Yeah, I also don’t understand some of the responses here. An analogy would be that someone has a problem with some software they are using, so they do a bit of

Yeah, I also don’t understand some of the responses here. An analogy would be that someone has a problem with some software they are using, so they do a bit of research and find a possible answer on Stack Overflow, and they hire a software developer to help them implement a fix. The software developer bills them £200 and provides detailed instructions on fixing it. The individual leaves a review for the software developer saying “I paid upfront for help with my software. But what I got was just the Stack Overflow information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me. Another scam developer.” If the developer uses the site the review was left on to obtain business and they can demonstrate a specific monetary loss after the review was posted, they have claims for damages. A non-trivial portion of a software developer’s job is looking stuff up on Stack Overflow, so applying that knowledge using their experience isn’t scammy at all. Details of the legal advice provided are missing, but the same could be true. Client sends contract and seeks advice on what their obligations are upon contract termination, and the law firm responds by rewording the portion of the contract which spells out their obligations. If they find the obligations to be obvious, then maybe they didn’t need legal advice in the first place. If they don’t understand the quoted obligations, they should follow up asking for clarification. But saying “another scam solicitor” is libelous. And isn’t his offer to remove the review in exchange for a refund considered extortion?