When the Microsoft Aggressors Rely on Several Law Firms ('Attack Dogs', 'Guns for Hire'), Not Just One, Lawyering Up Against Techrights (Acting on Behalf of Americans Against UK Publishers)
When you spend time in prison (as a Microsoft employee) and feel angry that someone in the UK explains why
10 days ago we said that "Throwing Money at Lawyers Can't Stop Us (It Never Did)". Two days ago and yesterday we said - even as recently as yesterday evening - that a solicitor that used to work for Brett Wilson LLP (but apparently no longer does, according to what his boss told me yesterday) showed up again in several of the threatening letters sent to me not only by E-mail but also by post (physically). I would rather not name this person, but here's the evidence of the employment record:
The above says a lot. We'll keep it impersonal (no names, except when the name is already in the firm's name). From serving customers at some restaurant he has moved on to bullying people with demand letters. And based on the names in the metadata, there seems to be a lot of shuffling on the deck (not limited to the above), as the lawyer who lodged both SLAPPs is leaving (the position is advertised as open with immediate start; it has gone on since April and a 3-month notice is rather standard in paper-pushing jobs).
There are at least 4 reasons why the above makes sense, including the fact that Brett Wilson LLP attracts not much "lucrative" (for extravagant clients) business anymore, with only conveyance-type paper-filling legal actions or tasks this year (very small lumps of money, just the formality of filling some forms adequately).
They have been elevating some staff to fill 'HR' vacuums (e.g. paralegals becoming lawyers) and apparently "borrowing" staff from other firms. This is risky. But it can save money (a salary-wise saving). They are working on smaller budgets while, according to their own accounting (which is public for all to see), they rapidly lose "total" staff, count-wise. They can compensate those who remain with fancier job titles, just like in Sirius. I am very familiar with this modus operandi. There's a lot of "I will stay, but only if you increase the salary"; there's also "I will stay, but only if you give me a fancier role" (for pretence of seniority; that can help later on when seeking another job elsewhere).
In summary, the metadata says a lot (perhaps they underestimated its importance; they blew away their cover, maybe lost access to people who know better and understand technicalities*). It seems like they commission a person who left the firm 3 years ago (in order to do some potentially temporary work) and some of the documents suggest also a change of Barrister (or involvement of a family member, maybe both). That does not bode well and in some circumstances it can be legally dubious.
Weak cases (meritless harassment disguised as "cases") generally look like this**; people get sacked and disposed of, unless of course they "take the hint" and take a hike on their own, hoping to dodge regulatory scrutiny (that would not help the firm though; regulators view intermittent changes as a sign of guilt, fear, uncertainty, anxiety and so on). █
______
* Brett Wilson LLP panicked a bit over this post, or so it would seem, as it sent a totally redundant E-mail to show the staff knows also how to send two sentences without 3.5MB of cruft. It did so only a few hours after our post.
** We are fighting Microsoft people in courts because their cases are outrageous! So two men with severe psychological problems found Britain's worst law firm to advance for them a case funded by Microsoft money. It's not going well. Quick updates from the firm, if honest, would tell them the same (maybe Brett Wilson LLP isn't upfront to them about what's happening). They cannot possibly be happy. Garrett's spouse has been forcibly put in an institution for addiction and/or suicide for almost 2 months now (given the lack of updates; apparently on hunger strike). Brett Wilson's annual report was published on a Friday (2 weeks ago). Companies House confirms they're shrinking and losing staff. Looking at their PDFs' metadata, not only for Graveley, there are several people involved who are not in the firm. They use people employed outside their firm (different firm) and seem to have changed a Barrister, too, or merely brought in a family member (or both).