The Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) is a body which regulates in excess of 110,000 solicitors in the UK and are the regulatory body of the Law Society of England and Wales. They exist to serve the public by ensuring that disreputable lawyers are kept in check. They have been very busy indeed dealing with the fallout from Mr Crossley’s activities.

In September 2009, complaints made to the SRA about the conduct of ACS:Law constituted more than 16% of all complaints to the body for the whole month. As of July 8th 2010, the SRA had received a staggering and unprecedented 418 official complaints from members of the public, a record in the IP sector.

The SRA had been slow to deal with this admittedly huge task but for the thousands affected by ACS:Law’s activities, light is on the horizon.

In 2009, consumer group Which? filed a complaint against ACS:Law in which it accused the law firm of bullying recipients of its threatening letters. Which? has been most vocal on the issue and have committed significant resources to dealing with the problem – its work is now beginning to pay off.

Today, Which? reports that the SRA is now referring Andrew Crossley to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).

The Tribunal adjudicates upon breaches of professional conduct and exists to protect the public by maintaining the reputation of the legal profession. It has significant powers including the ability to fine, reprimand or even strike off a lawyer.

“We welcome this decision because we’ve received so many complaints from consumers who believe they been treated appallingly by this law firm,” said Deborah Prince, Which?’s head of legal affairs.

“We also believe that it’s time for the profession to take action against law firms, and those responsible for them, which behave in a way we believe most right-thinking people would view as both aggressive and bullying.”

Crossley is no stranger to disciplinary action at the hands of the SDT having previously been admonished and fined for behaving in a way “unbefitting” of a lawyer.

BeingThreatened.com, a consumer group dedicated to offering help and support to those targeted by file-sharing settlement letters, welcomed the news that ACS:Law will have to answer for their tactics.

“We also echo the comments of Which? that the process appears very drawn out and consumer unfriendly,” a spokesman told TorrentFreak. “We would also welcome clarification from the SRA as to whether a temporary hold has been enforced on the continued practice of ACS:Law in relation to filesharing cases or if they will be free to continue their campaign unabated until the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has ruled.”

“Should ACS:Law be free to continue with their existing methods, BeingThreatened.com believes many more innocent people may be subjected to heavy handed tactics before the situation is resolved.”

While copyright holders have every right to take action in appropriate cases, the extreme methods employed by ACS:Law have been astonishing. For the sake of the legal profession and all of the bullied letter recipients, let’s hope that this is the very last time that Mr Crossley is brought before the SDT.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Since TBI has been around for some 170 years, appeared to be a traditional law firm with previously good reputation, but was now publicly representing porn-industry clients in a controversial practice, TorrentFreak earlier asked the company the following question:

“Taking into consideration that when operating almost identical schemes both ACS:Law and Davenport Lyons became the subject of SRA investigations, coupled with the Lords labeling this type of scheme “legal blackmail“, are Tilly Bailey & Irvine concerned about tarnishing their hard-earned reputation?”

TBI declined to answer this and the rest of our questions but were quickly labeled by the UK Lords discussing the Digital Economy Bill as “new entrants to the hall of infamy” and their activities labeled “an embarrassment to the rest of the creative rights industry”.

The pressure continued to build when settlement letter recipients wrote complaints to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) so it didn’t really come as a surprise when we discovered TBI had been trying to re-write history by modifying their Wikipedia page recently.

At the time we wondered if this meant the company had abandoned its action against file-sharers. That question has now been answered by UK consumer group Which?

In a letter sent to the SRA on April 1, TBI wrote: “We have been surprised and disappointed at the amount of adverse publicity that our firm has attracted in relation to this work and the extra time and resources that have been required to deal solely with this issue.

We are concerned that the adverse publicity could affect other areas of our practice and therefore following discussions with our clients, we have reluctantly agreed that we will cease sending out further letters of claim.”

Deborah Prince, head of in-house legal at Which? said that she is really pleased that TBI has seen sense and left this arena.

“Hopefully, other law firms thinking of going down a similar route will begin to realise that although this work can generate vast financial rewards for law firms and their clients, it can also bring a lot of adverse publicity simply because the practice is inherently unfair and unethical.”

Consumer group BeingThreatened.com, who have worked relentlessly to assist those sent letters by TBI, ACS:Law and Davenport Lyons, also welcome the news, but want TBI to go further.

“We are cautiously optimistic that it marks the end for the innocent people who have been in touch with us to complain of the accusations. However, we believe that an apology is owed to those individuals, and would encourage TBI to come forward and say sorry,” they told TorrentFreak

“They’ve already taken the difficult step of admitting to their error, this extra step would serve to restore some confidence that the legal system is not merely there to be abused for making money through volume litigation against the innocent and unaware.”

With this announcement by TBI, only ACS:Law remain in this type of business in the UK, so are they concerned about damage to their reputation? Absolutely not. We’ll go into more details in our report next week.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The hypocritical law firm – who were recently shown to be copyright infringers themselves – partner with Swiss anti-piracy tracking company Logistep (and another company DigiProtect) in order to demand settlements of around £665. However, time and time again there have been allegations against individuals who have absolutely no idea why they are being accused of copyright infringement.

Last year, in the most prominent case of mistaken identity and when Davenport Lyons were working with porn companies, they incorrectly accused a retired 64 year-old man of sharing the hardcore movie ‘Euro Domination 5′ via BitTorrent. The man received an apology and the demands for money ended.

Eventually the actions of Davenport Lyons, Logistep and DigiProtect attracted the attention of consumer group Which? who made a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Although that action is still ongoing, Davenport decided – at least on the surface – to withdraw from the business.

But of course, ACS:Law were waiting in the wings and they are now conducting business with Logistep in much the same fashion. Unfortunately for them, Which? is now on their case too.

In their most recent print edition, Which? published an article which casts an even darker shadow over the issue. They say they have been contacted by 20 individuals who say they have no knowledge of the games in question – Dream Pinball 3D and Two Worlds.

Which? quoted hospital ward clerk Deborah Hughes who said: “It’s distressing to receive such a letter. I’ve never heard of this game and I’ve no idea how to share it. I’ve searched my computer but it’s not there.”

Of even greater concern and embarrassment to ACS:Law are the accusations they leveled at Colin Dixon, Technology Director at a UK software developer. “My wife and I are middle aged (51 and 49) and work from home, and the computers here are owned by our employer, and are strictly controlled for pirated software – that’s my job!”

Which? also spoke with the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) about the issue. They replied: “We’re not convinced of the efficacy of the software and not confident in its ability to identify users.”

Up to now, this hasn’t worried Logistep, DigiProtect, Davenport Lyons or ACS:Law since they say in their claims letters: “We do not claim that your computer was used to commit the infringing act (although we do not exclude this possibility), nor do we claim that you downloaded our client’s work. Our claim is that your Internet connection was used to make our client’s work available via one or more P2P networks. The file may not, therefore, be on your computer.”

So, in a nutshell, they admit that the people named in their letters may not have carried out any infringement. Absolutely priceless.

Neither ACS:Law nor Davenport Lyons have ever won a contested case against a UK file-sharer, despite all their bluster. Hundreds of people are “let off” after simply digging in their heels, denying the accusations and refusing to pay.

Thanks Hickster

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.