File-Share Solicitor To Face Tribunal Over ‘Bullying’

Quicker complaints please

Prince was very critical of the slow progress of the solicitors’ regulator, which seems likely to take at least two and a half years to deal with a similar case Which? lodged against ACS Law’s predecessor, Davenport Lyons (DL).

In 2008, Which? lodged a compalint against DL, over threatening letters to alleged copyright thieves, but the SRA took until March 2010 to refer two former DL partners Brian Miller and David Gore, to the tribunal. Since then the SRA has been preparing its case, and gathering witness statements. So the disciplinary hearing, originally expected by the end of this year, still has no date and is not expected until mid-to-late 2011.

Davenport Lyons subsequently stopped doing this work, handing its files on to Andrew Crossley in May 2009, which is when ACS started to generate complaints.

“The SRA must look at ways to speed up its complaints process,” said Prince. “It’s taking far too long finalising its case against Davenport Lyons’ two former partners. It made its decision in March to refer the solicitors to the SDT, and here we are five months down the line and still waiting for that to happen. This is not satisfactory in my opinion.”

Adding the time for cases to be referred to the time to resolve them, she said: “If it is going to take another two years for this case to reach the SDT and then for the SDT to reach a decision, that means we’ll have waited close to four years without any professional body taking action in order for what we say is bullying behaviour to stop.”

“Our position is that we would like to see prosecutions accelerated to the SDT,” said an SRA spokesman. “However, it’s important to stress that the interests of consumers would not be well served if the SRA failed to ensure that this complex case is properly formulated and that all the supporting evidence is gathered. The case is being dealt with as expeditiously as possible.’

“80 percent pay up” says Crossley

Although Crossley has not responded directly to eWEEK Europe, comments on his site claim that the majority of those accused pay up without a murmur, and deny that he is bullying people.

Crossley claims that the letters are very effective as “eighty percent of all defendants opt for settlements outside of court, for amounts more than originally claimed. Copyright infringers generally buckle when litigation is formally initiated.”

“It has always been our intention to set a favourable precedent and whilst it is disappointing that these settlements mean that a fully contested case has yet to reach the courts, our client’s (sic) have been successful in recovering monies lost to piracy,” says Crossley.

Crossley plans to double his team and increase his activity by around 300 percent in the next few months, and claims to have acquired “substantial” new clients “as a direct result of the increased publicity”.

Voluntary process

In May, he said that his letters are not accusations or demands for payment: “The recipient of the letter of claim is afforded the opportunity if they wish to close the matter off and avoid the issue continuing by entering into a compromise agreement to bring the matter to an end. They are under no compulsion or obligation to do this and the compromise agreement is an entirely voluntary process.”

He also defended the accuracy of the data on which his letters are based, and denied reports that the letters are empty threats, which are not followed up by actual legal action: “It is fair and correct to say that I try to avoid litigation wherever possible and exhaust all other avenues falling short of litigation prior to proceedings being issued.”

Which?’s Prince said “it’s time for the profession to take action against law firms, and those responsible for them, which behave in a way we believe most right-thinking people would view as both aggressive and bullying.’