ACS:Law, a UK legal firm that used questionable tactics including harassing settlement letters to get accused P2P file-sharing defendants to hand over money, was back in court this week as the judge officially closed remaining cases and considered defendants’ claims for payment.
In addition to numerous case errors and courtroom antics that “astonished” presiding Judge Birss QC, defendants targeted by the firm were subjected to public embarrassment over accusations of illegally downloading pornography when ACS:Law’s email archive was posted to BitTorrent servers following a DDoS attack. Ralli, the law firm which represents five of those defendants, is seeking nearly $150,000 in compensation for costs incurred which fighting their cases.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Judge Birss warned the defense attorneys that the standard procedure for apportioning costs would likely not apply, as the actions of the plaintiffs were quite unusual.
"If ever there was a case with conduct out of the norm it was this one," he told those present in the courtroom.
Unsurprisingly, ACS:Law owner Andrew Crossley did not show up for Wednesday’s hearing, however barrister Paul Parker argued that the firm should not be liable for defendant’s costs. Parker claimed that while the firm has spent $1.2 million to pursue accused file-sharers, the net of fines collected has only been around $500,000.
Ralli barrister Guy Tritton held little sympathy for ACS:Law’s financial loss, and claimed that the firm’s conduct throughout the case was an "an abuse of process."
"Dickens's view that the one great business of British law is to make money for itself is apposite in this case. The primary purpose of the letters was to make money for ACS Law," Triton said, referencing the classic novel Bleak House.
Money isn’t all that Crossely may lose as a result of the actions of his now defunct firm. Crossley is still facing an investigation by the UK Solicitor’s Regulatory Agency, and could be stripped of his legal credentials. The firm may also be fined for the data breach which exposed defendant’s personal info, and may also face a group harassment suit.
I also find it difficult to have any sympathy for Crossley and his partners, and would love to see him have to pay back defendants for the unnecessary anxiety and financial impacts he has caused them. We’ll keep you updated on future developments in this case.
