A solicitor has failed in a defamation action against a former client over three negative Google reviews about her firm.
Deputy Master Marzec said Jaqueline Samuels could not prove that Christopher Henry had written the three reviews, and in any case could not prove that they caused her business serious harm.
The first review had appeared two weeks after the legal ombudsman rejected a complaint from Henry about his service from Samuels. Henry had also made an unsuccessful complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, although the regulator had reminded the solicitor to ensure correspondence ‘remains professional going forwards’.
The first Google review on Samuels’ business profile had said: ‘Awful law firm – the principle, Jackie Samuels was awful to deal with. An unfriendly and unhelpful individual – AVOID AVOID AVOID.’ The author signed off as ‘Chris H’.
A second negative post was initially authored by a ‘John H’ (the defendant’s middle name is John) before changing to ‘A Google User’.
The third post, which described Samuels as ‘rude, abrasive, unhelpful and bitter’ was written by someone calling themselves ‘P R’. Samuels told the court these were the initials of an associate of Henry.
Read more
Samuels, a property specialist who is sole practitioner with Leeds-based Samuels & Co, told the court she had no direct evidence that Henry had written the reviews, instead relying on circumstantial matters. These included the author’s declared names, and the two-week period between the ombudsman decision and the first post.
Samuels stated that Henry had a motive to inflict damage on her and she cited an email from a potential client called Vera who had written: ‘Having looked through your reviews, I am sorry to say I am not happy to proceed with your firm.’
Henry denied on oath that he had made any of the posts and he did not know who had. He was a busy father of two small children who ‘didn’t go around posting reviews’. He had never had a gmail address which was needed to post a review on Google Business and had given the matter no thought after the ombudsman decision until receiving Samuels’ claim form.
He told the court that being sued by his former solicitor had been ‘a stressful time’, and that he believed that these claims were a ridiculous use of the court’s time because, as he put it, people receive good and bad reviews; this was normal.
Henry also stated that Samuels had unsuccessfully sued two other individuals in the High Court for posting allegedly defamatory and damaging reviews about her.
The judge found no evidence to prove the posts were written by Henry. The allegation of malice did not assist Samuels because that would require the court to firstly find that he had written the reviews.
‘Even on the assumed premise that the defendant is the author of these posts, I do not agree that the posts were or could be evidence probative of an allegation of malice,’ added the judge. ‘They were negative reviews in trenchant terms but nothing in them indicates that the reviewer(s) is not honestly expressing his or her views.’
The claim was dismissed.
