Claim That Righthaven Engaged In Unauthorized Practice Of Law Moves To Nevada
from the and-onwards,-I-suppose dept
We recently wrote about a filing in South Carolina, claiming that Righthaven was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The petition carefully laid out how Righthaven's practices might qualify as such in a variety of states, so it's little surprise that the same argument has now also been filed in a case in Nevada, where the largest chunk of Righthaven cases have been filed. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing filed in Colorado soon as well. You can see the filing below... and right after it you can see that the judge accepted the filing almost immediately, before Righthaven had a chance to protest:The court has reviewed the proposed brief and agrees that it may be useful to the court in ruling on the pending order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standingOnce again, things are not looking very good for Righthaven these days. But, of course, I'm sure the judges are just doing this because they believe in Righthaven, and just want to give "guidance" to competitors... Yeah, that's the ticket...
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: nevada, unauthorized practice of law
Companies: righthaven
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Pathological Liar lives!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Tossing lawsuits in like this is vengeance, pure and simple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The relevant filing here isn't a "lawsuit" - it's an amicus brief supporting a defense argument re: Righthaven's lack of standing and unauthorized practice.
As for your notion of "vengeance" . . . turn-about is fair play, no?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
In other news - you are wrong.
I'm not sure why you think self defense is an act of revenge. Do explain. And remember that the best defense is a good offense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The argument is as simple as it is compelling. Righthaven loses whether they have standing or not. And they don't just lose--it's a fraud on the court.
I'm glad you're picking up these Righthaven UPL stories, Mike. I think this is going to be an important issue for them.
A simplified version of the argument is this: Righthaven is only being assigned the copyright so they can file an infringement claim over that copyright in their own name. But there's also an agreement that they'll split the profits with whoever assigns them the copyright. This means that the party assigning Righthaven the copyright is actually a client, and it means that Righthaven is representing that client as a law firm. But there's one big problem with that--Righthaven is a company, but not a law firm. It doesn't matter that Righthaven is full of lawyers and that actual lawyers prosecute the cases. Righthaven itself isn't a law firm per se, and that makes it the Unauthorized Practice of Law.
Kudos to the man that came up with this argument! I love a good argument, especially one from left field. ;)
I've been trying to figure out the counterarguments, but the more research I do on this the more I'm convinced that this argument is a game-ender for Righthaven--at least for the present incarnation of Righthaven.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I think it's more like a group of lawyers who don't like what Righthaven is doing on a personal level, and they're devoting their time and energy, likely even for free, to put an end to what they see as an abuse of the system. Even I can respect that, and I'm about as pro-Righthaven as they come.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
How is this not champerty?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
IT's sort of ironic, considering Righthaven actually tried this with the person who stood for theirself in Nevada, IIRC.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The little reading I did on it made me think they might be considered a collection agency in some states but not others. That might be one defense they could argue. I'm not really sure how that works though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't look good for Righthaven, that much is certain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
1. Go crazy filing questionable lawsuits.
2. Sit back expecting settlements to roll in.
3. Throw "in-house counsel" under bus and insult judge/s when it all goes sideways.
4. ???
5. Profit, er, vomit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The in-house counsel are identified as Coons and Chu in a footnote. Mangano is saying that he didn't think that Stephens Media or the others had to be disclosed because their interest in the lawsuit was indirect. Righthaven, as owner of the right, was collecting the total judgment/settlement. And Stephens Media or whoever was only getting half of the profit as a separate contractual matter.
Is that argument going to fly? Mangano says there's a lack of case law defining what is meant by "direct, pecuniary interest." I don't think Judge Hunt will accept this though. If half of what Righthaven collects, after expenses, goes to their assignor, I can see how that would be considered a direct interest. But I also see how it could be considered an indirect one--I get what Mangano is saying.
As Mangano tells it, it appears to be another one of these gray areas--the problem for them is that we already know how Judge Hunt rules when there's any gray. Or worse for Righthaven, it's not a gray area at all and they simply got it wrong. Either way I don't seem them not getting sanctioned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
;b
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gibson's television interview is further proof that his sophistry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gibson is a pathological liar, and a bad one at that. He reminds me of Iraq's Information minister who kept insisting they had defeated the Americans, while our tanks were rolling down the street behind him. Gibson too will pretend everything is fine until he is taken away in handcuffs. He must be clinically delusional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's actually a pretty simple situation.
If Righthaven is not a law firm, then they are guilty of the unlicensed practice of law, since they conduct no business other than litigation, and that is simply not allowed.
If Righthaven were a law firm, they would be guilty of champerty, since (on a state level) law firms are not allowed to have ownership interest in the property that they are suing over.
Either way, Righthaven is SOL.
Now if Righthaven were a law firm, and did not bring the suits in their own name, then it would be allowed. However, this goes against their entire business model. The only reason newspapers sign up with (and in Stephens' case, created) Righthaven was so that the actual owners don't have to face any of the risks associated with bringing losing (and/or frivolous) lawsuits.
What amazes me most about this filing, is the number of times this has been tried before, and how the court smacked it down every single time. You'd think that Righthaven, founded as it was by lawyers, would have done a little more research into their sole business model.
[ link to this | view in thread ]