Before ACS Law became famous (and then infamous) for suing alleged file-swappers in the UK, another law firm called Davenport Lyons blazed the trail. Now, two partners from that firm face accusations that they proceeded recklessly by seeking payments from thousands of people based on an IP address.

Back in March, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) took up the case against Davenport Lyons partners David Gore and Brian Miller; this week, the SDT finally scheduled the hearing against the men for May 31, 2011.

Today, the trade publication Solicitors Journal obtained the "statement of claim" against the two lawyers. (Hat tip: Torrentfreak.)

"Each of the respondents knew that in conducting generic campaigns against those identified as IP holders whose IP [numbers] had been used for downloading or uploading of material that they might in such generic campaigns be targeting people innocent of any copyright breach," it says. IP addresses point only to machines, which can have their connections hacked, or can have open WiFi, or which might have been used by a nephew's friend who came over last year. But the lawyers proceeded with the settlement letters, asking the Internet subscribers to cough up the cash. (Davenport Lyons says it dropped cases where it was satisfied that someone was innocent.)

In whose interest was the entire campaign conducted? Lawyers are supposed to be hired and "controlled" by clients, and regulators in many jurisdictions frown on lawyers pressing forward with business plans in which they appear to be the driving force.

The Davenport Lyons complaint charges that the lawyers weren't really acting in the interests of clients, but in their own interest. "This letter indicates that the respondents were approaching the enterprise as their own," says the statement of claim. And again: "The reference to ‘revenue share’ indicates that the respondents were regarding the scheme which they were operating as a revenue generating scheme."

A sorry history



Gore and Miller helped pioneer the entrepreneurial approach to suing file-sharers in the UK, harvesting IP addresses from P2P systems like BitTorrent and then seeking court orders (called Norwich Pharmacal Orders in the UK) that forced Internet providers to provide the subscriber name associated with that IP address at that particular time. Davenport Lyons would then send letters offering to settle the cases for a few hundred pounds rather than drag a user into court.

The firm represented several clients, mostly video game publishers, and it saw a 20 to 35 percent response rate to its letters. No one was ever sued. The firm became a national scandal in the UK when consumer groups like Which? began airing stories of people who pled total ignorance and innocence. Which? eventually complained to regulators, who investigated the charges.

Clients left the firm; Atari pulled out in late 2008 after less than a year. Davenport Lyons eventually got out of the settlement letter business, selling much of its work and sending at least one key employee to Andrew Crossley of ACS Law, a down-on-his-luck solicitor looking to get into something new. Crossley now faces his own investigation from legal regulators.