Solicitor pursuing file sharers to face disciplinary tribunal

Which? campaign tries to accelerate the slow-turning wheels of justice

Which? says ACS Law hs been "bullying" alleged file sharers

A solicitor litigating against alleged file sharers has been referred to the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), but it may be years before the case is heard.

The move is the latest in the long-running battle between consumer body Which? and law firms which pursue alleged file sharers with what Which? regards as "bullying" bulk-mailed letters, demanding compensation on behalf of rights holders for alleged online infringements of copyright.

Andrew Crossley, sole principal of ACS Law, became the last UK solicitor pursuing alleged file-sharers in this way when Which? scared off Tilly Bailey & Irvine in April.

A previous Which? campaign with support from BBC TV show Watchdog eliminated law firm Davenport Lyons which handed over its file-sharer chasing to Crossley.

Which? lodged a complaint about Crossley to the Solicitors' Regulation Authority (SRA) in May 2009, claiming the work against alleged file sharers was in breach of the Solicitors’ Code of Practice. Fifteen months later, the SRA has sprung into action and referred Crossley to the SDT.

Crossley has always strongly defended his actions.

Which?’s similar complaint against Davenport Lyons' former intellectual property partner Brian Miller and equity partner David Gore, made in December 2008, was also referred to the SDT. However, the SRA has yet to present its case and a hearing is unlikely until late next year, so it may be more years before Crossley’s case is heard.

Which? is not happy about the delay.

“This is not satisfactory in my opinion,” said Which?’s head of legal services, Deborah Prince, in a statement. “If it is going to take another two years for this case to reach the SDT and then for the SDT to reach a decision, that means we’ll have waited close to four years without any professional body taking action in order for what we say is bullying behaviour to stop.”

But the SRA is in no mood to be hurried.

“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,” an SRA spokesperson responded.

Andrew Crossley could not be reached for comment at the time of publishing.