MENU
CLOSE
The Law Platform
© Copyright 2021 - 2026
A former client of a Birmingham law firm has been ordered by the UK High Court to pay £9,500 in damages after posting a defamatory Google review accusing a solicitor of fraud and other misconduct.
The case, Conroy v Stojek, concerned a review posted by Adrian Stojek about Kevin Conroy, principal solicitor of KJ Conroy Solicitors. Deputy Master Marzec found that the allegations in the review were untrue and defamatory at common law.
The dispute between the client and solicitor
Stojek had previously instructed KJ Conroy Solicitors but became dissatisfied with the services provided. According to the Law Gazette, he also failed to pay his legal bills. The firm subsequently obtained judgment against him for approximately £16,000 and secured a charging order against his house.
In April 2025, Stojek posted a Google review under his own name. The review criticised the solicitor's handling of his case and accused him, among other things, of reviewing clients' cases to determine how much money they had before overcharging them.
The review also accused the solicitor of making serious mistakes, attempting to take Stojek's house, being a fraudster and being "absolutely pathetic."
Solicitor demanded removal of the review
Conroy contacted Stojek shortly after the review was published and demanded that it be removed. He also sought an acknowledgment that the allegations were false and an apology.
Stojek refused. He maintained that his comments represented his opinion and suggested that he was being bullied into taking the review down.
The review remained online for approximately 10 months and received two likes. Conroy subsequently brought defamation proceedings, claiming £30,000 in damages.
Court finds allegations were defamatory
The court found that the allegations were clearly defamatory. A significant consideration was the nature of the accusations. Allegations that a solicitor was a fraudster, dishonest, or deliberately attempting to "rip off" clients were capable of seriously damaging the solicitor's reputation, particularly given the professional relationship of trust involved in providing legal services.
8th Sep, 2026
7th Sep, 2026
1st Sep, 2026
26th Aug, 2026
25th Aug, 2026
The court also considered the circumstances in which the review was published. Stojek used his real name and identified himself as a former client. According to Deputy Master Marzec, those factors gave the review additional credibility and authority in the eyes of people who encountered it online.
The fact that the review was published on Google was also relevant. The court considered it inherently likely that prospective clients searching for the firm could encounter the review. But the solicitor did not receive the £30,000 claimed. Though Conroy succeeded in establishing defamation, the court did not award the £30,000 he had sought.
Deputy Master Marzec reduced the award because there was limited evidence concerning the extent and consequences of the review's publication. Conroy could not identify anyone who had actually read the review, establish approximately how many people had seen it, or demonstrate a specific loss of business or other measurable impact on his professional reputation.
The court eventually awarded £9,500 in damages. The judgment also emphasised the purpose of damages in defamation proceedings. They must be sufficient to vindicate the claimant's reputation and compensate for reputational or, where applicable, emotional harm, but should not exceed what is necessary for those purposes.
Public judgment also provides vindication
An important aspect of the decision was the court's observation that the judgment itself would serve to vindicate Conroy's reputation.
Deputy Master Marzec noted that there was no evidence that Conroy had acted dishonestly, deceptively or fraudulently, contrary to the allegations contained in the review.
The decision therefore illustrates an important distinction between a client's right to criticise professional services and the legal consequences of making false statements of fact.
Source: The Law Society Gazette
READ FULL DECISION BELOW:
Unlock premium articles, PDF downloads, cases and more
Learn how to subscribe