Home > Announcements > Post Removed Regarding Solicitors From Hell
Post Removed Regarding Solicitors From Hell
Posted on April 23, 2010 by Carolyn Elefant

Comments (10)
I do not do much in the way of post removals, but a few months ago, I made a mistake in a post, having confused the site Solicitors from Hell (a site that generates no revenue, according to an email from the owner) with Solicitorsfromhell.co.uk, a site that allows clients to post complaints about solicitors and allows firms to pay a fee to seek removal, according to this story. I suggested that in my opinion, the "fee for removal" could seem like extortion - and Brian Gray, owner of Solicitors from Hell sent an email complaining that I had criticized his site. In reality, I had confused the two. Despite the emails from Gray, I couldn't figure out my error until he sent a subsequent email to a colleague, where it was stated more clearly. For the record, I had invited Mr. Gray to post a correction at my site, but he declined, preferring to take this approach.

As my readers are well aware, I am more than happy to correct mistakes, but I need to understand what they are. If you feel that I've mis-posted, please send an email explaining the error clearly or give me a call.

Links to blogs that reference this article
Trackback URL
http://www.myshingle.com/admin/trackback/199048

Good on you for owning up to the mistake, and condolences on having to deal with such an unpleasant person.

Anne Carey - April 26, 2010 9:48 AM
Elizabeth you seem to forget the fact Ms Elefant made unwarranted accusations against a person who was not guilty of any. It is irrelevant what you may think of his own website that was not doing what he had been accused of. Second he had the decency to wait for Ms Elefant to reply, apologise and remove the false allegations but Ms Elefant refused because it appears she was 'confused'. May be in America everyone is guilty until proven innocent, shame on you Elizabeth.
http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/elefant-friend2.htm

A while back, I had a disagreement with another subject of a post. He called me by phone and we talked and I understood my mistake. I posted a full entry from him, and subsequent correction.

Anne - April 27, 2010 5:56 AM
Vivian why does the "messenger" have to prove he's innocent, when clearly he was? Why is the accuser right in their false allegations until the accused proves he's innocent? Why should he be "forced" onto his "Soap Box and Rant" his 'innocents'. Finally, if false defamatory allegation were made against you on the www would you 'Rant' or just smile. Your comment "ownin up"  does that mean that if you go to Court on criminal charges and you "own up" to the fact you committed them you will be found 'innocent' of all offences? Vivian, you leave me 'confused'.

Tom Crane - April 27, 2010 8:55 AM
Good job, Carolyn. If you make a mistake, even if understandable, admit the mistake and move on. Its just good client relations skills.

Anne - April 27, 2010 11:03 AM
Carolyn you have set yourself up as Judge, Jury and 'executioner' and when the accused protested his innocents you ignored his plea and insisted your punishment must stand (your www public humiliation). The "Manga Carta" signed by King John at Runnymede on the 15 June 1215 (No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land) and was included in the United States Constitution, how come you have more powers than this ancient document and the United States Constitution?

Brian - April 27, 2010 11:31 AM
Hi Tom, First I don't believe there is a, client relationship, involved here.
Carolyn has put defamatory, false allegations on the www and at one point refused to remove them, clearly you must be a Lawyer who else would consider a disaster like that. A Good Job!

Larain - April 28, 2010 4:55 AM
Carolyn on April 26 you use the word, honestly, what I read on the accused web pages he clearly shows your version of the facts different to his? The fact is he told you the allegations you had made were, not true, surely the onus is on you to investigate your facts meticulously for error and not for him to investigate how you got the information although he asked you to forward the information you had, which you failed to do.
I notice, you say, this is not your first mistake. You state, I was loathe to apologize, I haven't spotted any apology at the moment??
http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/elefant4.htm

Vivian - April 28, 2010 5:40 AM
Hi Anne.

No need to be confused. As I am responsible for the message (comment), I will explain:

It is not uncommon to have similar domain names. What is wrong, for example, with the gentleman explaining that his site does not extort and give a link, and even "challenge" Ms. Elefant to point to the alleged extortion content?

If I want a particular result-in this case, a corrected post or removal altogether--don't I have to point out where the error occurred?

Anne -April 29, 2010 1300pm
Hi Vivian
Yes, it is often found that domain names are similar or, in this case, the same that is why great care must be taken in the suffix of domain names, if you know this why didn't a Attorney of 22 yrs experience who virtually lives on the internet?
The gentleman did, from what I see, explain in an email to Carolyn on 4 Apr that her facts and allegations were not correct , at this point it appears the gentleman was not aware of where all of Carolyn's info had come from and explained the part he was aware of that Carolyn had failed to read correctly. In the second email he asked for all the evidence Carolyn had against him which he did not receive but would have to prove his innocence for the allegations to be removed. Carolyn made the outrageous allegations and the onus was on her to substantiate the facts not for the innocent party to prove his innocence. Why in America are you guilty unless you can prove you are innocent?? We do know now that the gentleman, who there now appears to be hate campaign against, told the truth and the allegations were unwarranted.
http://www.solicitorsfromhell.com/email1.htm

Larain - April 29 21.50pm
Vivian, the gentleman in his email, second line, asked Carolyn to supply him with evidence of Extortion as you suggest he should but she did not do this. He clearly tells Carolyn what she published was untrue and the link you suggest is as clear as the nose on your face (the website domain address that would show if the accusations that are made were correct). The case of the prosecution is to prove the person in the dock is guilty and not for the innocent to prove they are not guilty.

It appears Attorney Carolyn Elefant shutdown comments to her 'Blog' (Myshingle.com) because the rhetoric was starting to go against her, even her hardened friends must or are beginning to see she is a compulsive lier.

Posted by Annie 12/05/2010 18.10 (As sent to the Law.Com) - Carolyn Elefant refused to put this on her Myshingle.com
I read with great interest Carolyn Elefant's feature "When Lawyers Make Mistakes" in which she advises Lawyers how to deal with their 'mistakes'. Talk about 'fools march in where angels fear to tread'. Carolyn Elefant recently read an article in the Law Society Gazette concerning the action of an English website, from this she put her own spin on it and accused the wrong website and its author of 'extorting' money from the English Law Society. The Author of the innocent website sent her two emails telling her that her facts were incorrect and asking her to remove the defamatory content from her website, Myshingle.com and to make an apology, this she refused. Carolyn Elefant's friend, Attorney Chuck Newton, eventually told her she had made a disastrous mistake to which some 3 or 4 months later she published a 'Post Removal' not only did she now start to lie about the facts of what happened and what she also said, in her 'Blog' it states her excuse was "I was confused" and "I had made a mistake so I was loathe to apologize". To date Carolyn Elefant has not contacted or made any apologies to the injured party and any retaliation he might take is, I believe, understandable.
What will you do? Nothing of course, you will leave her feature on your website telling Lawyers how to handle their 'mistakes' when she doesn't know how to handle her own.

Top ---- ------------ Back