What to do if you're accused of file sharing Davenport Lyons lawyers rapped at tribunal
In 2008 Which? made an official complaint about solicitors Davenport Lyons, whose firm had sent hundreds of letters to individuals accusing them of illegal online file sharing.
The letters accused them of illegally downloading video games and other copyrighted material including pornography, and demanded around £500 or face court action. Many of the Which? readers who got in touch with us were distressed by the accusations, as they had never downloaded anything.
We believed that the letters sent by the solicitors were unfair and amounted to bullying. One of the tactics the firm used was to increase the fee in subsequent letters. A number of people we spoke to during our investigation said that after receiving a few letters from Davenport Lyons, they had been frightened into paying up.
What happened?
Which? put in a complaint to the Solicitor’s Regulatory Authority (SRA) in December 2008. We believed that the letters sent by Davenport Lyons:
- made incorrect assertions about the nature of copyright infringement
- ignored the evidence presented in defence
- increased the level of compensation claimed over the period of correspondence
- threatened incorrectly, that failing to properly secure an internet connection is grounds for legal action.
The SRA looked into our complaint and referred two of the solicitors, Brian Miller, now a former partner, and David Gore, a partner, to a disciplinary tribunal.
The Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) started on the 31 May 2011, where the pair faced allegations that they acted in a way that was 'likely to diminish the trust the public place in them or in the legal profession'.
And that they 'used their position as solicitors to take or attempt to take unfair advantage of other persons being recipients of letters of claim either for their own benefit or for the benefit of their clients'.
The results
On 8 June 2011, the SDT found that all allegations against the pair had been proved. Unfortunately, the SDT does not have the power to award redress to the affected consumers but nevertheless, Which? hopes it will send a strong message to the legal profession that this kind of 'speculative invoicing' for online file sharing cases won't be tolerated by the SRA.
By the end of July 2011, we should know if the lawyers will appeal and what sanction the SDT will impose.
A similar case against Andrew Crossley, formerly of ACS Law is still to be heard.
