This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Business News Legal Top Stories
Wasted costs claim against sue-the-fans man can continue
By CMU Editorial | Published on Wednesday 20 April 2011
Remember Andrew Crossley and his ACS:Law firm? You know, that “amateurish and slipshod” and “chaotic and lamentable” set up which “brought the legal profession into disrepute”. Not my words, but the words of Judge Colin Birrs, who still seems very angry about the ACS:Law operation, which led the way in sue-the-fans litigation for a time, working on behalf of generally smaller content owners, including pornography makers.
ACS:Law, working with an agency called MediaCAT, which officially represented the content owners, sent out letters to suspected file-sharers accusing them of infringing copyrights administered by MediaCAT, and demanding the accused pay up damages or face court action. Many paid up, mainly to avoid the embarrassment of being accused of stealing porn in court. ACS then took a commission, reportedly 65%, of the money.
But when Crossley actually took some of those who ignored his demands to court, it turned out he must have been having the little nap the day that copyright was covered at law school, and the cases he was pursuing, and his subsequently his entire letter-sending operation and business, started to collapse big time. Both ACS:Law and MediaCAT are now kaput.
Crossley’s lawsuits were eventually dismissed, but lawyers representing some of the accused file-sharers are still pushing for their costs to be covered. With MediaCAT – the actual plaintiff in these cases – no more, who can they go after for that money? Step forward Crossley himself, who defence lawyers Ralli say should foot the bill for breaching the solicitor’s code. And Birrs is inclined to agree.
In court on Monday, the judge said that ACS:Law’s relationship with MediaCAT, and the way it profited from settlements by commission, breached the solicitors code of conduct, and that therefore there was a claim for so called ‘wasted costs’, where the lawyers involved in a litigation can be held liable for another party’s legal fees.
According to The Guardian, Birrs said: “In my judgment, the combination of Mr Crossley’s revenue sharing arrangements and his service of the notices of discontinuance serves to illustrate the dangers of such a revenue sharing arrangement and has, prima facie, brought the legal profession into disrepute”.
Birrs’ judgement means there will now be a full hearing about the wasted costs claim. As ACS:Law no longer exists, Crossley will have to personally pay any monies his former firm is held liable for, which could be up to £100,000. As previously reported, Crossley also faces a hearing at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal later this year regarding his sue-the-fans operation.
