US Copyright Group Lawyers Suggest They're Allowed To Lie To People They're Demanding Cash From
from the perhaps-a-court-could-disabuse-you-of-that-notion dept
Back in November, we wrote about how the lawyers behind US Copyright Group, Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver, were being sued for extortion, conspiracy and fraud. While we doubted the lawsuit would get all that far, it did seem to have a slightly stronger legal basis than similar lawsuits in the past, due mainly to the fact that the producers of Uwe Boll's Far Cry screwed up with the registration of the copyright, meaning that many of those sued could not be hit with statutory damages -- and yet DGW falsely claimed they could. While defenders of these pre-settlement "pay up or we'll sue" campaigns like to claim that it's not extortion if the party demanding the cash has a legitimate legal claim, it's a lot harder to make that case when they don't really have a legitimate legal claim, but simply say they do. That sounds a lot closer to extortion.Ars Technica notes that DGW has filed a scathing response (though, oddly, Ars Technica does not provide the actual filing). Apparently, there are two key arguments made by DGW: First, that the guy suing, Dmitriy Shirokov, has no right to sue DGW, because they're just the lawyers "simply doing their job," and you can't sue for that:
"Although an attorney may be accused of defrauding opposing parties, knowingly committing discovery abuses, lying to the court, or purposely and maliciously defaming another individual, if it takes place during the course of litigation, the conduct simply is not actionable,"That's quite a claim, in large part because it's misleading. DGW is playing a little game of misdirection, and assuming everyone else is stupid (a dangerous game for lawyers to play). The main problem is that the actions that DGW is being sued over here are not actually "during the course of litigation." The complaint is about the "pay up" threat letter, which is not directly a part of the litigation, but an attempt to avert litigation. To claim that demanding cash based on a factually incorrect legal claim is immune from a legal complaint seems like a stretch. If DGW's legal theories are correct here, it would mean that a lawfirm could resort to outright, blatant extortion, just so long as it somehow connected it to the threat of litigation. That's a plainly ridiculous outcome that I find hard to believe a court would buy.
Separately, DGW says that no "harm" has come to Shirokov since he hasn't actually settled. That, again, seems like a questionable tactic. If true, the only way that someone illegally or unfairly threatened could sue is if they first give in to the threat. It seems that just the threat itself, if it truly was made maliciously with false information for the purpose of getting people to pay up, should constitute clear harm in itself.
Of course, not all DGW's claims seem that crazy. On the question of racketeering and other criminal complaints, DGW points out that individuals can't bring criminal complaints, only the government can. This point goes in DGW's favor, and I'm a bit surprised that Shirokov's lawyers focused on criminal statutes in their complaint. However, the complaint covers plenty of areas that aren't criminal in nature, and there's no reason why the case shouldn't move forward on those issues.
Finally, DGW, in what appears to be becoming standard practice for the firm, is demanding sanctions against Shirokov and his lawyer for filing the lawsuit in the first place. Talk about obnoxious. DGW, in this filing, appear to be claiming both that they can effectively do whatever the hell they want to threaten someone if he doesn't pay up (so long as they can claim a loose association with ongoing litigation) -- and that anyone who then claims that this amounts to a form of fraud or extortion should be punished. In other words, it seems that DGW believes it can act beyond the law in the course of litigation, and anyone who sues them over it should be sanctioned.
Hopefully, a court sets DGW straight on all of that. I'm still not convinced this case will get very far. I'd be surprised if courts, while sympathetic to those charged in such "settle or we sue" lawsuits, went to the other extreme and claimed that the efforts behind them directly broke the law. I'd be thrilled if I'm proven wrong on this, but it just seems unlikely.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, extortion, fraud
Companies: dunlap grubb and weaver, us copyright group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The lawyers may not lie, but the information they are working from may not be 100%. They are acting at the behest of their clients.
If you have an issue, sue the clients, not the lawyers. Good luck with it, you would have a heck of a case to prove.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rule 8.4(c): It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
Rule 4.1(a): In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly . . make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Remember, these are pre-settlement letters. A lawyer can obey instructions from a client to defend and enforce copyrights, and to pursue settlements whenever possible - but I don't think they can make entirely false threats based on incorrect information. Even if their client instructed them to do so, they would still bear a legal responsibility to, you know, not break the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Once again, we haven't even gotten that far. There is no court case yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This is going to be at issue if an example isn't made of these lawyers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A lying lawyer? ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
They can be censured, sanctioned, and/or disbarred for breaking the Model Rules by their state bar, regardless of where this class action goes, if anywhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A lying lawyer? ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
under same logic one cant be arrested for attempting a crime.
since no harm is done unless its actually comminted
[ link to this | view in thread ]
filing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Actually, this is not the case. The entire process of private prosecution involves individuals bringing criminal charges against another party, and may even conduct the entire case as the prosecutor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PS - Does anyone have a copy of the letter?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I may be missing something - if a laywer would like to correct me, please do so :) I got my info here: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/pripro01.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "not actionable"
I think this quote is being misunderstood, particularly the phrase "not actionable." They meant not actionable in the manner sought by the plaintiff, namely, via an unrelated lawsuit in a different jurisdiction. Clearly the judge in the DC case or the DC or VA bar associations could take action against DWG.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: not litigation?
Are you suggesting that a defendant must be named before settlement negotiations can take place? Isn't it possible that a John Doe defendant would want the option to settle before actually being named in the suit for all of the world to see?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: not litigation?
The point is that DWG is claiming protections that only apply to actions taken during litigation. The letters (which is what they are being sued over) are not part of any official litigation, but rather a precursor to it. Thus DWG does not enjoy those protections.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
One fact you should keep in mind is that USCG registered the copyright for the "Far Cry" movie. They can hardly claim they didn't know the ins-nd-outs of it. The claim here is that the registration was fraudulent, first of all, since the wrong date was intentionally used. And second of all, even if the registration was not fraudulent, the settlement letters indicated that all of the accused were possibly on the hook for statutory damages.
The problem is, statutory damages were not on the table for all of the accused, and some were actually only potentially liable for actual damages. By sending out letters making the accused think that they were facing statutory damages, USCG committed further fraud. I doubt USCG did any of this on purpose, but it's a pretty amateur mistake for a group that advertises themselves as copyright experts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: not litigation?
how is this possible? How did DGW know the name and address of this guy in MA if they hadn't received that information from his ISP as a result of the John Doe lawsuit filed in DC?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well in the UK it has been done successfully - so it can't be that hard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: filing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Threats = harm to me, especially if the accusation is false, but I'm not a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: filing
also, here is the settlement letter
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47696534/7-3
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: filing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why is this such a shock
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe not so hopeless a case...
It is true that in many cases lawyers can assert a defense of privilege or immunity against civil claims brought by a non-client (on the theory that they owe no duty to non-client), there are many exceptions. For example, lawyers can be sued for common law fraud and under the federal civil RICO statute in certain cases. The duty not to defraud others, including litigation opponents, is independent of any attorney-client relationship. Lawyers can also be sued for malicious prosecution and malicious defense in certain states (knowing and intentional filing of a groundless lawsuit or defense).
In many states it isn't necessary to prove actual damages in order to recover statutory damages under their unfair trade practice statutes. In fact the claimant need not be "in privity" with the lawyer (i.e., a client) or even a consumer, so long as the statute has been held to apply to lawyers, and the lawyer committed an unfair and deceptive act or practice. Attempted deception is such an act, and the issue of intent is one for the jury.
A good reference work is Mallen & Smith's Legal Malpractice, even if it is heavily biased in favor of lawyers and their malpractice carriers (not surprising, given that the authors are defense counsel for such carriers). Another good source is the monthly Current Reports supplement to the ABA/BNA Lawyer's Manual on Professional Conduct.
It will be interesting to see how this comes out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DGW
http://www.dglegal.com/thomas-m-dunlap
It seems that he leaves the door open to sue anyone who might want to check his resume. So, take care!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Writing Washington Bar Members on Lawyers Conduct
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Writing Washington Bar Members on Lawyers Conduct
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thanks Marcus. Wish you were My BackBone right now!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
come to think of mayhem replaced with word 'alot to learn'
I think the lawgroup is trying to stop it all. Never pulled it off anyway. All steam.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some hacked my Anonymous Coward I did not write
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward I did not write/thre are 2 of us I guess with same name
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.mycprcertificationonline.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]