Pay up or else
ACS Law Solicitors is a law firm that has achieved notoriety from its actions taken on behalf of some copyright holders. According to consumer publication Which? ACS began sending out thousands of letters to individuals it suspected of illegal file sharing and "bullying" them into paying £500 in compensation.
As a result, Which? complained to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which in turn is referring Andrew Crossley of ACS to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
"We welcome this decision because we've received so many complaints from consumers who believe they been treated appallingly by this law firm," said Which? head of legal, Deborah Prince. "We also believe that it's time for the profession to take action against law firms, and those responsible for them, which behave in a way we believe most right-thinking people would view as both aggressive and bullying."
The issue centres on what are perceived as heavy-handed tactics by ACS. It seems that the letters sent could be perceived as saying ‘pay up or else'. The threat of legal action persuades many people to settle immediately, but there is a danger that many people who feel they've done nothing wrong are scared out of defending themselves.
A news update on the ACS website said: "We are pleased with the results on the initial batches of issued claims, as we have found that 80% of all defendants opt for settlements outside of court, for amounts more than originally claimed. Copyright infringers generally buckle when litigation is formally initiated." It concluded in triumphalist tone: "Exciting times ahead."
ACS has been under scrutiny for some time. Back at the start of the year the BPI itself criticised its approach and, in the same BBC story, another law firm raised the possibility that it was all a bluff and that none of the cases would get to court, even if people didn't pay up.
In May Andrew Crossley himself addressed some of the accusations thrown at him. We'll let you be the judge of how convincing his argument is that he doesn't demand payment in his initial letters of claim.
"I am accused of demanding payment in my initial letters of claim. This is not true. The recipient of the letter of claim is afforded the opportunity if they wish to close the matter off and avoid the issue continuing by entering into a compromise agreement to bring the matter to an end. They are under no compulsion or obligation to do this and the compromise agreement is an entirely voluntary process."
It doesn't look like we should be holding our breath for the SDT to actually do anything, however. Which? revealed that it complained about another law firm - Davenport Lyons - to the SRA in 2008, which finally got round to referring it to the SDT this March. Since then however, nothing seems to have been done.
An SRA spokesperson told Which?: "Our position is that we would like to see prosecutions accelerated to the SDT but unfortunately on some occasions, cases have taken far too long to reach that stage. However, it's important to stress that the interests of consumers would not be well served if the SRA failed to ensure that this complex case is properly formulated and that all the supporting evidence is gathered. The case is being dealt with as expeditiously as possible."
