Idiot leaves libellous review for law firm & gets sued.
Discussion
deckster said:
It wasn't a "bad review". He accused the law firm of fraud & dishonesty; of being scammers. These are not insignificant allegations and we are entitled to defend ourselves against statements like this.
Part of the job is to be pragmatic. Why they did not post in response "We are sorry you feel this way and if you contact us we will look into the situation and see what we can do to resolve matters soonest to your satisfaction".... Something along those lines in my mind would be far better, allow them to be the "bigger man" as such and offer to resolve the complaint. deckster said:
DBSV8 said:
i did ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the defendant was not happy with the service he received and left a bad review, which the solicitors .. took him to court , the outcome could and should be more detrimental to the solicitors .
in loss of potential revenue for the bad publicity this court case has generated .
there are other avenues the solicitors could and should have followed .... going through trustpilot and stating their case would have been the first
legally the solicitors may be in the right ...morally not and i hope it costs them in the long term
It wasn't a "bad review". He accused the law firm of fraud & dishonesty; of being scammers. These are not insignificant allegations and we are entitled to defend ourselves against statements like this.in loss of potential revenue for the bad publicity this court case has generated .
there are other avenues the solicitors could and should have followed .... going through trustpilot and stating their case would have been the first
legally the solicitors may be in the right ...morally not and i hope it costs them in the long term
Whether you agree or not that their actions were wise, this wasn't simply a bad review. He defamed them in a very public way and regardless of the medium, there are consequences to such accusations.
but then again ................perhaps they weren't mexican ...................quote Richard Hammond
Edited by DBSV8 on Sunday 14th February 18:48
Jasandjules said:
deckster said:
It wasn't a "bad review". He accused the law firm of fraud & dishonesty; of being scammers. These are not insignificant allegations and we are entitled to defend ourselves against statements like this.
Part of the job is to be pragmatic. Why they did not post in response "We are sorry you feel this way and if you contact us we will look into the situation and see what we can do to resolve matters soonest to your satisfaction".... Something along those lines in my mind would be far better, allow them to be the "bigger man" as such and offer to resolve the complaint. dmsims said:
deckster said:
It wasn't a "bad review". He accused the law firm of fraud & dishonesty; of being scammers. These are not insignificant allegations and we are entitled to defend ourselves against statements like this.
Whether you agree or not that their actions were wise, this wasn't simply a bad review. He defamed them in a very public way and regardless of the medium, there are consequences to such accusations.
Yes but I'll bet the partner that dreampt up this plan of action must be so pleased with the "result"Whether you agree or not that their actions were wise, this wasn't simply a bad review. He defamed them in a very public way and regardless of the medium, there are consequences to such accusations.
It's hard to imagine a worse outcome for the firm
Plead with the aggrieved former customer to remove the review? He already put a price on doing that - he wanted the £200 he had paid them for their services.
The fact he was unsatisfied with the outcome does not mean that service wasn’t rendered. Nothing in certain in legal action. As has been remarked before the guy sounds like someone who would’ve had the same disproportionate reaction if any aspect of his case was unfavourable to him.
The solicitors didn’t believe that they were in the wrong, and a court agreed.
People suggesting that the solicitors should’ve just sucked it up and accepted a defamatory record being published online, on a famous website, seems strange to me. Yes, they’ve probably been injured more by the legal action, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t in the right. If anything it proves that people can more often than not get away with these sorts of “fire and forget” reviews, safe in the knowledge that they probably won’t be taken to court over them as it would be a pyrrhic victory. I don’t think that’s a good thing though.
Durzel said:
What do you suggest they have done?
Plead with the aggrieved former customer to remove the review? He already put a price on doing that - he wanted the £200 he had paid them for their services.
I think a more sensible approach would be to have used the 'reply to review' feature on TP and give a carefully worded response to it. Then moved on with their lives. Go get some 5* reviews from elsewhere if they were genuinely concerned that a lower overall score would hurt their business.Plead with the aggrieved former customer to remove the review? He already put a price on doing that - he wanted the £200 he had paid them for their services.
Durzel said:
What do you suggest they have done?
Well obviously: https://support.trustpilot.com/hc/en-us/articles/1...They had negative reviews before
Edited by dmsims on Monday 15th February 11:31
Durzel said:
People suggesting that the solicitors should’ve just sucked it up and accepted a defamatory record being published online, on a famous website, seems strange to me. Yes, they’ve probably been injured more by the legal action, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t in the right. If anything it proves that people can more often than not get away with these sorts of “fire and forget” reviews, safe in the knowledge that they probably won’t be taken to court over them as it would be a pyrrhic victory. I don’t think that’s a good thing though.
Very few - if any - have suggested they should have "sucked it up and accepted". They have however suggested that either:Give the fool his money if you think it will get removed. Sometimes the cost of dealing with idiots is the time you put in. This option seems least painful all around if said fool can be trusted to remove it.
Respond to the review. Explain that you are there to provide advice and guidance, not to say what you want them to say. Explain that you would welcome an opportunity to resolve the issue if the reviewer would like to suggest how he thinks they can help. Explain that you have an otherwise exemplary record with clients and you're very disappointed that the reviewer is unhappy.
Ignore the review. Feeding trolls makes them worse. Make a positive campaign to elicit feedback from satisfied customers, to drown out the fool.
Last, but always least, pursue legal action if the fool pursues this with any more effort. Definitely have exhuasted all other avenues first.
Jasandjules said:
deckster said:
It wasn't a "bad review". He accused the law firm of fraud & dishonesty; of being scammers. These are not insignificant allegations and we are entitled to defend ourselves against statements like this.
Part of the job is to be pragmatic. Why they did not post in response "We are sorry you feel this way and if you contact us we will look into the situation and see what we can do to resolve matters soonest to your satisfaction".... Something along those lines in my mind would be far better, allow them to be the "bigger man" as such and offer to resolve the complaint. - The customer should not have been sued £25k. It's a disproportionate "punishment" for an individual that may well have been communicating his genuine belief whether factual or not. As for losses for the solicitors, this is a part of being in business, you take risk to make profit. Deal with it.
- On account that the review was deemed by a court to be inaccurate, Trust Pilot should have been instructed to remove their scoring from the company average rating, leave his review in place, but provide a response stating that he review was deemed to be factually inaccurate through in court.
The individual still gets to speak him mind without loosing £25k
Maybe the solicitors have had some loss of earnings, but this is just part of the risk of being in business. Move on.
La Liga said:
A part of being in business isn’t being libelled and losing business because of it.
This. The solicitors were silly to exercise their legal right because the outcome was foreseeable and the adverse publicity has done more harm than good. That doesn't mean they should lose the right to redress if they're defamed. La Liga said:
A part of being in business isn’t being libelled and losing business because of it.
The first form of advertising was word of mouth.Word of mouth can be negative or positive (usually exaggerated).
The outcome is an exaggerated positive or negative feedback loop in popularity as you tell your mates about your experience with a busniess.
Yes some feedback may be considered as slander, tough. It's just a part of life and it isn't illegal to tell your mates in the pub your slanderous version of things. Well right know it would be illegal to sit in the pub, but that's a separate issue.
Just make sure as many customers are happy as possible, and overall your business may win.
Unfortunately how we communicate is changing and your slander has become permanent and can be read over and over by millions.
I think members of the public are being caught out as they are not experts in defamation and how their method of communication has legal implications.
Unlike solicitors of course who can take advantage of this knowledge they have and sue people for naturally doing what has always been done using what has become a natural way to communicate.
montyjohn said:
Yes some feedback may be considered as slander, tough. It's just a part of life and it isn't illegal to tell your mates in the pub your slanderous version of things.
???It's just as illegal to slander somebody with your mates in the pub as it is to do so on a TV broadcast. The consequences to the slandered party are likely to be lower, as are your chances of being prosecuted for it. But that doesn't make it any less of an offence.
montyjohn said:
La Liga said:
A part of being in business isn’t being libelled and losing business because of it.
The first form of advertising was word of mouth.Word of mouth can be negative or positive (usually exaggerated).
The outcome is an exaggerated positive or negative feedback loop in popularity as you tell your mates about your experience with a busniess.
Yes some feedback may be considered as slander, tough. It's just a part of life and it isn't illegal to tell your mates in the pub your slanderous version of things. Well right know it would be illegal to sit in the pub, but that's a separate issue.
Just make sure as many customers are happy as possible, and overall your business may win.
Unfortunately how we communicate is changing and your slander has become permanent and can be read over and over by millions.
I think members of the public are being caught out as they are not experts in defamation and how their method of communication has legal implications.
Unlike solicitors of course who can take advantage of this knowledge they have and sue people for naturally doing what has always been done using what has become a natural way to communicate.
I disagree where you wrote, "it's tough". A business should have redress if someone causes them harm via defamation. Your proposal that the judgement should basically say, "Well, that's life", doesn't reflect the reality and the need for balance.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 17th February 12:41
Durzel said:
Takes a particular brand of genius to pile on and post a defamatory review of the same solicitor that has just won a defamation case in court against another individual. Maybe these geniuses feel that they have safety in numbers?
I suspect most people know what a VPN is nowadaysI would echo the above though. Where I work criticism is not uncommon and probably more severe than given to this solicitor firm. People read it and it does affect business. Its galling, but you bite your tongue and deal with it in a professional manner.
I think you have to realise that mmmoooossssttttt people are actually reasonable and you are dealing with an upset customer. To sue them in a goliath vs david contest will do them much more harm than simply attending to him on a one to one basis no matter how spurious his claim is.
I suggest the law firm enjoy its 25K and then wait to see what its actually cost them to get that 25K in a few months time.
Edited by julian64 on Wednesday 17th February 12:29
La Liga said:
montyjohn said:
La Liga said:
A part of being in business isn’t being libelled and losing business because of it.
The first form of advertising was word of mouth.Word of mouth can be negative or positive (usually exaggerated).
The outcome is an exaggerated positive or negative feedback loop in popularity as you tell your mates about your experience with a busniess.
Yes some feedback may be considered as slander, tough. It's just a part of life and it isn't illegal to tell your mates in the pub your slanderous version of things. Well right know it would be illegal to sit in the pub, but that's a separate issue.
Just make sure as many customers are happy as possible, and overall your business may win.
Unfortunately how we communicate is changing and your slander has become permanent and can be read over and over by millions.
I think members of the public are being caught out as they are not experts in defamation and how their method of communication has legal implications.
Unlike solicitors of course who can take advantage of this knowledge they have and sue people for naturally doing what has always been done using what has become a natural way to communicate.
I disagree where you wrote, "it's tough". A business should have redress if someone causes them harm via defamation. Your proposal that the judgement should basically say, "Well, that's life", doesn't reflect the reality and the need for balance.
Edited by La Liga on Wednesday 17th February 12:41
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff