Copyright Law Firm Attorney Will Face Disciplinary HearingAdded: Thursday, April 7th, 2011
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
SDT (Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal) announced that the case of ACS:Law’s owner Andrew Crossley will be heard at a “Pre-Listing Day” in order to find out whether his actions merit an interlocutory or substantive hearing or not.
Although it was been a long time in the making, the SDT has finally decided that the case of the head of the copyright law firm Andrew Crossley should be discussed at a “Pre-Listing Day” scheduled for the start of June. Andrew Crossley is the owner of the now defunct infamous firm ACS:Law, known for starting a so-called “revolutionary business model”. The law firm claimed that the new model is able to generate revenue for copyright owners and to efficiently decline the rate of copyright violation, all in a measurable and sustainable way. The new model was set against the “costly and inefficient” practices of other firms.
After having started 2 years ago, ACS:Law was fast to catch lots of innocent Internet users into its anti-P2P trap, where they were later demanded to pay settlement fees up to $800 in three weeks or face a trial. However, according to consumer watchdog “Which?”, in the first several weeks after implementing a new model there appeared to be over 150 innocent users targeted. As time went, the outrage grew – consumer watchdog even submitted a complaint to the UK’s Solicitors Regulation Authority against ACS:Law, blaming it for being engaged in bullying and excessive conduct. In August 2010 the Solicitors Regulation Authority agreed and referred Andrew Crossley to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which now has finally made a decision to take up the issue.
According to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, the very start of June will be an administrative period upon which its office is going to decide whether to list the issue for an interlocutory or substantive hearing, considering the time estimates and dates in order to avoid that have been provided by the parties. In fact, this can be considered the first step in an official examination of the ACS:Law’s actions. Meanwhile, the recent well-known case of twenty-seven alleged file-sharers has to make disciplinary action all the more necessary, and there were quite a lot of reasons for that: first of all, a former employee of the law firm claimed that Andrew Crossley targeted people that were clearly innocent. Besides, during the trial it was found out that there also was some revenue-sharing agreement concluded between ACS:Law and the copyright licensee Media CAT.
Considering all that, the attorneys for some of the defendants that produced a copy of the agreement were sure that the above agreement violated the Solicitors Code of Conduct, which meant that the defendants deserved “off the scale” damages for “wasted costs.” Consequently, Tritton’s law firm Ralli is now engaged into searching for other people that have been wrongly accused in order to create a class action lawsuit against both ACS:Law and Media CAT.
April 7th,2011Posted by:
Thursday, April 7th, 2011
|Yay, sue the bastards back!|
|sue the mpaa while your at it. lol||
Most Popular Stories