Response from Davenport Lyons
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has suspended two lawyers and fined them £20,000 each for sending out thousands of letters accusing people of illegally sharing files. Davenport Lyons partner David Gore and Brian Miller, a former partner at the firm, faced six allegations of breaching the Solicitors' Code of Conduct and were …
Readers of "The Lawyer" have the same sort of skills as Register readers in regard to getting the whole story.
If you read the article, and *only* the article, its quite easy to believe this is a travesty for those two men.
However, if they read the background, the Gross misrepresentations of evidence and the intimidating threats within the letters, their opinion would probably change.
I notice the solicitors commenting on the article you linked to can't actually see what the problem is and are defending davenport lyons. Ship them all off on the 'B' Ark
Some of the commments on "The Lawyer" site are quite sensible though, including one from a solicitor who clearly understands that lawyers are "professional advisers", not just hired guns who sue when the RIAA ( or some other scumbags) say sue.
I absolutely loved reading that DavenportLyons have paid out a couple of hundred grand & ACS's tosser is bankrupt.
As one non-anonymous poster pointed out.
"I have refused to act in accordance with client instructions (in a not too dissimilar matter (trade mark infringement claim)) because, I understood that the client’s instructions exposed my firm to liability and myself to risks of professional misconduct."
Davenport Lyons tried to use the Nuremberg defence “we were only doing what the client told us to do” as justification for their money making actions. Probably the same justification as you get from the lawyers who launder money for the mafia.
Most of the other posts are all anonymous , is D-L doing a bit of trolling?????? Moi!! Suspicious; never; good honest solicitors would never do things like that.
...when the story has a happy ending?
Davenport Rats, more like...
My rats are friendly, good natured, cute little guys.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of twats.
Time to break out some Lawyer Jokes, I for one would like to see evidence if ever I got one of these ransom notices!
The suspension is only three months.
Didn't say *what* they were to be suspended by though. Perhaps the SRA could have a phone-in vote for people accused by them.
if it was by the neck!
..if they were to be suspended by the testicles!!
Suddenly it feels like a Friday!
That would be nice - this particular bunch of parasites regularly wind up both sides with the result of earing themselves more money and to everyone else's worst interests.
They'll just get one of their lawyer buddy to fake a bankruptcy notice, and they'll get away with paying only £1000. For any further informqation, please contact Andrew Crossley.
don't be so cynical. this is very good news. a couple of scumbag lawyers working for the record business have had their balls chopped off and their bank accounts emptied. what's not to like about that?
bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings will be career suicide for a lawyer. it'll be even worse when the bankruptcy is because of the lawyer's conduct (ie business-related) and it's the solicitor's professional regulatory body that gets shafted. a lawyer who tries this will almost definitely lose their licence and never get it back.
"A previous hearing found Gore and Miller had knowingly targeted innocent people when sending out letters based on IP addresses alone."
Why are these two charming gentlemen not facing a prison sentence?
The reason they are not facing a prison sentence is because it is an investigation and judgement by the SRA, and not by the Metropolitan Police and the Old Bailey. I guess someone who received one of these letters needs to complain to the police about it, and hope they do something.
I hope that's 150,000 EACH and loss of employment too.
to see what shit bags most lawyers are:
"I think it's fair enough for David Gore and Brian Miller to appeal this finding. A letter accusing someone of wrongdoing on their home computer is not "intimidation" - people need to grow up a bit."
i say we all spam that thread to hell. i dont think my comment about them all being arseholes will get through though!
let's see - how about everyone else?
The comments in that first link are typical. The majority decrying this outcome. One person agreeing with it.
Hang on a mo. They get fined £20k (which ends up where?), and also have to pay £150k ish to another wunch* of lawyers for their "work" which most of us would have done pro bono**. Meanwhile the real victims end up with absolutely nothing for their ordeals, and no real certainty that it can't happen again, and again ....
Maybe I'm just jaded that these "professional regulators" seem to extract all the money that's about, and leave the little people with nothing. Anyone who's had a customer go bankrupt on them will sympathise with the "Oh, they had loads of assets but our fees came to their value+£10k, so there's nothing left for you. We're all in this together don't you know, as we've lost £10k on this too....."
Greedy, parasitic wasters.
* It's the collective term for Bankers. I couldn't think of anything better in this heat ...
** No, I don't like U2 either
Apparently, the lawyer's collective noun for themselves is an "eloquence".
However, I lean more towards the term "ambulance", as in "one lawyer in a small town will starve and the town will prosper -- but an ambulance of them would be rich and the town poor".
Glad to see that you guys have some sort of system to reign in the madness.
One of the charges was "their actions were likely to diminish the trust placed in them and the legal profession by the public;"
Is that possible?
spam the hell outta that forum!! maybe if enough comments appear from non-legal types they might start to understand how normal people think...
The lawers article seems to put a nice slant on it totally ignoring the bits about knowingly sending notices to innocent parties and mis-representing evidence so I can understand why some people using that site as a sole information source may get uppity.
Thats why I like to read multiple news sources, you can never trust any single one to give you the whole story!!
well...except the reg of course!!!
...duly meatball spammed.
ugh. but i am happy that at least some of the scum are getting their right desserts for their actions.
... of lawyers paying massive legal fees! Made my day!
Hit 'em again! ...and again! ...and again! ...and again!
(At least the non-bankrupted one.)
Exhibit A in the many Civil Actions would be this finding.
man, we are doing ok. the voice of reason has hit. they even posted my reply minus the bit about no wonder the public think all lawyers are arseholes :)
especially the comment talking about 'commentards' definately a reg reader there. i notice how all the solicitor scum bags have now shut the fuck up! :)
how many days until registration is required on that site? :)
Can they hauled with that as well and asked to prove which bits of their fortune was not from demanding money with menaces?
A pint for the SRA.
As a recipient of one of these letters a few years ago
I of course did not pay the 'Protection Money' but replied encouraging the firm to proceed with formal legal proceedings if they were certain that I was a liar and a thief and were willing to state this in court. I heard nothing back, big surprise.
A good long jail term for racketeering would have been better.
BTW "The Lawyer" doesn't seem to be accepting comments now
Re Doc Dish's comment (hear hear BTW) you could forward it to your local old bill complaining about attempted extortion and if they do nothing about it it could maybe get a judicial review. I'm no legal expert or solicitor though ;-)
With a bit of luck could get the sheisters to see the inside of aprison cell
"and fined them £20,000 each ..."
An hour's work, then!
Six allegations proven against these two. The way I see it, with a lot of experience, is that 1, 2, 3, and 6 are pretty much a way of life for most solicitors.
I've replied to a few on the thelawyer website mainly replying to comments that the people in question would never and never did send letters to innocent people. I've replied saying that the hacked emails clearly showed that they did know people were very likely innocent but carried on regardless.
Guess what - none have been put up yet but a few more stating they wouldn't have done this have been put up...
Ah what a closed club we weave
On my first readthrough of the lawyer article I saw
"The pair, who were represented in the SDT by Hailsham Chambers’ Michael Pooles QC, are planning to appeal the ruling, Davenport Lyons said. Crapsticks"