So first of all, in response to "This Site is Joke"'s comment that he would pity folks who rely on this site, this site's reputation and effectiveness cannot seriously be challenged. No other site or group has done more than ELI to help victims of copyright trolls like Richard Liebowitz. As to the point that the court made the client - and not Liebowitz - post a bond, I would advise everyone to read the application for the bond. It is hardly a love song to Liebowitz. Here are my Top Ten quotes from the bond application:
(1)"Indeed, our firm was involved in another matter in which the plaintiff (represented by the Liebowitz law firm) was found liable for attorney's fees and costs based on the frivolousness of the plaintiff's claims";
(2) In that prior case, the court said of Liebowitz: "no reasonable lawyer with any familiarity with the law of copyright" could have thought the case had merit;
(3) The letter lists a series of cases Liebowitz has filed where bonds have been required;
(4) In those cases, bonds were required because of "a variety of different errors committed by the firm"; (5) The letter chastises Liebowitz' practice of not trying to settle in advance of filing litigation saying this tactic is "inherent to the business model of the Liebowitz Law Firm which uses the existence of the court system to extract settlements which reflect not what is just for the plaintiff or the circumstances but the cost of hiring outside counsel to defend a claim;"
(5)Indeed the [factors a court considers in determining if fees should be awarded when someone gets an award less than amount that was previously offered] including motivation and objective unreasonableness can almost be determined at the outset of cases involving Mr. Liebowitz who within only a few years' practice has filed many hundreds of "strike suits" for copyright infringement;"
(6) [Liebowitz] has been increasingly recognized as a "copyright troll";
(7) "[Liebowitz]is a known copyright troll";
(
"[Liebowitz] has a penchant to 'irresponsibly litigate';"
(9)"this unsound practice has not only garnered his firm its notorious reputation" but has placed his own clients and not just defendants at risk of unnecessary financial loss";
(10)In his few years as an admitted member to this Bar Mr Liebowitz has committed himself to hundreds of potentially expensive (and often frivolous) copyright infringement actions where low damages are at stake." The client is barely mentioned in the letter. For anyone to read that letter and the court's decision agreeing that a bond was necessary and to then think that it was the client the court was concerned about is delusional. Yes, the court made the client pay the bond - I believe because that will actually impact Liebowitz more than him being ordered to pay it. It will have a bigger backlash against him if his client now has to either fork over the money for the bond or be concerned that Liebowitz will pay for and post the bond properly. If he had been required to post the bind, the client could have been none the wiser but he is now obligated to inform the client of the court's decision. So this is a big slap in Liebowitz's face and a signal that courts are FINALLY getting the message about these digital image lawsuits after ELI's near decade-long pursuit for justice on this issue. How this man can show his face in Federal court in light of all of these negative decisions is beyond me.
Topic: NY judge orders client of Troll Lawyer Richard Liebowitz to post $10,000 bond (Read 11657 times)