stuff the SRA
do these schisters really care about disciplinary proceedings? Where's the criminal investigation into fraud, exortion etc.. ?
A major law firm knew it sometimes had no reliable evidence of unlawful filesharing when it demanded hundreds of pounds 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 …
... but it's not the SRA's job to prosecute random people. It's not even their job to sue random lawyers on behalf of random punters. It's their job to police their profession. As such, all they can do is kick folk out of said profession. You want charges brought against them, go see the police.
"...There were other factual possibilities known to [Gore and Miller] such as unauthorised access or a change in IP address after a 24-hour gap following modem switch off follow or other such occurence."
I don't have recent experience with other ISPs, but Sky operate a dynamic IP system, even turning off the router for a second or two results in a fresh IP address, let alone a longer period. If they're not checking that the IP address holder is the correct one for the exact time period concerned, then that's completely shoddy work on their behalf.
These guys are not even "good" lawyers - they probably thought they were oh so clever with this little scam. All they basicly did was send blackmail letters asking for a few hundred quid (a few hundred quid is just beer money to any "decent" lawyer though isint it!).
Yeah, being a lawyer is such a sexy job if you work for Davenport Lyons - all those envelopes to stuff and those Excel spreadsheets full of IP address to wade through - HBO should make a f**ing drama series about it!
OK these scumbags deserve to suffer more than being disciplined by the SRA (although that's pretty serious stuff for a solicitor) but this will be most unwelcome news for Andrew Crossley.
ACS:Law is even more disreputable than Davenport Lyons so AC is dooooooomed. How my heart bleeds. Poor Andrew, perhaps he won't be able to afford that Lambo after all. He may even go bust as he confessed he feared he might in one of the many leaked emails. It's a tragedy, it really is.
Why are people so upset when all they have done is what they do as SOP? All Davenport has done is to confirm what people think of lawyers, bottom feeding scum.
And why did the watchdog have to wait for complaints when Davenport's trickery was up front for all to see? Any decent watchdog outfit would sniffed this out way before.
Hope Davenport have to refund all ill-gotten gains plus plus interest plus a big penalty, to boot.
"Gore and Miller also disregarded the harm the campaign of legal threats might do to Davenport Lyons' reputation, regulators claim, in breach of the Solicitors Code of Conduct."
Notice when the Code of Conduct gets mentioned. "Gack!, you've damaged our legal (?) business!"
Not of course for the previously mentioned
"The pair are also accused of acting in the interests of Davenport Lyons, rather than those of their copyright-holding clients."
which is just common practice, and common knowledge?
When the inquiry finds that these companies acted improperly and illegally cannot any of the people they sent a letter to & who paid the requested amount then start a private prosecution against them for blackmail, extortion, abuse of the legal system, bringing the sytem into disrepute etc etc?? (feel free to add or pick offences that may apply)
After all the report will be public record wont it? So that'll be evidence to use against them & unless they can prove you have the data on your pc without hacking into it (again illegal & therefore not admissable) or siezing your pc (they dont have the power to do that) surely they would have to refund you, right?
Much as I like the idea of the scum being dragged through the courts, it would require the victims taking action, which will be expensive and time consuming, and probably not get very far.
Perhaps a better approach would be for the SRA to force Davenport Lyons to repay all the money it received, (I leave the reader to decided if a nominal compensation amount should be added) . One would assume DL have kept records of all correspondance and transactions.
Davenport Lyons as a "reputable" legal company should have had appropriate controls in place to ensure that none of the partners or staff acted inappropriately, so while the SRA may find "Gore and Miller also disregarded the harm the campaign of legal threats might do to Davenport Lyons' reputation", the company is ultimately responsible for the letters issued on it's headed paper, and must answer to the SRA also.
One step further? - make DL send a letter of apology to all people it "accused".
They sent 6,113 demands for money and were "regarding the scheme which they were operating as a revenue-generating scheme", according to the SRA.
oh, they're not allowed to send threatening letters with the aim of generating income? I hope ACS:Law are watching closely, to quote an email from their file sharing team:
"Please can you acknowledge receipt of this email and inform me when we can now receive
the data for generating Letters of Claim necessary to generate the income for yourselves and the Client."
(there are almost certain way better quotes, i only had a quick flick through a small section of one of the inboxes!)
So shock and surprise that the "evidence" isn't very good and innocent people got/get caught up in accusations, but where exactly does that now leave the Digital Economy Bill which is based on precisely the evidence, surely it shoots a lovely big hole in its hull.... I forget its a government boat though, the relevant politicians will be sticking fingers in the holes and keeping it afloat I guess.
...in a civilised country, everyone is entitled to a defence. Remember (at least in theory) innocent until proven guilty? How do you decide "knowingly defending the guilty"? By the fact that a jury finds the defendant guilty? What about appeals, especially many years later (eg Birmingham Six, Carl Bridgewater).
Perhaps you need to think this through a bit more.
British law firm Ralli are looking to take action against ACS Law - http://www.ralli.co.uk/news/recipients-of-acs-law-copyright-infringement-letters-urged-to-come-forward&archive=
"It can be incredibly upsetting for people to receive such letters and they may well have a claim for harassment against acs law so I am urging them to come forward."