UK Law Body Targets RIAA-Style Settlement Letters

PerformanceDude writes "The Register reports that a major UK law firm knew it sometimes had no reliable evidence of unlawful filesharing when it demanded hundreds of pounds in damages from internet users, according to the solicitors' watchdog. London-based Davenport Lyons threatened thousands of people with legal action for alleged copyright infringement between 2006 and 2009. They were told that by quickly paying around £500 damages, plus costs, they could avoid court. Following complaints to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Davenport Lyons now stands accused of deliberately ignoring concerns over the standard of its evidence."

Comments

Jeopardy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take "Barratry" for $1000 Alex.

excellent

[mirix]

Now if firms responsible will actually be punished for false claims, we might be going somewhere.

Re:excellent

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Over many years I have spent much more time with various lawyers than I ever wanted. One of the most valuable things I learned is that when a lawyer sends you a letter saying something like "In our opinion XYZ..." you should pay very close attnetion.

XYZ usually involves some sort of claim to back up a demand and not only is XYZ frequently untrue but it would be almost impossible for a practising lawyer to believe XYZ is true. That is why it is presented as an opinion rather than as a fact from an expert [the lawyer] ... so that when Mr. ABC goes before a judge he can't say "Boondoggle and Co. claimed it was illegal for me to not pay them..." then Boondoggle can defend themselves with "that was just our opinion at the time, we made no claims as to its accuracy and Mr. ABC is responsible for obtaining his own legal advice." Boondoggle and Co. are simply hoping that Mr. ABC will assume a lawyer would not outright lie or that he can't afford a lawyer of his own, or both, and will pay up without determining the truth.

This just sounds like more in the same vein but they stumbled a wee bit far over the line - smarter lawyers would have done it in such a way as to be beyond meaningful discipline.

Excellent advice

[$RANDOMLUSER]

(UK Law) (Body Targets) (RIAA Style Settlement Letters)

Double tap to the body, then the kill shot to the head.

Still a long way to go

[Toy G]

Davenport-Lyons was the legal firm who started this racket, which was then relaunched under ACS:Law; Gallant-Macmillan was the third entity to try it.
Only the first group of evildoers has been obliterated; the second has been damaged, but it's still in the game; the third one is still cranking out letters, although in a fairly restrained manner (in this case, it's really their customer who is pushing hard). And, eventual enforcement of the Digital Economy Bill, currently expected for late January 2011, will probably open the floodgates to hordes of copycats.

There's still a long way to go for the legal situation around UK filesharing to get back to anything resembling sanity.

Re:Still a long way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

And, eventual enforcement of the Digital Economy Bill, currently expected for late January 2011, will probably open the floodgates to hordes of copycats.

Don't worry. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats promised to fight against the DEB. I think we can rely on them.

Re:Still a long way to go

[L4t3r4lu5]

I have a letter from my local MP (Lib Dem) stating she would tow the party line and vote against the DEB when it was introduced during the wash-up.

She didn't turn up.

When the local elections come around again, I'll be sure to send her a copy of the letter with a copy of the list of those in attendance, and a scrap of paper saying "Lying politicians lose votes."

Expensive legal defense

[BadAnalogyGuy]

As long as an effective defense is more expensive than out of court settlement, this type of harassment will exist. Even though Davenport Lyons may have known that some of the recipients of the letter were not guilty of anything, it would have been time consuming to figure out which ones they were. And with the state of the courts these days, it was more effective to take a wide view and hit everyone they could.

Until the government provides basic defense in all cases, this type of thing will continue.

Re:Expensive legal defense

[pookemon]

"harassment"

I'd call this "Black Mail" or "Extortion". Even if the person is involved in the file sharing, and there is evidence as such, this is still black mail.

I wish we did that here.

[laughingcoyote]

Apparently, English civil courts require real evidence when you bring a case before them.

It's kind of a neat idea. Here, it's "Well, we have an IP address that we think the defendant used around that time!" We should adopt that standard here in the good old US. Actual, hard evidence. What a great idea!

A rose by any other name

[Capsaicin]

Though I can't speak with authority on English law, the fact that 'barratry' per se was abolished doesn't mean that courts are necessary left without remedy against vexatious litigants. For example here in NSW 'rape' was similarly abolished. That doesn't mean you can get away with raping anyone, you'll simply be charged with 'sexual assault,' instead.

That being said this isn't really barratry (which is not generally as profitable). It is, especially as it is being conducted by a firm of lawyers, something much worse. Perhaps closer to 'extortion' (which they also abolished around the same time as barratry). One hopes the SRA spanks their joint and several botties!