14 Comments

  1. Ian Osborne

    Is there an Australian equivalent of The Law Society, a regulatory body that has authority over solicitors? In the UK at least, the letters they sent could well prove grounds for complaint.

    How did they get your address anyway?

  2. crazyrabbits

    I wonder if that legal team even knows that they’re representing a man who’s already being charged with instigating click fraud.

  3. Elven6

    I take it you wish to proceed the case then? This has definitely become a interesting case to follow.

    Although is posting legal documents you receive and emails you sent on your blog a good idea Bruce?

  4. Ian Osborne

    You might want to send him an email. If Warren McKeon Dickson are misrepresenting the law in their letters, it’s almost certainly grounds for action.

  5. PieceOfMind

    Is there any way I and other Aussies can legally help?

    I hate lawyers like this.

  6. Brendan

    Careful Bruce, that letter is copyrighted. Scanning the letter was copyright infringement. Hosting the letter on your blog is distributing that infringing copy. Even if you don’t care to respect their rights in this case (and good show, I don’t appreciate that kind of behaviour from them), considering you’re dealing with a law firm, is it wise to do that?

  7. Steve

    i’m sorely tempted to say

    ” ask them to send all their correspondance to you via snail-mail, printed on high quality , luxury loo roll..as it will save you a fortune, due to the nature of lawyers generating so much paperwork”

    .. but that would just be crass , wouldn’t it 😉

    wishing you all the best with this,
    steve


  8. I am so gonna spread the news of this utterly retarded moronic ****tard behavior from Mr Dick and Evony everywhere. Yeah you heard me mister dumb as a rock laywer. Go ahead and try to stop me. I DARE you.

    On a more serious note though. I hope you nail them so hard their coffin will be crying.

  9. B

    I was interested in your argument that Evony LLC is an excluded corporation. Do they employ less than 10 full time staff?

    I humbly agree with your conclusion regarding Dow Jones Co Inc. v Gutnick, but for a different reason – Gutnick himself was resident in Victoria, and that is why his reputation was damaged there (see paragraph 54 of the majority decision: “Finally, if the two considerations just mentioned are not thought to limit the scale of the problem confronting those who would make information available on the World Wide Web, the spectre which Dow Jones sought to conjure up in the present appeal, of a publisher forced to consider every article it publishes on the World Wide Web against the defamation laws of every country from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe is seen to be unreal when it is recalled that in all except the most unusual of cases, identifying the person about whom material is to be published will readily identify the defamation law to which that person may resort.”).

    I am not a solicitor, and this is not legal advice.

  10. sam

    1. Re: JZVS on 08.29.09 at 3:18 pm

    [i am really confused how can a company based in china file a complaint under Australian law against someone in the uk]

    Firstly, Evony LLC is a US based & registered company.

    In any event, it does not stop them from filing a complaint under Australian law against someone in the UK. Whether Australia (i.e. NSW) is a forum non conveniens is up to the court to decide. The court may very well decide not to exercise their jurisdiction to hear the case on that basis.

    2. crazyrabbits on 08.27.09 at 1:24 pm

    [I wonder if that legal team even knows that they’re representing a man who’s already being charged with instigating click fraud.]

    Whether he has or hasn’t is irrelevant to the allegations contained in their letter; the claim is brought on behalf of Evony LLC, and independant legal entity.

    3. Ian Osborne on 08.27.09 at 10:51 am

    [Is there an Australian equivalent of The Law Society, a regulatory body that has authority over solicitors? In the UK at least, the letters they sent could well prove grounds for complaint.]

    There is, as Bruce noted. The is nothing wrong with the letter. The closest they came to crossing the proverbial line was the sentence:

    “our client will rely on it as such, for the purposes of the application of the relevant provisions of the defamation act etc.”

    On the face of it, it may appear that they are threatening potential legal action (which may constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct (and maybe professional misconduct, but this is even more unlikely), however, on careful review, I note that they have (and grudgingly I admire their skills in drafting): that they note they will use it for the purpose of the APPLICATION OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS (i.e. in interpreting the provisions) and not an APPLICATION UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS (i.e. threatened legal action).

    There is nothing wrong with the letter.

  11. zohan

    “and is not related to another corporation” these words are often overlooked…

    Also, Division 10 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW) is worth a read.

Comments are closed.