Law Firms Can Also Lose Their Licence for Clearly Misusing It
I have long written about law firms. I probably started when I was about 20, well before this site even existed. I ranted about patent lawyers and their impact on end users like myself, set aside developers. Laws are typically passed in the name of protecting culture and advancing society in some way/s; if they're passed to curtail the public interest, then it indicates a governance problem, e.g. lobbyists and/or super-rich people (or niche occupations) imposing their commercial will on everybody else, even to the detriment of those vast majorities.
A healthy, truly democratic society must be able to exercise free speech (without fear of reprisal) on such matters; wellbeing or collective justice may depend on it.
I've long been vocally protestant when it comes to SLAPP, in particular those who profit from SLAPPs against media (e.g. targeting authors). Some cash-hungry lawyers are even pursuing or eagerly hunting for foreigners (from another continent!), basically those looking for some "guns for hire" to get immunity/exemption from extortion laws, e.g. 'revenge' against Brits who merely report facts that embarrass Microsoft, an American company. This has already resulted in some British law firms dissolving. It's a suicidal path, but it can be profitable while it lasts. What can defeat this? Transparency. Vampires cannot tolerate sunshine. Nor can they accept they themselves are the culprits [1, 2].
In one case involving Microsoft, we talk about a Microsoft employee strangling women, according to charges and it's all in the public records.
Months ago one lawyer from the US contacted me to tell me this was perfectly OK and not too long ago someone from the US told me: "Your lawyer knows that in the US it’s OK to publish someone’s arrest affidavit, right?"
Obviously!
"I don’t know what the laws in your country," said the American, "but I would think that across the pond [i.e. the UK or EU] it would apply the same."
"It is 100% legal for you to publish that affidavit," said the American, "even especially since you redacted the victim’s name and his [or her] address."
It's ridiculous that this even ended up in a docket in the UK. It's so outrageous that some firms would deal with it on a "no win, no fee" basis. They know that from the docket it will go to the wastebasket, it's just a question of how quickly.
"I don’t think he’s going to be able to actually sue you," one person told me. "He’s just bluffing."
After begging and sending threats (demanding censorship without rationalising it!) he did that regardless. What a total waste of money! Two questions/points: 1) what law firm would go ahead with such a "case" (from a foreigner who strangles women) and 2) Judges Would Never Rule for Men Who Strangle Women or Against Women Who Merely Wrote Articles About Abuse They Had Received From Men (because that would discredit the authority of the court/s).
It is a simple observation that British law firms receive a licence to exercise law (a licence which is not irrevocable) for the purpose of serving justice, not protecting a man who strangle women ("media lawyers" and "reputation launderers" are not the same thing; those "industries" must never overlap). When those British firms start to attack British women on behalf of foreigners (hiding behind proxies and invalid laws that do not exist in the UK) the public interest too should become a relevant factor.
The bottom line is, never made the false assumption that because you can pile up SLAPPs in a docket you will not suffer from bad reputation or even get disbarred. █
Related: Brett Wilson LLP Does Not Deny Microsoft or Another "Third Party" Secretly Funds the SLAPPs Against Techrights, Bankrolling Despicable People Who Deserve Criticism (they were asked several times)