ACS:Law Boss Andrew Crossley Breached Solicitor's Code, 'Brought The Legal Profession Into Disrepute'
from the paying-attention dept
To the various lawyers in the US who have been jumping on the mass copyright infringement/pre-settlement shakedown bandwagon, you might want to pay attention to what's happening in the UK, where the guy who really made this strategy famous has been found to have breached the solicitors code of conduct with these lawsuits. Yes, ACS:Law's Andrew Crossley has not received a kind reaction from the judge who was already troubled by the way these cases had played out:Ruling in the Patents County Court in London on Monday, Judge Birss QC described ACS:Law's pursuit of illegal filesharers as "amateurish and slipshod" and said it had "brought the legal profession into disrepute".It's nice to see court systems on both sides of the ocean not taking kindly to this sort of clear abuse of the judicial system as a part of a business model.
Birss said Crossley had breached the solicitors code of conduct because he was responsible for the licence agreement between Media CAT and the original copyright holders, and stood to profit from it. The code of conduct states that "you must not enter into an arrangement to receive a contingency fee for work done in prosecuting or defending any contentious proceedings" before the court.
The judge said: "I am quite satisfied to the standard necessary for this stage of a wasted costs application that Mr Crossley is responsible for the basic agreements [the licence agreements between Media CAT and original copyright holders] and has thereby acted in breach of the solicitors rule 2.04.
"In my judgment, the combination of Mr Crossley's revenue sharing arrangements and his service of the notices of discontinuance serves to illustrate the dangers of such a revenue sharing arrangement and has, prima facie, brought the legal profession into disrepute. It may be better placed under the revenue sharing heading in this judgment but it is, prima facie, improper conduct in any event."
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: andrew crossley, uk
Companies: acs:law
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How about the legislative system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Misread the case completely
It had to do with under English law if it was OK, when it is OK, for lawyers (solicitors in England) to use a contingency fee where they recover a percentage such as a third of the recovery.
Without a contingency fee, the poor can't sue (unless a lawyer works for free). The rich have money to pay lawyers. It's ironic to see Mike taking such an anti-progressive, ultra-conservative view of the law.
At least the original was in English, and Mike did not fake reading a Dutch-language report. Unfortunately, it seems like Mike can't or won't comprehend in English any more than he can in Dutch. It appears that Mike just ASSumes what he wants without reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Misread the case completely
The agreement between the lawyers and the copywrite enforcers went above and beyond what a normal charge for a case would go. Their entire model and methodology is to get as much money without ever seeing light in a court. They not only got a percentage of winnings, but got MORE if the case never went to court, though I am unable to point to articles here from work, but honestly, I can't blame you for not trusting in the word of a blog commentor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Misread the case completely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Misread the case completely
When people being sued are presented with due process involving unambiguous evidence of their supposed actions, then we can talk about what to call such people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Misread the case completely
Without a contingency fee, the poor can't sue (unless a lawyer works for free). The rich have money to pay lawyers. It's ironic to see Mike taking such an anti-progressive, ultra-conservative view of the law.
Sorry - it is you who is misreading. The rules in England do allow for contingency fees in those cases where poor people would be otherwise unable to sue (we used to have a better system called legal aid for this but the government has misguidedly wiped it out almost compeletely). What they do not allow is this kind of "business deal" contingency fee, to allow rich people to sue large numbers of poor people at minimal cost - and quite right too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Misread the case completely
In the U.K. there are NO-WIN, NO-PAY fees, where if the poor client wins the lawyer can collect, NOT A THIRD OF THE DAMAGES, but his normal hourly fee.
If there is a 50-50 chance of winning a case, this means that British lawyers can collect their REGULAR fee half the time and in effect work for the poor for half-price.
The original BBC article linked to the official Solicitors Regulation: http://www.sra.org.uk/rule2/#r2-04
2.04 Contingency fees
(1)
You must not enter into an arrangement to receive a contingency fee for work done in prosecuting or defending any contentious proceedings before a court of England and Wales, a British court martial or an arbitrator where the seat of the arbitration is in England and Wales, except as permitted by statute or the common law.
end of regulation -----------
There may be other exemptions that I don't know about, but the main exemption is that a British lawyer can say "don't pay me if you lose" which in effect is providing free legal services to the poor.
In the USA, lawyers can receive more than their standard hourly fee when they win, to compensate for the lost cases.
Of course this may (over) encourage lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazing
That's a little like making the mafia look bad, or making politicians look dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do The Pirates Care About “Bringing The Legal Profession Into Disrepute”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do The Pirates Care About “Bringing The Legal Profession Into Disrepute”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do The Pirates Care About “Bringing The Legal Profession Into Disrepute”?
It is all a matter of perspective. Consider a group of individuals that continually steal from society and individuals, that use legal contracts and accounting tricks to prevent people from getting paid, that use threats and intimidation tactics, that bribe government officials with high paying jobs to get laws passed, that continually push for the violation of basic rights, that push for unreasonable searches and monitoring with out judicial oversight. If you consider these people the good guys.
Then I prefer to be the bad guy ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do The Pirates Care About “Bringing The Legal Profession Into Disrepute”?
Count me as being on the 'bad guy' side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do The Pirates Care About “Bringing The Legal Profession Into Disrepute”?
What colour is the sky in your monochrome world, black or white?
Besides which, no it's not. People upholding the side of "good" should be held to a higher standard than those on the side of "bad", else what's the point of fighting them? If you think it's necessary to stoop to mass scale intimidation, threat and extortion to uphold the law, something's gone very wrong with your viewpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disrepute?
The law profession has been in disrepute long before Andrew Crossley was ever a twinkle in his daddy's eye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disrepute?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, but for every win there's an even bigger loss... Which one will get the most publicity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contingent fees are OK in the US.
Our contingent fee litigation philosophy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]