Anti-file sharer firm denies "oppressive" tactics

A law firm that had targeted file sharers claiming they had unlawfully downloaded copyright-protected material has denied reports that its letters were "oppressive".

Northumberland-based Tilly Bailey Irvine wrote to a number of web users saying it had evidence their ISP accounts had been used to download material in breach of the law.

In early March, the SRA referred two former Davenport Lyons partners to the SDT for possible breach of conduct rules for their involvement in systematic anti-file sharing enforcement.

The regulator said at the time that it was aware of similar concerns, raised in particular in a campaign by consumer watchdog Which?, in relation to TBI but that there was no investigation into the firm's conduct.

Last week TBI wrote to the regulator saying that in the wake of adverse publicity it had 'reluctantly agreed' it would cease sending out further letters of claim after 1 April.

Much of the controversy focused on what appeared to be the blanket sending of letters to recipients without supporting evidence of copyright infringement.

But in TBI's letter to the SRA, seen by Solicitors Journal, the firm said: 'We do not agree that there is no sound basis for making claims against ISP account holders in relation to illegal file sharing. Any suggestion of wholesale claims is incorrect because each claim is dealt with by us on its individual merits.'

The letter continued: 'If an individual against whom a claim has been made responds and satisfies us that on a balance of probabilities he/she is not responsible for the illegal downloading then no further action is taken.

'There is simply no question of us pursuing innocent parties and that has been made clear to recipients who have produced evidence to us which satisfies us of their non-involvement.'

Further down, the letter stated: 'We cannot accept that any of our correspondence is oppressive. While the letters contain a proposed settlement on terms no part of the correspondence is intended to force people to pay without justification'.

The firm also insisted that letters were sent to internet account holders where it was 'indisputable' that the copyrighted material had been downloaded through their connections.

At that point, the firm said, it was up to the account holder to disprove the claim by producing appropriate evidence to refute it.

However, the firm said it was 'concerned that the amount of adverse publicity could affect other areas of [the firm's] practice', and that, following discussions with clients, it would stop sending further letters.

The letter stressed that this decision was based on 'purely commercial reasons' and did not alter the firm's view that its conduct had always complied with the Solicitors Code of Conduct.