Prenda's Former Porn Client Comes Forward About His Fears Of Working With Prenda

from the look-at-that dept

Claire Suddath, writing for Bloomberg Businessweek, has written up a pretty comprehensive article about John Steele, Paul Hansmeier and Prenda Law. If, for some reason, you haven't been following this story through all the blog posts, Suddath's article is a pretty good way to catch up on the basics. There are a lot of little things left out, but most of the key points are mentioned. There is one interesting new bit of info in there, which is that Suddath spoke to one of Steele and Hansmeier's earliest porn clients (back before they switched to only suing on behalf of shell companies controlled by people associated with Steele and Hansmeier), Paul Pilcher of Hard Drive Productions. Pilcher explains that his deal with Steele and Hansmeier was a 50/50 split on any revenue gained, and that Steele and Hansmeier took care of everything, such that he had no idea about the various lawsuits. He just cashed the checks.
The money started rolling in. "They would send me a check for, let's say, $35,000, for a month," Pilcher says. "They'd be pounding their chest and jumping up and down, thinking they were the greatest in the world." Over a year and a half, Steele and Hansmeier filed a total of 65 suits on behalf of Hard Drive against 4,760 people, according to court documents. Pilcher earned just under $200,000, he says, but he never knew what was happening with the suits, how many there were, or who exactly his company was suing. "Getting information out of [Steele and Hansmeier] was honestly kind of painful," he says. "They claimed they didn't want me to have records of specific things in case something happened."
Now that's interesting. Have you ever heard of lawyers telling their own clients that they don't want the client to have records of lawsuits filed by that client "in case something happened"? Wow. Pilcher accepted this, even after courts started ruling against Prenda.
In early 2012, Hard Drive was sued twice for harassing plaintiffs to settle claims. Prenda took care of everything—Pilcher didn't even have to show up in court—but he started to wonder what his lawyers were up to. "I got very uncomfortable feelings from them," he says. "But I figured, Well, if there are judges involved, and they're ruling for us, and money is coming in, then it must be OK."
Now, Pilcher seems to realize that getting in bed with Steele and Hansmeier was a big mistake, and recognizes that lawyers may be gunning for him next.
The prospect of thousands of other people doing the same, or worse, terrifies Pilcher, although his Hard Drive Productions stopped working with Prenda last fall. "If these guys fold, I don't know if I'll have people coming out of the woodwork to sue or countersue," he says. "I'm obviously legally exposed."
Seems like an important lesson for other content providers thinking of going into the trolling game. It can come back to bite you. In the meantime, I wonder if Judge Wright or others might be interested in hearing some details from Pilcher about his experiences working with Steele and Hansmeier.
Hide this

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: john steele, paul duffy, paul hansmeier, paul pilcher
Companies: hard drive productions, prenda, prenda law


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    GMacGuffin (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 11:30am

    Have you ever heard of lawyers telling their own clients that they don't want the client to have records of lawsuits filed by that client "in case something happened"?

    Damn that pesky ethical duty to advise your client of significant developments ...

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mark D. (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 12:48pm

      Re:

      I don't think that's an ethical duty, it's more like the entire reason lawyers exist to begin with.

      The client is the one that's going to be responsible for their lawyer's actions, so it's their absolute right to know what their lawyers are doing under their name. HDP should have cut and run and filed a bar complaint immediately after they heard that.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Wally (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 1:46pm

        Re: Re:

        Prenda asked Hard Drive Productions not to keep records...Prenda acted on its own and Hard Drive Productions had no clue what was going on until 2012 and cut ties with them soon after they realized what was going on.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        GMacGuffin (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 2:55pm

        Re: Re:

        Oh, it's an ethical duty ... for obviousness-impaired lawyers.

        The CA Rule: B&PC 6068(m) and CRPC 3-500 are essentially the same as MR 1.4(a). Each requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments relating to the representation and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.

        * * *
        ABA Model Rule 1.4: Communication

        (a) A lawyer shall:

        (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules;

        (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished;

        (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;

        (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and

        (5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

        (b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mark D. (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 6:08pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          It's really more a quibble over labelling. I'm not saying lawyers don't have to do these things; I'm saying it's not a matter of ethics, it's the entire reason the lawyer is being paid in the first place.

          Not doing that isn't an ethical violation, it's a "you aren't even doing your fucking job right!" violation.

          Just splitting hairs really, no point in arguing it too much.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            GMacGuffin (profile), 3 Jun 2013 @ 11:32am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Agreed. That's why I noted the ethics rules are for the "obviousness impaired." We have to take ethics CLE units as well, which my dad notes are silly -- you can't *teach* an adult ethics. They got it or they don't.

            link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2013 @ 11:54am

    Ahh. Taking the fifth doesn't mean other people have to stay quiet!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nicholas Weaver (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 11:58am

    I suspect its 50% AFTER "expenses"

    I'd suspect also that it was 50% AFTER "expenses" which Prenda padded mercilessly. If Mike can get in touch with Mr Pilcher, it might be worth asking about that, since with all the other difficulties, I wouldn't put hollywood-level accounting past the Prendarists.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 11:59am

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael, 31 May 2013 @ 12:02pm

    Wow

    I got very uncomfortable feelings from them

    Take a moment and let that sink in. These lawyers were so shady that a PORN PRODUCER was uncomfortable with their practices.

    "Turn around, bend over, stick this whip in here, move the goat a little to the left...boy, that John Steele guy is creepy.'

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 12:11pm

      Re: Wow

      ...and not any pornographer, but one who recruits young ladies and whose "company" is being investigated for engaging with underage girls.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2013 @ 12:49pm

        Re: Re: Wow

        how is that different from any porn company ever?

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Wally (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 1:32pm

          Re: Re: Re: Wow

          Because if you looked at the Tanner Stages of the girls featured...you could easily start an investigation based on that. I had to take a human development course as a prerequisite for my undergrad...

          link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 1:11pm

        Re: Re: Wow

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          DannyB (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 1:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: Wow

          Wow. Just wow. That link. And these people were uncomfortable working with OOTB's copyright hero buddies Prenda?

          link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Wally (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 1:55pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow

            I think OOTB just posts nonsense some times because she doesn't get enough attention in real life.

            And yes as for the link......that's how about 90% of the Internet porn genera of "Amateur Girls" operates. I am in total and utter shock that the people do that are afraid of Prenda....I'm definitely not ruling out the possibility that Prenda is working like a mafia, if not worse. My heart and my gut tells me there is more shocking news than even this...I just hope I can personally stomach it as my feelings tell me there is something much much worse behind Prenda than what has surfaced here.

            link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 12:11pm

      Re: Wow

      ...and not any pornographer, but one who recruits young ladies and whose "company" is being investigated for engaging with underage girls.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    gyffes, 31 May 2013 @ 12:17pm

    Underage?

    Don't post their address... outoftheblue and/or that other asshat will apply for a job there.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2013 @ 12:29pm

    wtf math

    I find it hard to believe that Prenda only made $6150 per case, or $84 per defendant over a time period of a year and a half.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      anonymous, 31 May 2013 @ 12:40pm

      Re: wtf math

      Those figures are only for one client. Prenda and Steele had many other clients.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Wally (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 1:34pm

      Re: wtf math

      By suing thousands of individuals at a time, that is how the figured get so high.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 11:10pm

      Re: wtf math

      Those are the numbers reported to the client from their awesome bookkeeping skills... the same skills where no taxes were paid on any income, and money was never placed into trust accounts for their 'clients'.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2013 @ 12:37pm

    If your business is the type where licking ass is a-okay and you say someone else is fucked up that scares me.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mark D. (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 12:50pm

      Re:

      There is a difference between things that gross some people out and things that harm other people. Learn the difference, and learn which one is bad and which isn't.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btrussell (profile), 2 Jun 2013 @ 7:25am

        Re: Re:

        "Learn the difference, and learn which one is bad and which isn't."

        Use a camera and it is legal. Do not use a camera and it is illegal.

        Copyright makes prostitution legal. Hey! A copyright Pro!!

        Drug dealers need to start filming all of their activities and claim they are making a documentary.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sorrykb (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 1:41pm

    Guy hires shady firm, is surprised when it does shady things

    I seem to recall a saying about reaping what you sow...

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Wally (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 1:41pm

    Well now we can add criminal charges :-)

    ""They claimed they didn't want me to have records of specific things in case something happened."

    This statement from Paul Pilcher is enough to completely disbar all of Prenda from ever practicing law again.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 2:28pm

    No innocence here

    "Getting information out of [Steele and Hansmeier] was honestly kind of painful," he says. "They claimed they didn't want me to have records of specific things in case something happened."


    The second that your lawyer is telling you not to have records "in case something happens" is the moment that you should realize your lawyer is doing something so wrong that even he knows it's wrong. The very next moment is the one where you fire him.

    Hard Drive was engaging in what amounts to willful ignorance. They are just as morally at fault as Prenda.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Internet Zen Master (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 3:27pm

      Re: No innocence here

      Well, depending on your point of view, Hard Drive was already morally at fault for producing porn in the first place.

      That being said, I'd rather not have them charged for being "morally at fault" for Prenda's actions. Sure, they're far from innocent little angels, but hardened copyfraud schemers like Steele et al. (sans Gibbs the fall guy) Paul Pilcher & his cohorts are definitely not.

      And like everyone else has said: "Shady company hires shady law firm. Shady company is shocked(shocked, I tell you!) when they realize that their lawyers are doing shady things."

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2013 @ 7:30pm

        Re: Re: No innocence here

        "Well, depending on your point of view, Hard Drive was already morally at fault for producing porn in the first place. "

        I would not go as far as to say whether or not Hard Drive was morally wrong for making porn...but when you consider that they were under investigation for under aged girls...that is the breaking point if you do not think it wrong to making porn.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2013 @ 4:59pm

    John Steele, out of the blue and horse with no name just hate it when due process is enforced.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anon E. Mous (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 10:26pm

    " Pilcher earned just under $200,000, he says, but he never knew what was happening with the suits, how many there were, or who exactly his company was suing. "Getting information out of [Steele and Hansmeier] was honestly kind of painful," he says. "They claimed they didn't want me to have records of specific things in case something happened."


    I love how the Prenda gang told their own client "they didn't want me to have records of specific things in case something happened."

    Imagine that, I am sure that in normal in Lawyer Client relationships, except where Steele and Prenda are concerned.

    I guess when the IRS comes the Federal Garnd Jury investigating the RICO case issues Pilcher a subpoena and visits Pilcher he ought to have some interesting things to tell them.

    Another potential witness to nail the coffin lid shut on the Prenda gang.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 11:16pm

    Anyone else wondering why suddenly the former client is showing concern?

    I wonder if he got new representation who explained that if Prenda falls, he might fall with them. So now he's on the record saying I know nothing, I knew nothing, no one blame me.

    Except for he was aware his company was sued for harassment, and cared so much he let the lawyers who ran the cases that got him sued handle it for him.

    I wonder how many other 'former' clients will be coming forward trying to distance themselves...

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.