Google: Review was online for 10 months
The High Court has ordered a former client to pay a solicitor £9,500 for posting a defamatory review on Google describing him as “a fraudster” who “rips you off”.
Adrian Andrzej Stojek, who represented himself, posted the review having failed to pay his legal bills, which resulted in KJ Conroy & Co obtaining judgment against him for £16,000 and a charging order against his house.
Kevin Conroy, the firm’s founder, claimed £30,000 in damages for defamation, but Deputy Master Marzec said [1] the award should take into account that he was “unable to identify any person who had read the review, or even the approximate number of readers, or any demonstrable impact on his reputation.
“In the absence of evidence as to the extent of publication, an issue on which a claimant bears the burden of proof, I should not assume any level of publication greater than the minimum that is consistent with the serious harm to reputation having been inflicted on the claimant.”
The High Court heard that Mr Stojek was “unhappy” with the legal services he received from KJ Conroy & Co, based in Birmingham.
The review he posted in April 2025 read: “Do not use. Very awful man. Reviews your case first to see how much money you have then rips you off. He makes massive mistakes then trys [sic] to take your house and charge you for his own mistake. In court he attends himself and is absolutely pathetic. Be AWARE he is a fraudster…”
Mr Conroy issued proceedings in July 2025, claiming damages of £30,000. Mr Stojek did not respond to the proceedings in any way.
Mr Conroy obtained default judgment at the Birmingham District Registry in October 2025, with damages to be decided by the court.
Four months later, Deputy Master Marzec refused an application by Mr Stojek to set aside the default judgment – finding he did not have any defence with a reasonable prospect of success – after which the defendant took down the review.
Mr Conroy argued at the assessment hearing that “it would only require one potential client to read that post and take their business elsewhere” for the firm to lose out on legal fees, but it was impossible to identify how much business he had lost.
The court recorded: “He stated that he was embarrassed and angry when the review was posted, and that it was not something he liked to read about himself especially in the twilight of his career. He said that the review tarnished his name after many years in practice.”
Mr Stojek accepted in cross-examination that “none of the allegations he had made in the review were true” but said the review was “his opinion”.
Deputy Master Marzec said this was a case “in which harm to reputation needs to be inferred from the surrounding facts”.
Mr Conroy had not “adduced any evidence of actual impact of the publication of the review upon the claimant’s reputation or standing”, which was “unfortunate”. There were no Google analytics statistics to indicate readership, and a screenshot showing the review had got two likes was not dated.
However, “in spite of this absence of evidence”, the case on serious harm to reputation was not “extravagant or unreal”.
The deputy master said “very serious allegations” had been made against a solicitor, which were “clearly and obviously defamatory” at common law.
Mr Stojek gave his real name when posting the review and indicated that he was a former client, giving it credibility and authority. The review was online for about 10 months.
However, Mr Stojek had not attempted to justify the allegations he made and Mr Conroy had not needed to defend his character or conduct during the proceedings.
Taking everything into account, Deputy Master Marzec awarded Mr Conroy damages of £9,500. She refused to grant an injunction, as there was no “real or credible threat of further publication of the allegations in the review by the defendant”.