Lawyers Who Think They Are Online Assassins Don't Deserve a Licence to Operate
Practising law and becoming "attack dogs" [1, 2, 3] aren't the same thing; the latter is a reputational risk to the entire occupation
The term "guns for hire" wasn't coined/invented by us. It sounds crude, and perhaps that's for a good reason. It sounds similar to "hitman" or "assassin" because the mindset is similar, except they use another weapon.
Take for instance what was done to us (since 2021), in particular in 2024.
Some serial abusers of court processes decided to repeatedly SLAPP us [1, 2, 3], failing to realise that the real issue was their clients causing "Serious Harm" to millions of people (mass plagiarism, vandalism, and worse). There's a reason why after several years they've made no real progress. There is no merit.
There is a lot to be said about and learned from what they did.
In my humble assessment, their behaviour against me and my wife is rather self-explanatory as it includes: 1) working until late at night and weekends to send us additional threats (even late at night and during weekends); 2) insults - there is a third party funding this, the firm refuses to name that party and - worse yet - resorts to name-calling and rather bad insults when simply asked about this, politely.
They've repeatedly resorted to a combative attitude disguised using shallow mannerism, including a total disrespect for due progress, a lack of regard for other people's holidays (they know people have no access to legal advice while on holiday), projecting desperation and low morale (many staff leaving; they cannot hide this).
As a reader put it some days ago, "one thing to remember is that the courts are deliberately slow (on purpose) to force rational, non-emotional decisions through brute force of procedure".
Indeed, the Court has sided with us. Judges can see what's going on and what they did to me and to my wife several times already.
As it turns out, their main "purpose" is to intimidate people. And sometimes that backfires on them (letters of claim or threats thereof:)
A reform is urgently needed. A law degree ought not become a weapon of "paper terrorism".
As a Litigant in Person, I have no fear of them. For each pound they spend on litigation I might be spending a penny and I expect to be awarded costs (so it is sort of like a job, with a certain risk involved), plus compensation.
I wasn't born yesterday and I've been covering legal issues for over 20 years. I'm not a conventional "target" to them; they've learned that rather quickly and now they don't act like a law firm but like a bully. That will of course backfire because I document this behaviour of theirs. NGOs and other law firms are quickly associating them with what a law firm must NEVER do. Put another way, they've become a laughing stock in their "sector", a sort of "village fool/idiot". █
Earlier this year: 10-Step Strategy to Get BRETT WILSON LLP ("Gun for Hire"), Microsoft's Serial Strangler, and the Serial Defamer to Compensate Techrights and Tux Machines for Years of SLAPPs and Abusive Litigation | Brett Wilson LLP Does Not Deny Microsoft or Another "Third Party" Secretly Funds the SLAPPs Against Techrights, Bankrolling Despicable People Who Deserve Criticism
Earlier this month: Admission That a Third Party (or Parties) Funds the SLAPPs Against Techrights | At This Point It's No Longer Matthew Garrett But People Who Fund Matthew Garrett (or Companies That Fund His SLAPPs Against My Wife and I)