Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Reveals His Retainer Agreement: He Gets Most Of The Money
from the oh,-look-at-that dept
We noted last week that Judge Lewis Kaplan (like so many other judges who have copyright troll Richard Liebowitz in their courts) was fed up with Richard Liebowitz's unwillingness to follow fairly straightforward orders, including that he produce the retainer agreement with his clients, as well as present evidence that the client knew of and approved the specific lawsuits at hand. Judge Kaplan did this in at least two (and possibly more?) cases. In the case we mentioned last week -- the Chosen Figure LLC v. Smiley Miley case -- despite already receiving a benchslap from the judge for not providing the retainer agreement, Liebowitz has filed some random emails between his own staff and... his client's girlfriend? That does include an email from his client saying he doesn't check email much so to have his girlfriend on email chains instead, though it's not clear that this will be enough to satisfy the judge's request for authorization for "this case specifically," but we'll see.
However, much more interesting is that, for what appears to be the first time, Liebowitz has revealed his retainer agreement with clients. And, man, do his clients get a raw deal. Liebowitz gets 50% of any proceeds after costs which come out of any settlement received. In other words, more than half (potentially a lot more than half) of the money from any settlement goes to Liebowitz. That would mean that Richard Liebowitz has a larger financial stake in the outcome of these cases than his own clients.
Also, in typical bad lawyering fashion, Liebowitz tells his clients there's a possibility that they might recover some fees from the other lawyers, but leaves out that his own clients may be on the hook for the other side's legal fees. And this is not theoretical as Liebowitz's track record includes costing his clients money in legal fees. Yet his retainer agreement seems to suggest the only reason his clients should think about legal fees is in how they might get them from the other side:
The Copyright Act includes a provision in which attorney’s fees may be awarded to prevailing plaintiffs. However, such an award is within the discretion of the court and not guaranteed. In the event that the Firm recovers attorney’s fees for You or You are awarded attorney’s fees, the attorney’s fees recovered shall be applied against the amount the Firm would be entitled to under this agreement. If any attorney’s fees award exceeds the amount of the Contingency Fee, whether agreed upon through settlement, awarded by judgment or otherwise, the Firm shall be entitled to the full attorney’s fee award.
That is bad lawyering to say the least, and sketchy to boot. It also might lead to some trouble for Liebowitz. In NY, where this case is filed, the courts have set up a framework for determining if a contingency fee is "unconscionable or unreasonable" and one of the factors is whether or not the client is fully informed about the ramifications of bringing a lawsuit -- which should include the possibility that they (the client) may be on the hook for legal fees if the case goes badly (as they so often do for Richard Liebowitz clients).
Besides the sheer amount of the fee, another factor to consider—and perhaps the most important—in determining the unconscionability of a contingent fee agreement, is whether the client was fully informed upon entering into the agreement with the attorney.... Where a fully informed client with equal bargaining power knowingly and voluntarily affirms an existing fee arrangement that might otherwise be considered voidable as unconscionable, ratification can occur so long as the client has both a full understanding of the facts that made the agreement voidable and knowledge of his or her rights as a client.
Here, it appears that Liebowitz failed to so inform his client. Given how judges are already skeptical of Liebowitz, this could come back to bite him.
For what it's worth, Liebowitz has filed same retainer agreement in another of his cases before Judge Kaplan, along with email exchanges with that client. This case is the Rodriguez v. Whole World Water LLC case. The email exchange there is noteworthy. Liebowitz tells his client Erika Rodriguez that he believed Whole World Water is going out of business, but offered him $500 in response to the lawsuit. Rodriguez tells him:
I would accept the $500 offer, if they are in the process of closing and dissolving the company it wouldn't make much sense to do anything else.
Liebowitz ignores that and says:
Okay, I will give it once last push if I can anything more, but it does look like they are closing.
Rodriguez emailed him back soon after:
I made a mistake in my last email.
I meant to say that I accept the $500 offer, if they are folding there is no need to push for more.
Of course, she didn't make a mistake. Richard just seemed to want to push for more. Of course, given the retainer, and the amounts that Liebowitz charges, $500 wouldn't even cover his "cost" meaning that that money would go straight to Liebowitz, not to Rodriguez in the first place. Also, this particular exchange shows what a sleazebag Liebowitz is. The company that shut down here, Whole World Water, didn't just randomly copy Rodriguez's photo. The email exchange notes that they actually tagged her on Instagram when they posted the photo -- suggesting they were trying to promote her work. No, that does not mean this is not infringing, but in such cases, the normal thing to do is to at least alert the company that they don't have permission and they should take down the photo -- not immediately go to court and sue a company that was clearly in fragile economic straits given the fact that they shut down soon after being sued over 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: copyright troll, retainer, richard liebowitz
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sounds like a Prenda Law School grad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More like he interned at Prenda. No way he could afford the fees for a class at PU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazing how you still don’t get it
There are reasons RL has a boatload of good clients offering these terms and that they stay with him despite the uninformed critics writing crap, the occasional hostile judge and rare bad outcome. These things you miss or don’t acknowledge help justify his fee, which is not excessive given the facts.
At some point you have to question your carping and criticism and ask why he has so many clients and why they have stuck with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
A troll wearing sock-puppet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
Do his “clients” know RL is representing them? He’s already been caught out on that front.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
Moreover as this article notes he seems to be quite happy to take liberties relating to orders from his 'clients', reading them in a manner most beneficial to him and only backing off when it was explicitly spelled out to him what they wanted, which is hardly putting the client's interests first as a lawyer should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
Alleged once. Disputed. Unproven. Think for yourself much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
All the time, both simple and complex thoughts. I even think about ethics and the fact that the judge had to even ask the question is alarming, in my humble opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
Liebowitz, is that you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
so the thread goes something like this:
lawyer to potential client- you don't know you've been wronged, but you have. Let me make you some money on the wrong.
new client client - cool, every little bit helps!
lawyer - does some lawyer shit
lawyer to client - I did lawyer stuff and we lost. btw you owe the other lawyer his fees.
client - aww shucks, well at least you're a nice guy mr lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
At some point you have to question your carping and criticism and ask why he has so many clients and why they have stuck with him.
Nah, there's really no reason to question my carping and criticism. There's plenty of fools out there for him to exploit. Look how many morons donated to build a wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
From the retainer agreement:
The biggest fraud here may well be the "reasonable hourly rate", since hey, if you assign a paralegal or someone with an actual law degree to search for infringements, that hourly rate may be quite large indeed. And there are no limits set upon the costs the LLF can incur in "investigating", and no reasonable way of proving or disproving such hourly claims.
The average client is going to
a) not be aware of the judicial news,
b) not care about the news in the hope of a payment down the road,
c) not recall that they "hired" this bozo to hunt down infringements on their behalf,
d) read the recent judgement that Leibowitz was ordered to send them and decide to terminate their agreement,
and possibly e) discover that Leibowitz will then bill them for man-months of "investigation".
It hasn't been "occasional", nor "rare".
At some point you, friend, will have to accept that the average lawyer isn't going to incur repeated and severe sanctions - and over such a spectrum of professional behavior - such as your buddy RL has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
His clients are not unsophisticated. Many have been doing enforcement for years. They have seen their results and are en masse happy with Richard.
Why doesn’t someone do some real reporting and interview Richard or his clients?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
Why don't you, since you seem to have such a vested interest in how Liebowitz is perceived? What's it to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
You seem to know him so well, why don't you hook us up with the evidence you're using to make your claims?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
"Why doesn’t someone do some real reporting and interview Richard or his clients?"
Because we're so far past that point that the fact-finding is now done by judges and courts increasingly unhappy with the conniving weasel in question.
Damn it, Baghdad Bob, did you abandon Steele and Hansmeier so quickly in favor of that not-quite-new flavor of "crook"? For shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
This is a managerial responsibility...
He's been cited for sucking at that, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
Richard Liebowitz's bad outcomes are rare? Welp, I guess pigs must be able to fly now, with snow in Florida's forecast tomorrow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
I'll refute your points in order:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
You forgot;
"At some point you have to question your carping and criticism and ask why he has so many clients and why they have stuck with him."
That's just it though - they haven't. Hell, given that many of Richard's clients don't even know he's representing them...it's Liebowitz's own version of the Mormon Baptism of the Dead.
As for why they "stick" with him, it might be because he's so notoriously short of truth he gets regularly chewed out by courtroom judges for being a conniving lying weasel. There's never been a shortage of gullible fools willing to follow whoever keeps promising that any day now gagging bagfuls of tort money will be theirs.
"Amazing how you still don’t get it"
Oh, we get it all right. Liebowitz is getting desperate because his Barnum act has been revealed and he's nowhere as charismatic as Barnum so can't make it work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazing how you still don’t get it
perhaps 99% of his 'clients' don't actually exist.
He could be suing "on their behalf" using fake email addresses to bounce messages back and forth....then he just keeps all the winnings....
at some point Judge Kaplan should call some of these people to physically appear in court...
Then like Saltwater Marsh before them, they'll have 'reasons' not to appear...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupidity should be painful
While I can't find it in me to be surprised that even in his contracts with his clients he finds a way to screw them over and put his own interests first, and I do hope it blows up in his face, I also can't find it in me to offer any sympathy to the idiots who hire him for reasons I've noted in the past.
Sign with a known liar and scammer and you don't get to be taken serious when you're surprised that he lied to and scammed you too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piling on is fun, but
I too think there is more to this one-sided story. His cases are good. How come other attorneys did not acquire these cases or poach his clients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piling on is fun, but
How come other attorneys did not acquire these cases or poach his clients.
Competence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Piling on is fun, but
I was going to go with honesty and a single shred of legal ethics, personally.
I get that joking about lawyers' lack of ethics is hilarious, but really all the ethics you'd need to not involve yourself in copyright-based scamming is to be better than Paul Hansmeier. That's not a high bar to clear even for lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Piling on is fun, but
to go under the Paul Hannseier Bar requires expensive equipment.
The type that the Boring Company uses, but made lava-proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aiming for funniest of the week are we?
His cases are good.
Which of course explains why he is regularly sanctioned and called out for lying in court, because as everyone knows those are the hallmarks of an amazing lawyer filing great cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aiming for funniest of the week are we?
You are confusing lawyering with the merits of the case. He has filed and achieved good outcomes thousands of times, despite high profile flubs. How many cases has he lost on the merits?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aiming for funniest of the week are we?
Why don't you pony up the stats, since you are the one making claims?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aiming for funniest of the week are we?
Even a broken clock has to be right twice a day. What is his W/L percentage anyway, since you seem familiar with his entire record?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aiming for funniest of the week are we?
It's quite peculiar that you can claim he has "achieved good outcomes thousands of times" and have yet to produce even one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aiming for funniest of the week are we?
How many cases has he lost on the merits?????
Problem with that question is that the numbers are going to be heavily screwed as he tends to run like the coward he is when the other side looks like it's about to curb-stomp him, similar to the losers in video-gaming who will quit a match when it looks like they're about to lose so as to avoid having the loss on their record.
Someone could cut and run the second they think they're about to lose and their win/loss ration would look amazing, but that wouldn't be due to their skill in anything other than running away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aiming for funniest of the week are we?
Took me a while to get, but ah, the good ol' copyright enforcement chestnut. Have everything cleared by the out-of-court settlement phase so there's no court case to argue the merits on. Because goodness knows, every time the judge asks to see better evidence that isn't a hastily scribbled (read: random number generated) IP address, the Malibu Media operators run like hell with their tramp-stamped tail between their legs.
Lawyering is over merits of the case, sunshine. If your case had merits lawyering wouldn't take center stage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aiming for funniest of the week are we?
How many of his clients have EVER physically turned up to court?
It's something judges should be asking for, because I'm betting a good many of them don't even KNOW he's representing them at all. If they even exist.
Fake emails back n forth a few times..change the header.....poof! new customer.
And illegally keep all the money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liebowitz failing to pay the 2018 Biennial Fee
Also funny (I just uploaded it to RECAP):
ADVISORY NOTICE TO ATTORNEY AND COURT: Under D.C.COLO.LAttyR 3(a), RICHARD LIEBOWITZ was administratively removed from the court's attorney roll and barred from filing electronically under CM/ECF for failing to pay the 2018 Biennial Fee. Counsel must complete a Bar/ECF application through counsel's Attorney Services Portal account and pay the full application fee to be restored to the attorney roll and CM/ECF. Upon reinstatement, counsel must file a Notice of Entry of Appearance in this case. (Text Only Entry) (mfred) (Entered: 10/11/2019)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14573517/adlife-marketing-communications-company-in c-v-albertsons-companies/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Another one freshly on RECAP:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15658455/mondragon-v-nosrak-llc/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
So much winning!
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14674449/rice-v-nbcuniversal-media-llc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8346845/harbus-v-franco-belli-plumbing-and-heating-and-so ns-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7718016/sadowski-v-the-huse-publishing-company/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14881649/walsh-v-nylon-media-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16030414/sands-v-epicstream-llc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17084901/ayiomamitis-v-national-space-society/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17130428/mustard-v-infowars-llc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4524466/martinka-v-time-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17154508/trinkhaus-v-afar-media-llc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16249344/masi-v-the-young-turks-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6915266/leibowitz-v-galore-media-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6173320/steeger-v-jms-cleaning-services-llc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8183592/mango-v-democracy-now-productions-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6167051/mango-v-urbanlinx-media-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6625753/masi-v-turtleback-books-inc/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6147607/reynolds-v-hearst-communications-inc/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
"So much winning!"
Indeed. Liebowitz has truly demonstrated standards of excellence almost on par with those used by Prenda and ACS:Law.
Added icing on that cake would be that despite records like the ones you linked to we still have a sock-puppeting troll, even in a small blog like this, desperately trying to die on the hill of Liebowitz's "merit" record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piling on is fun, but
News flash for the left behind...putting up a one-man army of sock puppets to try to salvage what can not be salvaged isn't helping Liebowitz's case...and in fact only reveals that Richard isn't just a crap lawyers, even trolls trying to help him are inept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has he EVER won in court (never mind asking whether merits or bribery was involved)?
Or have all his "wins" been extortion-shakedown "settlements OUT of court" because the defendant-victims, like the client-victims, don't know enough law to fight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously? He sues a lot of big media companies and they are not winning many motions to dismiss or MSJs. His cases have merit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well Richard, we will accept your lack of a yes to the question as a resounding no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ask Buzzfeed. He just gave them a public spanking on a very significant case. So many sheep and jealous people on this thread. Bottom line: He is directly helping hundreds of people No other attorney was or he is doing it better. Funny how you sheep label him but not the businesses who repeatedly steal photos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Odd that the Buzzfeed verdict hasn't been reported in the media--especially since so many tech journals follow all the copyright trolls and their cases.
Perhaps, once again, there was no verdict?
Nobody is disputing his skill as a shakedown artist or con man. The issue is the degree of incompetence in the skills honest lawyers have to have: you know, knowing the law, keeping up with court deadlines, filing the required paperwork, answering judges honestly, giving clients correct legal advice, accounting for money received in trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for citing a case where literally only Liebowitz's own website touts this piece of news, but just to humor you I went and did your Google research for you. Mind you, it does strike me as odd where the first page of results returned for "buzzfeed liebowitz" only turns up two articles about his victory out of 10 results. It's almost like the win isn't as significant as you hoped it would be.
Of course, if your point is that Techdirt's coverage on all the times Liebowitz has fucked up doesn't count against the "hundreds of people" he has helped, then it stands to reason that one case you cite - which doesn't even merit mention on the scale that Prenda Law and Malibu Media cases have - doesn't negate the point that he's pulled all sorts of shenanigans on the courts. Which have declared him a copyright troll, independent of Techdirt's coverage. Look, if Techdirt's readers hurting Liebowitz's fee-fees affects you so much, I'll point you to a different source:
Liebowitz Sues the MET and LOSES on Fair Use
Liebowitz Can't Weasel Out of $100,000 Fee
I don't know about you, but goofing on fair use and getting sanctioned for failing to register copyright are pretty significant warning signs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting. Would this be the same Liebowitz who's been cited and sanctioned dozens of times for lying to the courts? If so, is there the slightest possibility that he lied to the public on his website also? And if so, is there any credible witness to this alleged spanking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be fair/clear, it's not only Liebowitz's site that mentions the case. Law360 mentions it too - but it is the same Liebowitz who's been cited and sanctioned.
It does give one a pause for thought, though - suddenly there's three unique IP address geolocation snowflakes hemming and hawing because Liebowitz's performance in court is getting scrutinized. It's almost like they have a significant vested interest in his reputation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That has been rather noticeable, yes. TD writes up multiple articles in the past talking about Liebowitz's latest faceplant and/or benchslap and not a peep from anyone nuts enough to defend him, and yet this article goes out and suddenly 'several' ACs are trying to make him out to be some highly skilled lawyer who just happens to have the rare case of a vindictive judge being mean to him? Odd to say the least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...yet this article goes out and suddenly 'several' ACs are trying to make him out to be some highly skilled lawyer who just happens to have the rare case of a vindictive judge being mean to him?"
We've seen this before though. When Prenda was in hot water I distinctly recall multiple brand spanking new AC's joining the defense, one man army fashion. One would spring to the defense of poor Steele and five minutes after that two or three other anonymous commenters would back the first one up with nothing more than a "hear, hear".
The irony is that the "one man army" sock puppet schtick was abandoned by any halfway serious troll or astroturfer long ago. It's just too obvious and carries too many tells unless the troll spends way more time and effort on the attempt than they can usually be arsed to muster.
So not only is Liebowitz a shit lawyer, even the troll coming out on his behalf is sub-par.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Use the internet much? News of his win is on several sites. https://petapixel.com/2020/08/18/photographer-wins-lawsuit-against-buzzfeed-sets-major-dmca-preceden t/
Liebowitz is far from perfect, but his clients love him and he is filling a need other members of the legal community failed to effectively serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uses the term "several" and provides only one link to an obscure website used by a niche community, classical element of copyright comedy.
It's easy to love someone when you don't know he's secretly working your enforcement arm.
Or here's a hot take: Liebowitz jumps on these cases before other lawyers can provide competent legal counsel and advice, same way Prenda Law picked up porn clients that ended up skeptical about the efficacy of their methods, and Malibu Media engaged their lawyers in such a fantastic demonstration of big-brain plays their investors sued them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's the same argument that ambulance chasers use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...and he is filling a need other members of the legal community failed to effectively serve."
Being a shameless grifter able enough to convince sufficient suckers to sign on with his services and barely skilled enough to outrun them when his house of cards collapses?
I hate to break the apparent news but that "service" is amply filled by thousands of former ambulance chasers turned copyright lawyers. Of course, with RL now desperately trying to fill the shoes of Prenda his main competitor would be Rightscorp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liebowitz victories
Let's see... I find one "victory", a default judgment for ~30 k$ in Bee Creek Photography v. Proact World LLC. The target seems a zombie, if not formally bankrupt for a few years already.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17466444/bee-creek-photography-v-proact-world-llc/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Liebowitz victories
There are a few others like that but I finally found a "serious" victory: a whopping 750 $ (without attorney's fees) in Otto v. Hearst Communications
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6078947/otto-v-hearst-communications-inc/
Is that even enough to cover filing fees?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Liebowitz victories
If the ruling didn't include attorney's fees I'm guessing that means the clients saw little if any of that, with most if not all of that going straight to Liebowitz, a result I'm sure the client is absolutely thrilled by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Going after the Denver Green Party
The copyright litigation we need:
Apparently it's about:
https://denvergreenparty.org/2018/10/21/denver-green-party-recommendations-for-the-2018-munic ipal-ballot-questions/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many of LIE bowitz's supporters posting here come from the same IP Address?
i.e. they're all him posting anonymously cause he's so butthurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"How many of LIE bowitz's supporters posting here come from the same IP Address?"
All of them, I'm guessing. We saw something similar when Prenda was going down and a one-man-army of sock puppets leaped to Hansmeiers and Steele's defense, trying to spam away the presented malfeasance with hundreds of little love letters to their honor.
I think that was one of the lower notes of Baghdad Bob's career, frankly - and that's saying something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getty victory being appealed
I had missed this was appealed a few months ago:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4524132/zuma-press-inc-v-getty-images-us-inc/?page =2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm a client of Richards, and if an attorney here wants to offer
me a better deal, I'm all ears. First, I was fully aware of our retainer agreement from the get go, and it seemed fair to me. I am not out of pocket at all, and the only fees he takes out are the court filing fees.
Before meeting Richard, I could not get any attorney to even take a copyright case on contingency. I used an attorney before him, and she just gouged me with fees and we settled for a paltry amount - no comparison to the success I have with Richard. BUT, if there are firms out there doing what he does and offers the client the majority of the settlement, please let me know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Admittedly, I'm now mildly intrigued - now that Richard has completely screwed the pooch and got himself kicked out of legal practice, what recourse do you have? Are you getting your money back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]