Last week Deborah Prince of Which? offered some ‘friendly advice’ (see [2010] Gazette, 1 April, 11). This follows repeated and public criticism from Which? of my firm for legitimately acting for my clients.

Prince appears to have overlooked the basics of the Digital Economy Bill. The bill, and the extensive consultation preceding it, expressly excluded any reference to the pre-existing remedies available to copyright owners, such as injunctive relief and civil action seeking damages for infringement that are the processes my firm invokes to identify and pursue acts of copyright infringement.

My clients are pleased with the service I provide. I have conducted file sharing-related work for 11 months; to date I have recovered close to £1m for my clients.

I welcome the ability of a consumer organisation such as Which? to lodge a formal complaint with the Solicitors Regulation Authority. However, I object in the strongest possible terms to the repeated attempts by Which? to whip up hysteria and public outcry based upon inaccurate accusations about what I do and to launch technical criticisms unsupported by any evidence. In my view, doing so is prejudicial to a fair investigation by the SRA.

I have faith that the SRA will remain implacable and objective throughout its deliberations. The facts, processes, procedures and compliance should be the focus of their investigation, not the remonstrations of less than 3% of those to whom my firm has written, nor Which?, which should leave the SRA to get on with its work unmolested.

Andrew J Crossley, Sole principal, ACS Law Solicitors, London