened to sue and did send back a €1m cheque to the state.

I suppose the bottom line is, how quickly we want to correct the situation? We could be another Argentina if we don’t move quick and the IMF have recommended all the changes that genuine RYS people sought.

I note you are a 'regulator'. What area do focus on? It is certainly a secor with serious quality control issues. Maybe you intend to sort all that?

Tom Young

You're seeking a lot of answers there. Many of which I don't have.

I'm not a regulator, have another read.

The above post relates to this thread how precisely?

Brendan Hegarty

My queries aren't addressed to you specifically to you but pls help me out, it says regulatory x 2 on your profile, what are you then, tell me more?

Of course people need only address questions raised as they please and nobody has all the answers, I see these forum as an education process for sharing experiences.

Is this thread abt Crooked Lawyers and RYS? It says so at the top, is there a more appropriate thread/site?

Tom Young

My profile states: "Regulatory Expert" and "Regulatory Strategist" both of which are not Regulators - They are people who deal with Regulatory Policy, Strategy and Process. I hope that clarifies things for you.

Hopefully this site is not a quasi/mouth piece for organised white collar crime either?

Answer: No it is not.

You tell me, you are the boss?

Answer: See above.

The media sector is now flush with pro-democracy/freedom of speech channels and I am only happy to spend time where it gets results.

Answer: This thread is a Legal Discussion thread. Perhaps you should consider starting your own website with terms and conditions, etc. At the standard and risk that you are willing to carry yourself.

As a matter of interest Tom, what is your own view on self-regulation of solicitors? What did you think of the €21m the Brian Curtin case cost the state?

Answer: I have mixed views. I am not in favour of a regulatory process which is going to push cost up to consumer/s and create further risk by giving Barristers access to client funds, which would be the case in a model where Chambers is implemented. That said, Barristers should be able to recover their fees, which is not the case currently, instead they have to rely on Solicitors to manage that process for them.

Invariably, the current plans will, under Shatter's Bill, will cost society more.

The Law Society has done a relatively good job within the confines under which it is placed. The perceived gold rush in the legal sector has played itself out in Court, e.g., Lynn, McAleenan, Byrne Wallace, Thomas Byrne, etc.

Many victims are not the best at articulating their cases and yes, some are dubious, but not nearly as dubious (or vicious) as the solicitors who are effectively licensed to take people down as they adjudicate on themselves. Did you read what I said about The Disciplinary Tribunal?

Victims should switch adviser then. Simple as that. Regulation might assist that. But trust me, it will become another Irish style quango with jobs for the boys being the main thrust - costing the tax payer and victim.

I have addressed it to the then President of The High Court and he had no answers and those involved remained in their posts, despite the truth having emerged about what was going on. And it is still rife. The UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Nordic states have long addressed theses issues and are consequently rated better than us in global ratings, Eg Transparency International Corruption Perception Index, etc. Such ratings were never more critical and they impact on Inward Investment, tourism, etc. Where is our 'new broom' on this?

Answer: That's a statement. I wouldn't expect any answers.

Some time ago the government invited ideas and suggestions from the public and as it happens I raised the Curtin issue with individual cabinet ministers. The solicitors involved are in receipt of state contracts so I made then point that they cannot have it both ways. Brendan Howlin instantly criticised my initiative and then we find out that the barrister involved was an ex Labour appointed AG and I am aware of other incestuous links. I am so sorry for saving Howlin €1.5m, the amount they were eventually cut back; they had threatened to sue and did send back a €1m cheque to the state.

Answer: Would you have preferred to see that particular case not dealt with? Oh, the outrage. You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. If there is a conceptual problem with the criminal law or constitutional protections, the that's a matter for the Oireachtas and potentially thereafter the Courts.

I suppose the bottom line is, how quickly we want to correct the situation? We could be another Argentina if we don’t move quick and the IMF have recommended all the changes that genuine RYS people sought.

Answer: Statement.

Tom Young

Brendan Hegarty wrote: »

My queries aren't addressed to you specifically to you but pls help me out, it says regulatory x 2 on your profile, what are you then, tell me more?

Of course people need only address questions raised as they please and nobody has all the answers, I see these forum as an education process for sharing experiences.

Is this thread abt Crooked Lawyers and RYS? It says so at the top, is there a more appropriate thread/site?

Part 1. Answered above;

Part 2. Statement;

Part 3. Yes, it was. There are a number of issues you have raised in the longer posts. Many of which have been the subject of longer and more detailed threads over the years here. You might consider utilising the search functionality to have a read. Not all the threads reach conclusions, etc. Some do though.

Thanks,

Tom

Brendan Hegarty

It is just as well we have both been around the block because a lot of what you say infuriates me and I'd say I pee u off also.

The nub of it all is that the legal system as per The Irish Law Society is a society within a society, and believe you me it is. If you saw what I have seen done by solicitors you would be dumb founded; I spent 20 years as a salesman so I know the world is not perfect, but by hell what some people are doing is an insult to the rest of the population.

And what is amazing is that they are not so bright as well organised, very well.

You mention victims changing advisors, Ireland has Zero degrees of separation so no need to go there.

The bottom line is that we will be Irelantina very shortly unless we make serious changes; we can hardly avoid a second bailout. If solicitors were brought into mainstream society then we might lobby for the international rating agencies to factor it in ASAP.

My statements are either facts or lies.

And I have my own web presence, Google Ballythefireside, it is Entertainment 2.0 and you'll find plenty of my literary expressions! I invite all legal challenges, I have had 3 already, 2 of who paid up when it was them who crossed the line in their pursuit of salvation.

Tom Young

Brendan Hegarty wrote: »

It is just as well we have both been around the block because a lot of what you say infuriates me and I'd say I pee u off also.

No. You've done nothing to pee me off at all actually. I'm not actively setting out to infuriate anyone. If I do so, that's usually a matter for the person in question.

The nub of it all is that the legal system as per The Irish Law Society is a society within a society, and believe you me it is. If you saw what I have seen done by solicitors you would be dumb founded; I spent 20 years as a salesman so I know the world is not perfect, but by hell what some people are doing is an insult to the rest of the population..

Yes, but not in all cases. You generalise.

And what is amazing is that they are not so bright as well organised, very well..

I would tend to agree, but again, that's not the case in all instances.

You mention victims changing advisors, Ireland has Zero degrees of separation so no need to go there..

On this I completely disagree. The better the devil you know attitude of Irish people often lands them in a pickle. If you don't like something - switch. Simple as that.

The bottom line is that we will be Irelantina very shortly unless we make serious changes; we can hardly avoid a second bailout. If solicitors were brought into mainstream society then we might lobby for the international rating agencies to factor it in ASAP..

Another statement, matter of opinion.

My statements are either facts or lies.

I never expressed a view as to what the nature of the statements made were, whether: fact based, hyperbole, or otherwise. I merely identified statements.

And I have my own web presence, Google Ballythefireside, it is Entertainment 2.0 and you'll find plenty of my literary expressions! I invite all legal challenges, I have had 3 already, 2 of who paid up when it was them who crossed the line in their pursuit of salvation.

Will check it out.

I have no axe to grind with any poster. Yet, you come here posting as though I do.