Lawyers are often held to a different standard than laymen (which also include photographers). I am suspicious of how some lawyers in the "copyright enforcement biz" operate so I scrutinize very hard on the details. Notice, I qualify my statements as I wasn't sure about some of the issues.
I was told that there was a time that lawyers were not allowed to use firm names that didn't include a partner's name. I found out yesterday that has changed due to First Amendment issues. So that is resolved in my mind.
I am almost positive that Photo Attorney lawyers are NOT on salary. Most work for around 30%-40% commissions. Earl Richardson doesn't designate any business contact info whatsoever. That is suspicious to me because every lawyer I looked up generally has contact information. He is the first lawyer I have seen to have zero contact information.
Earl Richardson appears to be a Kansas attorney with a current listing with the Kansas Supreme Court. He has an expired Texas Bar license. I have been unable to find a Nevada online search to verify whether he is able to practice in Nevada. I might have to make a phone call. He clearly uses and signs a letterhead for a law firm based in Nevada. There is no disclosure of the PhotoAttorney letterhead of where their lawyeres are licensed to practice as many letterheads do.
You obviously take up for the photographers profession and position, I advocate for the victims. And honestly, I am not going to accept your or most people's opinion as I will find out for myself the finer points from qualified sources.
ELI's strength is partially built by thinking outside of the box and not making any assumptions. I just follow the paper trail.
Lawyers like Earl Richardson want to bludgeon someone with an insane 5-figure claim for one image. Well, it is only fair before a non-lawyer victim directly engages an allegedly lawyer that uses copyright law as a blunt force instrument that we need to find out the details on that fellow. They are quick to take advantage of non-lawyers legal ignorance. Well, I am just as quick to find legal ways to find and discover their Achilles heel and use their lawyerly status against them, if necessary.
And part of being a lawyer is that they took an oath to follow a set of rules that most laymen are not required to.
... so you're saying you've never heard of the concept of doing business as, d/b/a (and other variants thereof) and/or the practice of remote working?
If the Richardson receives a salary or retainer from the PhotoAttorney people, then he's staff - regardless of where he's geographically located; as long as any correspondence shows the address of the law firm that he's employed by, this should be a non-issue.
Another point: when an attorney sends out correspondence on the instructions of a client, they will always make mention of it - they'll use language such as "we represent X" or similar. An attorney might make a suggestion to a client as to a course of action, but it's up to the client to green-light any suggestions.
Lastly, on the point of sending correspondence out-of-state: you could have a Californian attorney send a letter to a New York infringer on behalf of a photographer in Texas and it would, as I understand it, be perfectly legitimate.
To the best of my knowledge, the only issue arises when the matter escalates beyond cordial negotiations and starts heading down the road of litigation; per the example above, the Cali attorney would either need to obtain pro hac vice with the state bar wherever the defendant is resident, or pass the matter to an attorney who is licensed in the state where the action will be brought - which could mean someone within the same company, or an outside entity.
Topic: Photo Attorney Operation Seems Sketchy (Read 4737 times)