Comment by albertgoeswoof | Hacker News Reader

Comment by albertgoeswoof | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Here's the review, interesting that it's still up: https://uk.trustpilot.com/users/56324e750000ff0001e69c5f

> A total waste of money another scam solicitor

> Avoid this solicitor - Summerfield Browne use their own clients confidential information to sue them if they give a bad review. That's why you will not see a bad review of this solicitor, they are now trying to sue me for defamation for the following honest review, rather than refund my money: A total waste of money, another scam solicitor. Stacey mills left the company half way through my assessment and the replacement was useless. I paid upfront for a legal assessment of my case, but what I got was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me. No new information or how to proceed or what the law says or indeed the implications of what was done. I Just got their false assumptions, full of errors showing a lack of understanding for the situation and the law. Once they have your money they are totally apathetic towards you. You will learn more from forums, youtube and the Citizens advice website about your case, for free.

You can judge for yourself if this is defamation and untrue. "Scam solicitor" is the term that probably pushes this over the edge.

Look at this on google maps https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Summerfield+Browne+Solic...

Lol, Streisand effect in action

£25,000 — an expensive review. Totally the chaps fault for defaulting though, should have just shown up.

Here is why he claims he didn't show up:

> I didn't lie in my review of Sommerfield Browne and them suing their own client for gain shows everyone what they are.

> Their friends and family will back them up, as will the other lawyers.

> I submitted my case based on written law and the judge said it did not apply to me and ordered me to omit the law from my submission, before the trial hearing.

> The fact is the judge put £6,000 costs on me before the case was even heard - I was literally priced out of justice. I could not attend or I would be accepting these costs. I cannot fight a rich solicitor in front of a biased judge. Seeing there was no justice here I decided not to give the court legitimacy by attending.

> I submitted my case based on written law and the judge said it did not apply to me and ordered me to omit the law from my submission, before the trial hearing.

I wonder what this means? I don't fully trust that guy to accurately summarize issues of law.

One of three things has happened:

- the guy has been led astray by internet law and is some kind of "sovereign citizen" or similar lunatic, in which case nothing he says should be taken at face value

- he genuinely has been mistreated, and is now incredibly paranoid of lawyers and unwilling to seek representation

- he got a quote for representation and an estimate of the possible losses, probably in the six figure range, and decided to cut his losses as quickly as possible

(also, the use of UK libel law to bully people into silence over basically correct points has been a serious problem)

Looking at the actual written decision, it's a combination of your first point and the guy now living in Sweden, and choosing to rely entirely on witness statements he'd made by email. One could understand mounting a defence remotely might be more tricky, but if you email a court with "I have already made it perfectly clear that this case should never be heard in court and I will not be giving it any credence or legitimacy by attending" it's probably going to make a summary judgement against you https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/85.html

Amusing (in a terrifying way) that the judge ruled the review was likely to dissuade other clients from doing business with the law firm.

Isn't that the whole point of a site like TrustPilot and of reviews in general?

Does this mean everyone who has ever received a negative review now has grounds to sue for defamation?

A defence against defamation is evidence that the accusations are true. Did the judge even check?

Everyone who has ever received a negative review has grounds to sue for libel, if the person who left it is unable to defend the truth or reasonable belief behind their claims. This has always been the case.

A defence against libel is that the accusations are true, but if you don't submit any evidence to support that, the judge's job isn't to try to prove that you were telling the truth for you.

> Everyone who has ever received a negative review has grounds to sue for libel

Maybe, but unless they have a spare six-figure sum lying around they don't have the material capability to sue for libel. It's incredibly expensive. The sheer cost of the law makes it ineffective .. except when protecting the privileged. Or, in this case, since it's a firm of solicitors, they can represent themselves effectively.

Yes with experience this dies sound like the guy was one of those people who quite often are vexatious litigant's

Strong FotL-y vibes.

I mean, that's not very good logic given he's now on the hook for four times that.

His understanding of the costs is wrong anyway.

>His understanding of the costs is wrong anyway.

Which is yet another point against the justice system. If a regular person being accused cannot understand things nor can they afford someone who does... hiw can they defend themselves?

> Which is yet another point against the justice system. If a regular person being accused cannot understand things nor can they afford someone who does... hiw can they defend themselves?

They mostly can't in the US - our justice system relies heavily on coercive plea bargaining. People like Shanta Sweatt[0] plead guilty because the alternative is to face a much longer potential sentence at trial.

90+%[0][1] (94% of convictions at the state level, 97% at the federal level) of cases go through plea bargaining and never reach a courtroom.

I've also heard from a judge that people who represent themselves are often mentally ill.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocen...

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-bec...

If only he could find a lawyer to help him understand the costs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com