What do we think about this? Is this a slippery slope of moderating reviews or was he completely out of like referring to them as a scam (irrespective of their quality of service)
Maybe it’s long overdue accountability? or they just caught the judge on an off day....
Except many lay people will now not touch that law firm with a bargepole. Shot themselves in the foot if you ask me. Fecking over your paying customers publicly is not good PR.Sounds dodgy but nonetheless a PR masterclass from the law firm
I don't think they've fecked over anyone. They had a dick customer.
A restaurant would never see similar support from the legal system though.
i don’t disagree, it’s ridiculous how restaurants have so little comeback about unfair reviews
I'm a bit confused... Was he sentenced because he didn't show up in court/whatever?
No one was sentenced as far as I can see. Seems he was ordered to pay a fine for defamation against the company, after calling it a scam company, in an online review.
He used the word 'scam' - when it comes to a law firm, that's pretty much the equivalent of claiming a restaurant deliberately poisoned you.
I doesn't make the solicitor wrong. People just love to stick it to the man, even when you can't really defend the "victim". Trial by mob is fecking disgusting and should never be celebrated.
Seems like a bullshit call then. Without knowing the full story: sometimes the damage is already done. Even if he was offered some form of refund he may feel that the initial annoyance and loss of time doesn't make up for it.
Well what justifies the libel case then? Or are we saying it's acceptable to make claims, libel in nature, without a consequence? The fine was related to general and special damages (I assume the latter loss of business), and costs from the claimant in bringing the case to the court. It was argued that by using the term scam, the defendant was linking the solicitors as dishonest and fraudulent, and those matters come down to fact rather than opinion. He couldn't back it up, nor wanted to by the sounds of it.
Trustpilot Review said:
Defendant response to being sent a link for the hearing said:
Defendent emailing the court directly said:
I hope everyone who left a review actually used their service, otherwise it's just more defamation the firm can get money for.
Yeah I don’t really know all the details but it was a call made by a judge, after reviewing the evidence. I suppose libel/defamation shouldn’t be allowed.
Depends on the type of case. Generally where there are damages (but also other types of cases) the other side will pay the winning sides reasonable costs. Depending on the retainer the client may still liable for any shortfall in recovery though.
I actually had to google "libel definition" to double-check, as I thought "malicious intent" played a part, but it turns out that I'm wrong:
This is problematic, though. In essence, this means that publishing a negative review potentially can ruin your life if you accidentally use the wrong word. In this particular case, this poor fool made the mistake of using the word 'scam'. My friends and I have used that word quite often over the years, though we've rarely meant it in a literal sense. I guess from a legal standpoint they've managed to spin it that way.
I don't see any difference if i'm honest, just because it's a business doesn't make it fair crack to lie or make a defamatory statement to impact the business reputation without any substance. You only have to look at the diatribe on Tripadvisor to see the impact of how often unfair reviews can impact the smallest of businesses.
I do see the difference, quite clearly in fact. The former has plenty of regulatory bodies to ensure accurate reporting (plus the law to a degree), the latter has the law to follow. The point isn't about the format or the publication, but the fact there is laws out there where people cannot go and make defamatory comments without substance or foundation. The problem he had was that calling a solicitors a 'scam', which is clearly impactful for a business which is by definition is in the business of interpreting law and litigation.
Why would he? If he had a genuine complaint and wanted some mediation then he'd go through that like any normal, rational, person would do with any issue with customer service. As soon as he's published then it opens up to a whole new world.
You're right, he's a moron, and I have no sympathy on the basis it looked like he had multiple opportunities to back down. His engagement in the court proceedings was embarrassing and probably did him no favours. If McDonalds wanted to go to the effort and can prove it had financial impact to their business, then yes they can chase that if they feel like it. Like with any legal matter, its whether the case has impacted the business enough and then the pursuit of such an individual has the funds to cover the losses they've incurred as a result of their defamatory statement. In this case above, the solicitors was able to prove this successfully.
Like I said before: sometimes the damage is already done. The initial annoyance and time spent alone could most definitely be worthy of a negative review! Just because a formal procedure exists, it doesn't mean that he has to waste his time on it. Especially if it's no longer about the money.
Just another great example of how law has absolutely nothing to do with ethics or common sense.
Absolutely, he could have not gone down the route of a complaint and left a review, however the impact of the term 'scam' is what has caused, according to the solicitor, an impact to their business. I would be confident in saying that if he didn't go down the scam route, we probably wouldn't be talking on this matter!
You have a right to publish a review for sure, but you can't publish lies and not expect some form of response if the business feels it's necessary, libel law doesn't get filtered because an unhappy customer is talking about a service. Which is what this whole case was about. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and companies provided feedback on customers? I'm pretty sure we'd see more businesses be sued as customers don't have thick skins, and how it'd be defamatory comments as it's not a true snapshot of the individual. I'm being facetious on this point clearly.
If you are gong to publicly attack a lawyer it doesn't take a genius to know you should be careful to be very specific with your wording.
There's a few problems here: firstly, language. Many people have a different idea of what a scam is. In this guy's case, 'poor service' can in some cases count as scam. I don't agree obviously, but intent should play a part. Secondly, and most importantly: how could they prove for sure that the keyword 'scam' caused such a damage? Even after seeing the sentence I still have a hard time believing it. I wouldn't in my wildest imagination have foreseen such a crazy impact if I was in that guy's shoes.
Just because you admit to being facetious it doesn't make the comparison any less poor.
Did he publicly attack a lawyer by name? I thought he only focused on the firm(he mentioned one lawyer, but said nothing negative about her, right?).
