Thomas Boyd Whyte
Your Ref: 28.jc
14 June 2011

Re: Solicitors from Hell Website

Dear Sir

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 8th June 2011.

From your letter dated May 26th it is clear your "...class action against Mr Kordowski, the owner of the above website" is in a joint 'action' with the Law Society ("We have decided to join that action") and the 950+ law firms named on Mr Kordowski's website. If as you are saying the 950+ who posted on the said website will all be in Court there will be 950+ defendants and their representatives, 950+ law firms, say two per firm, a minimum grand total of over 4,000 which appears, by what you are saying, to be the Law Society's intentions, or on the other hand 950+ individual Court cases which the Law Society wants to avoid to save money. The way I understood it was Mr Kordowski only was being taken to Court by the Law Society on behalf of the listed law firms but going by your letter of the 8th June, again trying to 'intimidate' me, which advises me to seek "specialist litigation solicitors" to represent me at that trial where there will be almost a 1,000 up before the Judge and their defence Lawyers, also the law firms prosecuting people. If it's the latter, which you seem to think, then the Judge will have to give some 950+ individual verdicts, mind boggling! So which one is it to be or are you just as confused as I am?

I would just repeat two comments in my letter dated 6th June;
"...if however you believe I have made any "inaccurate" comments against Thos Boyd Whyte please point them out and I will consider your objection(s) and even publish them" also "As I have never had any "postings" on Mr Kordowski's website would you care to be more specific with your allegations!" You have failed to give any answers so how do you expect me to react or know what action to take?

Bearing in mind the difference between "fair criticism" and defamatory content, if what I have published is true and can be substantiated with evidence then we have the situation of the Law Society's chief executive, Desmond Hudson's, view "fair criticism" is "entirely valid" and that the need for clients to be able to give feedback is "extremely important".

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship.

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

Back to Mr Kordowski and his "Solicitors from Hell Website", you appear to be under the impression the .com website of the same name is owned by Mr Kordowski and that recent Court proceedings against him were those against the .com website. Your confusion would, I believe, stem from an article published by the Guardian and copied copiously by other media and further published all over the www.

If you believe the Law Society have me in their sights and you are relying on this to hide your anonymity behind others you will be disappointed. If you look at the enclosure you will see the Guardian has admitted their error when they wrongly 'misidentified' the .com website for Mr Kordowski's which means the information put out by the Guardian that spread all over the www was incorrect.

If you would like to write a 'review' of your thoughts concerning my website its rights and wrongs or whatever I will waive all rights to the Solicitors Confidential rule, allow you to use any document(s) from my file, of which I have added several which hopefully you would comment on and I will publish it in a prominent place on my website. Of course 'defamatory' content, as in my case, will need to be established with evidence in support. I have added some Law Society guidelines on in-house complaint procedures; perhaps you could make a point of explaining your lack of any when I asked to see Gordon Luckhurst and if the system has improved at the present time.

The 'Ball' is in your court.

Yours faithfully

B R Gray

PS. The few copy documents, mentioned above, taken from my files which are enclosed, you might wish to present to the "...instructing solicitors to proceed with an application for an Order..." against me, they might just be in agreement with the Law Society's chief executive, Desmond Hudson, comments of "fair criticism".

PSS. Looking through my large box of records I came across my chronology from December 1993 when I first had an appointment with Iren Long to 2003 when I started my website where it was continued and I am amazed just how badly I had been treated by the people I was paying to act for me. I have decided during the winter months when I have time on my hands to publish it in full along with letters and documents on my website as I believe I have a 'duty to provide information' to others.

Recent events have shown 'Gagging Orders' cost money. Of course everything is for sale at the right price.


When threatened with a defamation suit, most people focus on whether or not something is defamatory. But there is another, more useful way to look at it. The important question is whether you have a right to say it. If you do, you have a legal defence.

If someone sues you because you made a defamatory statement, you can defend your speech or writing on various grounds. There are three main types of defence:

* what you said was true;

* you had a duty to provide information;

* you were expressing an opinion.

For example:
* You can defend yourself on the grounds that what you said is true.