Davenport Lyons lawyers suspended by SDT for causing “intimidation” By Matt Byrne 2 August 2011 11:45 17 December 2015 14:40 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anonymous 2 August 2011 at 12:28 Lawyers suspended for writing nasty letters – what next? Bears suspended for defiling woods? Reply Link Anonymous 2 August 2011 at 13:57 ………or will the pope be suspended next for being a Catholic? Reply Link Anonymous 2 August 2011 at 14:12 I say leave the innocent little unlawful file-sharing kids alone! everything costs so much now! you cant really expect them to pay to go to the cinema or the bus fare to HMV can you ? Reply Link Natasha 2 August 2011 at 14:44 Lawyers have a duty to act with integrity. Threatening and intimidating letters should not be their style and I think three months suspension is hardly enough for more than 6000 letters some of which went to vulnerable and innocent people over the course of three years. Reply Link Roland Maguire 2 August 2011 at 15:24 The business model behind this was always suspect. Relying on questionable software to harvest IP addresses, demands were sent out to people without any evidence that they were liable for the download (as opposed to having a wifi link which may have been used by another party). It is the equivalent to Tesco saying to one of its customers that it wants compensation circa £500 because he/she was in the vicinity when a dvd was shoplifted. Reply Link Anonymous 2 August 2011 at 15:24 Quite right-there is a world of difference between the forceful expression of your clients lawful rights and intimidation-especially when you stand to gain financially ‘from the outcome. Anyone who thinks otherwise shouldn’t be practising as a solicitor but has an alternative career option as a debt collector or wheel clamper. Reply Link Mark (ISPreview.co.uk) 3 August 2011 at 07:51 It’s good to see that justice for those whom were harassed like this is finally being done. Some of the related cases involved an elderly couple being sent demands for payment despite the fact that they didn’t have an internet connection, while others weren’t even in the country at the time. The evidence DL relied upon, IP addresses, are totally unreliable for accurately identifying individuals. The boss of a similar law firm, Andrew Crossley (ACS:Law), faces an identical hearing before the SDT in October 2011. Reply Link anon 3 August 2011 at 13:27 the letters ran to three of four pages, with extracts of expert evidence stating that the recipient’s IP address definately received the data, and that the liability was strict, regardless of who the user might have been. Many of them included reference to pornography with the usual obsence and embarrasing titles. At the end it said, pay £500 and we’ll leave you alone. I acted for a chap who was targeted and he was worried that his parents or girlfriend would find out and think he had been downloading innapropriate material, but he refused to be bullied. I wrote to DL on his behalf pointing out all of deficiencies in their arguments and they never wrote back. How can they talk about justice? They were extorting money and playing a pure numbers game, not a single one of their claims could have succeeded… Reply Link Anonymous 5 August 2011 at 11:52 Not a single one of their claims could have succeeded…maybe that’s why they wrote 6000 letters, carried on collecting money over several years and ‘protected their clients’ rights’ by taking how many contested cases to court? I believe it was a round number, yes, zero. Reply Link Anonymous 10 August 2011 at 07:03 “It is the equivalent to Tesco saying to one of its customers that it wants compensation circa £500 because he/she was in the vicinity when a dvd was shoplifted.” Funny you say that, most supermarkets (and many other retailers) have been doing this for years on a much larger scale, divvying up the proceeds with their agents on a contingency fee basis (seen the documented contractual arrangements). Reply Link Anon 13 September 2011 at 17:25 3 months ban. 20k fine plus 150k costs. Thats nothing compared to the embarrassment of having to re-sit their professional ethics exam…priceless! Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.