Bullying law firm is being investigated

[DaBees-Knees]

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1595186/bullying-law-firm-investigated

HAM HANDED LAW FIRM Davenport Lyons will be investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority over claims that it has been bullying alleged filesharers. The regulatory authority will look into claims filed by individuals along with those presented by the consumer group Which?. Davenport Lyons is infamous for its part in sending out threatening letters to what seem like random people, accusing them of illegally downloading copyrighted media content.

Davenport Lyons caught its break when a London woman was ordered to pay £16,086.56 to Topware Interactive for dealing in dodgy copies of a pinball game worth less than £30. After that verdict the law firm went into overdrive sending out letters to all and sundry.

For a solicitors firm it's surprising how many of the accusations were made prematurely without adequate investigation. In one case, a couple in their 60s was accused of illegitimately downloading a German smut video. The only problem, at least for the overeager law firm, was that neither of them knew how to perpetrate the alleged crime.

Judging by the near 8,000 post thread on popular filesharing news site Slyck, the couple from leafy Hertfordshire weren't the only ones to receive the prejudicial letters demanding cash. Reports of recipients anger and outrage, including one lady fainting upon opening a letter, has led a number of people to legally challenge the firm with Lawdit representing a significant number of those recipients.

For Davenport Lyons, the demands for payment, usually on the order of hundreds of pounds, were mainly to cover the costs of who's copyright was, or in many cases, was not, infringed. In the law firm's zeal to catch downloaders it seems that it forgot to check facts before making wild accusations, something any lawyer worth their salt should know not to do.

It will be interesting to see the result of this investigation. 

[GhostShip]

Something thats not clear from the article above is that the CIVIL case where the lady was ordered to pay a fine was one where the lady had ignored or not received the court summons/letter and had not gone to court to challenge the dubious claim and thus the judge had to rule in favour those bringing the case by default, Lets be clear here if that case was challenged it would likely have been davenport lyons in the dock for data protection regulation abuse, a CRIMINAL charge, not the civil claim method they used to extort the hapless victim.