Crossley suspended for copyright infringement conduct
Solicitor Andrew Crossley was yesterday suspended from practising for two years and ordered to pay over £76,000 in costs in a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing arising from threats of court action against people accused of infringing copyright.
The founder and sole principal at London firm ACS:Law was referred to the SDT by the Solicitors Regulation Authority over his action on behalf of his client Media CAT in sending thousands of letters to people accusing them of unlawfully downloading media on ‘peer to peer’ web networks.
The letters threatened court action if the recipients did not make payments of around £500 to settle claims of alleged copyright infringement.
Crossley, who represented himself, admitted six of the charges: allowing his independence to be compromised; acting contrary to the best interests of his clients; acting in a way likely to diminish the trust the public places in the legal profession; entering into arrangements to receive contingency fees for work done in prosecuting or defending contentious proceedings before the courts of England and Wales except as permitted by statute or the common law; acting where there was a conflict of interest in circumstances not permitted; and using his position as a solicitor to take or attempt to take unfair advantage of other persons being recipients of letters of claim either for his own benefit or for the benefit of his clients.
The SRA dropped a seventh charge of providing false information in statements made to court.
Crossley contested an eighth charge of failing to take adequate steps to ensure that appropriate technical and organisational safeguards were in place at his firm to protect against the accidental loss of personal data and documents. He claimed the site had been attacked by activists opposing his actions, and asserted negligence on the part of his internet service provider, but the SDT found the charge proved.
Commenting on the outcome, an SRA spokeswoman said: ‘We hope that it serves as a warning to others. Solicitors have a trusted position in society and therefore have a duty to act with integrity, independence and in the best interests of their clients.’
She said: ‘This decision follows a lengthy and complex investigation by members of SRA staff although the actual hearing time at the SDT was significantly reduced because of the admissions Mr Crossley was prepared to make in advance.’
Crossley will have 28 days from the date that the judgment is published to appeal. He declined to give any comment to the Gazette.
Comments
Should have been harder!
Joe Hickster, who was a target of the Crossley scheme ran a campaign giving legal advice to others in the same position as himself. He told Computeractive that he felt Crossley's ban should have been longer.
"Whilst it is good that this man has been taken out of the legal profession for 2 years, it is not truly an adequate punishment for someone who has caused so much pain and heartache to many over the last few years with his arrogant unfounded accusations and incompetent business practice.
"Although we realise it renders him unemployable temporarily, it would have been better for the legal authorities to have made this permanent for the sake of public confidence in the legal profession"
Read more: http://www.computeractive.co.uk/ca/news/2139232/solicitors-tribunal-acs-laws-crossley-guilty-seven-counts#ixzz1jp4jRUlC
Software, gadgets, magazines and more in our webstore. Click here to see our latest offers.
Some more from BeingThreatened
James Bench, of consumer group Being Threatened said, "Today's judgement will provide some satisfaction to those innocent members of the public that Mr Crossley relentlessly bullied in the operation of this scheme.
"As the tribunal heard today - the SRA had grave doubts about Mr Crossley's scheme - sufficient to ask that he stop just three days after he began. The arrogance he demonstrated by continuing until he was forced to cease as a result of bankruptcy and now suspension from the legal profession is a cause for concern.
"It was clear to all that Mr Crossley's ‘speculative invoicing' scheme lacked any legal merit and was founded on purported evidence which was untested and patently - and demonstrably - unreliable.
"It is a disappointing indictment of the legal regulatory systems that it has taken almost three years to finally draw this matter to a close. We expect lessons to have been learned."
ACS Bore
ACS Bore is Joe Hickster's blog, isn't it? So he's quoting himself?
A bad egg
Looks like a quote from Computeractive to me.... Great result anyway, shame the SRA took so long. Crossley makes the rest of us look like crooks. Problem for me is why the SRA took so long if they warned Crossley within days of him starting this endeavour.
I will be interested to see wether anyone is brave or maybe foolhardy to reformulate this venture again.
So just because the SRA said
So just because the SRA said something then its automatically right?
Do you take the same approach to what the police say?
Anonymous
The SRA said it, the SDT said it, and Crossley admitted it to the SDT.
I understood that solicitors were trained to review the evidence surrounding a case objectively and come to a view on its relevance, whether the solicitor is prosecuting or defending in criminal proceedings, rather than rejecting police evidence out of hand.
Thank Goodness
Joe Hicks was a real help to myself and many others, as was Beingthreatened. They risked being sued and having libel accusations yet they srtood firm, and they offered a lot of moral support to a lot of people. I know myself I emailed Hicks at 2:00 in the morning one night and he got back within 20 minutes.
Beingthreatened offered a chatroom where people could go and talk, it was a great help to me and many others. You have to remember a lot of us felt cut adrift by the authorities, noone seemed to want to know, they all presumed us guilty.
Well done to the campaign
Well done to the campaign that defeated this disgrace to the legal profession.
Some solicitors on here posted here defending him. They can hang their heads in shame. The misery this man caused was significant.
Davenport Lyons also deserve their inevitable fate. So do Edwin Coe LLP for the misery they caused to numerous libel defendants. Hopefully the SRA will deal with these offenders more quickly than Crossley.
Let's see a few more solicitors here speaking out. After all the above mentioned firms have brought the law into disrepute.
He deserves everything he gets.
Serves him right. Talk about a modern-day Dick Turpin in reverse.
The fact Crossley admitted all the charges shows he knew what he was doing was so wrong. The rules of professional conduct obviously passed him by. I agree with the previous posters that he is a disgrace, and got off lightly with the two year suspension. I hope he is never allowed to practice again, for all our sakes.
He's severely dented confidence in our already derided profession. Shame on our, as usual on-the-ball, SRA for failing to act sooner.
Now the profession needs to look at the scandalous way vulnerable debt-ridden people are being tricked into agreeing to sell their homes under value, and rent them back for often over the market price, and the solicitors who act for these outfits.
The SRA and the Copyright Trolls
Yes - I think people are disappointed with the time this has taken. But he did previously fight the action and these things can take time.
However, who would have thought say, four years ago that the SRA would act against the file sharer law firms at all?. Perhaps 'Which Magazine' might have pressurised the SRA to act but act they did - and against all of the firms involved in the scam. Therefore whilst many solicitors and the Law Society are still out of touch and in the last century, the SRA is a few steps ahead and clearly look at the bigger picture and the appalling effect this scandal had on ordinary members of the public.
So well done to the SRA for acting and the few solicitors who have expressed their disgust at someone who quite frankly has brought the profession into disrepute.
There should hopefully be another case brought before the disciplinary panel at some time in the future after complaints made against one law firm which brought numerous unmeritous libel claims against ordinary members of the public four years ago - committing numerous protocol breaches in the process and trying to gain an unfair advantage against unrepresented defendants. In my view a form of speculative invoicing too.
The only doubt I have about the outcome of that investigation is whether the SRA can fend off any pressure which might be exerted from the law firm concerned and the Law Society on the basis that the partner who conducted the cases is high profile and was on the CPR Committee.
It would therefore be a major embarassment if a decision was published upholding the complaints which I understand have been made. Still, the SRA were not afraid to go after Davenport Lyons which perhaps suggests they are prepared to weed out and deal with serious offences/mistakes committed by large firms but at the same time, in mitigation, recognise that these firms are not rotten through and through, like Crossley.
It is in the public interest to pursue law firms who have demonstrated a scattergun approach to litigation against unrepresented defendants. It will protect the public in future because firms will think before acting in a similar fashion. The legal profession can harp on about the lines being blurred between acting for their client and being fair to unrepresented parties. But in these cases these firms crossed the line - no argument whatsover. Read the SRA handbook - it ain't rocket science to get the balance right!
Yawn
Yawn
DoomCop What was it you said
DoomCop
What was it you said some time back? Something along the lines of if the 80 year old married couple accused of file sharing gay porn were innocent they should have defended themselves in court. Due process or something like that. Get in the real world my friend.
A totally insensitive and inappropriate remark to make and you represent everything which is wrong with the legal profession. Rigid, self interested, stuffy and arrogant.
If you don't like the coverage here why don't you clear off. Folks on here are rightly relieved to see Crossley and the others punished by your regulator. If you disagree - take it up with the SRA.
Take it up with the SRA
How is Dom Coop supposed to "take it up with the SRA"? He has no locus to do so.
I think Dom's "yawn" was a response to your reference to "numerous unmeritorious libel claims", since this article has no connection with the matters (or the firm) to which you seem to be referring. There is also the more fundamental question of acting in claims against unrepresented parties. The simple fact is that, according to the authorities, a solicitor does not owe a duty of care to his client's opponent, whether that opponent is represented or not. The exceptions to this basic principle are likely to be very rare (for an example, see the facts of Al-Kandari v Brown [1988] EWCA Civ 13). Similarly, it is not professional misconduct for a solicitor to write to the opponent in a way which the opponent may find hostile or injurious: see Connolly-Martin v Davis [1999] EWCA Civ 1509.
On the topics of "due process" and "getting the balance right", it is worth bearing in mind a solicitor facing an allegation of misconduct in the Tribunal is immediately placed at a severe disadvantage because, even if he defeats the allegations, he is unlikely to be awarded his defence costs: see Baxendale Walker v Law Society [2007] EWCA Civ 233. This consideration is all the more important now that the SRA has revised the Minimum Terms so that qualifying insurers are no longer required to provide defence costs cover in respect of proceedings before the Tribunal and is something which (in the light of that development) needs to be looked at again at appellate level.
Relations with third parties
Me
Like you, when discussing a topic as we are here (Andrew Crossley) I usually introduce analogies and examples to back up a point. You have mentioned several cases to back up your points. Likewise I mentioned a case which I know well (because people I know were on the receiving end) which although not concerned with file sharing, nevertheless has many similarities.
Indeed - the cases I referred to had no merit and should never have been brought at all. However, the main similarities to highlight in this context is that, like the file sharers, the actions were conducted on mass, the letters of claim were woeful and did not set out what is alleged to have been said and were calculated to intimidate people to settle and pay far more money than would ever have been awarded in court. There were numerous pre-action protocol failures also.
In a nutshell (as observed by the judge) it was a complete shambles and if the litigation had been allowed to proceed it is likely to have brought the administration of justice into disrepute and was unfair on numerous unrepresented defendants.
I take on board what you say but whether you like it or not, The Solicitors Regulation Authority (which is an 'authority' as far as the general public is concerned) does set out guidance and rules for dealing with third parties and specifically states that a solicitor should not use his/her position to gain an unfair advantage of others. Andrew Crossley, Davenport Lyons, Tilly Bailey Irvine and Gallant Macmillan are among the offenders who have been disciplined for their professional misconduct in this respect.
I am sure in due course there will be more, which is partly the point I was also making previously.