The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has suspended two Davenport Lyons lawyers from practising and fined them £20,000 each for sending “intimidating letters” to individuals they accused of illegal file-sharing.
Davenport Lyons partner David Gore, who is still with the firm, and former partner Brian Miller were both found guilty of six breaches of the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007. Both have been suspended from practising for three months.
The breaches related to conduct between 2006 and 2009, when, acting on behalf of various clients, more than 6,000 letters were sent to individuals claimed to have been involved in unlawful file-sharing in breach of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1998.
The letters demanded compensation and costs and warned that the recipients faced further action and increased costs if the matter was not settled as a matter of urgency.
An investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) found that the concerns of those who had received letters and protested their innocence were disregarded.
The SDT found, in effect, that Miller and Gore became too concerned about making the scheme profitable for themselves and their firm.
Their judgment became distorted and they pursued the scheme regardless of the impact on the people receiving the letters and even of their own clients, the SDT said.
In addition to the £20,000 fine, Miller and Gore were ordered to pay interim costs to the SRA of £150,000.
An SRA spokesperson said: “We welcome the decision of the SDT, which follows a lengthy and complex investigation by members of SRA staff.
“Some of those affected were vulnerable members of the public. There was significant distress. We are pleased that this matter has been brought to a conclusion and hope that it serves as a warning to others.
“Solicitors have a duty to act with integrity, independence and in the best interests of their clients. Solicitors who breach those duties can expect to face action by the SRA.”
The order has been suspended for 21 days to allow time for an appeal.
Davenport Lyons could not be reached for comment.
Readers' comments (11)
Anonymous | 2-Aug-2011 12:28 pm
Lawyers suspended for writing nasty letters - what next? Bears suspended for defiling woods?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Aug-2011 1:57 pm
.........or will the pope be suspended next for being a Catholic?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Aug-2011 2:12 pm
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 ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Natasha | 2-Aug-2011 2:44 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Roland Maguire | 2-Aug-2011 3:24 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2-Aug-2011 3:24 pm
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark (ISPreview.co.uk) | 3-Aug-2011 7:51 am
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
anon | 3-Aug-2011 1:27 pm
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...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 5-Aug-2011 11:52 am
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.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Aug-2011 7:03 am
"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).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment