Follow this request
There are 2 people following this request
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Number of complaints regarding Online Intellectual Property cases
To Solicitors Regulation Authority by John Fletcher 28 August 2010
Complaint information relevant to the Digital Economy Bill
To Solicitors Regulation Authority by John Fletcher 28 February 2010
SolSolicitor's Oaths - Rebuttal of Assumptions & Presumptions
To Solicitors Regulation Authority by Patricia Johnston 31 October 2011
Gender and Ethnicity Statistics
To Solicitors Regulation Authority by Helen Bright 1 November 2010
Religious Bias at SRA and SDT
To Solicitors Regulation Authority by Dr Helen Bright 2 March 2011
Solicitor's breach of duty
To Solicitors Regulation Authority by M M Simmons 11 January 2012
Hodkin & Co (SRA Number 00077994)
To Solicitors Regulation Authority by Tristan Stewart 5 October 2010
Information in relation to compaints against ACS:Law
To Solicitors Regulation Authority by Tony Maine 15 June 2010
Conflicts of Interests solicitors firms.
To Solicitors Regulation Authority by ivanataylor 17 November 2011
Number of complaints about Andrew Crossley & ACS Law
To Solicitors Regulation Authority by S Johnson 22 February 2010
ACS:Law complaint progress and forum allegations
John Fletcher made this Freedom of Information request to Solicitors Regulation Authority
The request was successful.
From: John Fletcher
12 May 2010
Dear Solicitors Regulation Authority,
I am writing further to my previous request (see
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...).
I wish to request further information with relation to the
complaints against ACS:Law.
I expect that some portions of the information requested may need
to be redacted due to data protection considerations. I understand
that your office voluntarily adheres to the Freedom of Information
Act and is not directly subject to it. You do however intend to
honour the spirit of the act through your internal process; and I
believe all information requested to be in the public interest.
I would like to request the following information:
1) Any communication between the SRA and government departments or
parliamentary representatives (including MPs and Lords in the two
Houses) with relation to the complaints against ACS:Law.
2) Any information pertaining to targets for resolution of
complaints, including but not limited to an estimate of when the
complaints are likely to be concluded, and any outstanding areas of
investigation yet to be examined.
3) What measures have been taken to confirm (or rebut) the
allegations in the press that ACS:Law publicly posted on an open
forum without identifying their personal interest in the discussion
(in doing so attempting to sway the discussion). Further that this
consisted of a number of posts over a wide period of time. I expect
the following information to be available in response to this
question;
- Correspondence related to enquiries made to ACS:Law as to the
accuracy of the allegations made to the SRA.
- Correspondence from the SRA to Slyck.com to request details
which could settle whether the accusations have merit.
- If IP address evidence has been provided from Slyck.com or other
complainant with relation to the posts, the action taken to
identify whether an individual with links to ACS:Law is the owner
of the address.
4) The date (or provisional date) of the hearing at the Solicitors'
Disciplinary Tribunal for David Gore and Brian Miller of Davenport
Lyons with relation to the complaints made concerning their conduct
tendering claims of copyright infringement.
I note that press articles have cited that ACS:Law intend to send
more than 15,000 letters early this year, and whilst it is unknown
whether this has transpired, the public interest in the progress of
complaints is undoubtedly keen. I therefore look forward to your
response to my questions and any other information of relevance you
may be willing to publish in order to assure the public that swift
but thorough resolution of complaints is possible, and that those
falsely accused that believe they have been mistreated by ACS:Law
are allowed remedy and closure through the actions of your office.
Yours faithfully,
John Fletcher
From: Joao Curro
Solicitors Regulation Authority
12 May 2010
Dear Mr Fletcher
Freedom of Information Request - Our Ref: FOI/BS/396
Thank you for your email dated 12 May 2010 to the Solicitors Regulation
Authority (SRA) requesting information under the Law Society Freedom of
Information Code of Practice.
You have requested access to the following information:
"1) Any communication between the SRA and government departments or
parliamentary representatives (including MPs and Lords in the two
Houses) with relation to the complaints against ACS:Law.
2) Any information pertaining to targets for resolution of
complaints, including but not limited to an estimate of when the
complaints are likely to be concluded, and any outstanding areas of
investigation yet to be examined.
3) What measures have been taken to confirm (or rebut) the
allegations in the press that ACS:Law publicly posted on an open
forum without identifying their personal interest in the discussion
(in doing so attempting to sway the discussion). Further that this
consisted of a number of posts over a wide period of time. I expect
the following information to be available in response to this
question;
- Correspondence related to enquiries made to ACS:Law as to the
accuracy of the allegations made to the SRA.
- Correspondence from the SRA to Slyck.com to request details
which could settle whether the accusations have merit.
- If IP address evidence has been provided from Slyck.com or other
complainant with relation to the posts, the action taken to
identify whether an individual with links to ACS:Law is the owner
of the address.
4) The date (or provisional date) of the hearing at the Solicitors'
Disciplinary Tribunal for David Gore and Brian Miller of Davenport
Lyons with relation to the complaints made concerning their conduct
tendering claims of copyright infringement."
The SRA is a part of the Law Society but acts independently in carrying
out its regulatory functions. The Law Society is not covered by the
Freedom of Information Act (the FOIA) as it is not a designated authority,
but has adopted its own voluntary Code of Practice which closely reflects
the FOIA. The Code may be found at:
[1]http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/d...
I am currently dealing with your request. Bob Stanley, Information
Compliance Manager will aim to respond formally by 10 June 2010 which is
20 working days from the receipt of your request.
Yours sincerely
Joao Curro
Information Compliance Officer - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (Ext 4539)
f: 020 7320 5685
[2]www.lawsociety.org.uk
P Go green - keep it on screen
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/d...
2. http://www.emailhosts.com/ct/ctcount.php...
From: Joao Curro
Solicitors Regulation Authority
10 June 2010
Dear Mr Fletcher
Freedom of Information Request - Our Ref: FOI/BS/396
Further to my colleague Joao Curro's email of 12 May 2010 please find
below the response to your request for information under the Law Society
Freedom of Information Code of Practice.
You have requested access to the following information:
"1) Any communication between the SRA and government departments or
parliamentary representatives (including MPs and Lords in the two
Houses) with relation to the complaints against ACS:Law.
Please find attached the requested correspondence.
<<Ltr to Lord Clement Jones ACS Law 11.02.10.doc>> <<Ltr to Lord Lucas ACS
Law 11.02.10.doc>> <<Ltr to Lord Youn ACS Law 11.02.10.doc>>
2) Any information pertaining to targets for resolution of
complaints, including but not limited to an estimate of when the
complaints are likely to be concluded, and any outstanding areas of
investigation yet to be examined.
We do not have targets in relation to investigations such as this. We are
not treating these matters as individual complaints but rather as
intelligence. We do have a target to close investigations within 12 months
where matters are not classified as exceptional. However, this is an
exceptional matter.
3) What measures have been taken to confirm (or rebut) the
allegations in the press that ACS:Law publicly posted on an open
forum without identifying their personal interest in the discussion
(in doing so attempting to sway the discussion). Further that this
consisted of a number of posts over a wide period of time. I expect
the following information to be available in response to this
question;
- Correspondence related to enquiries made to ACS:Law as to the
accuracy of the allegations made to the SRA.
- Correspondence from the SRA to Slyck.com to request details
which could settle whether the accusations have merit.
- If IP address evidence has been provided from Slyck.com or other
complainant with relation to the posts, the action taken to
identify whether an individual with links to ACS:Law is the owner
of the address.
A matter has been set up to deal with this allegation and it has been
assessed by the Risk Assessment and Designation Centre. It is currently in
the Conduct Investigation Unit and is awaiting allocation to a caseworker.
As the file is not currently allocated, we do not have any further
information relating to the investigation of this specific allegation at
this time.
4) The date (or provisional date) of the hearing at the Solicitors'
Disciplinary Tribunal for David Gore and Brian Miller of Davenport
Lyons with relation to the complaints made concerning their conduct
tendering claims of copyright infringement."
The case has not yet been lodged with the Solicitors Disciplinary
Tribunal, therefore I am unable to provide you with a date for the
hearing.
I trust the above information resolves your request.
Yours sincerely
Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[1]www.lawsociety.org.uk
P Go green - keep it on screen
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. http://www.emailhosts.com/ct/ctcount.php...
From: John Fletcher
10 June 2010
Dear Bob Stanley,
Many thanks for your response. I've marked the request as complete
on whatdotheyknow.com, but I would like you to confirm that the
attached letters to the three Lords are the only correspondence
which you have had. I ask because each letter informs the Lords
that the complaint team will be regularly appraised, yet it is
approaching 6 months since these letters were sent.
I further ask, if possible if you could let me know the date of the
disciplinary hearing by reply to this email address when it is
known.
Yours sincerely,
John Fletcher
From: Joao Curro
Solicitors Regulation Authority
11 June 2010
Dear Mr Fletcher
Thank you for you email.
I can confirm that the letters disclosed to you are the only
correspondence available on this matter.
Unfortunately we are unable to email you the date of the disciplinary
hearing. I suggest you contact the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
(SDT) in order to obtain further information. Forthcoming hearings are
announced on the SDT website. Please find the SDT contact details below.
Offices of the Clerk to the Tribunal:
5th Floor, Gate House
1 Farringdon Street
London EC4M 7NS
Court Rooms:
3rd Floor, Gate House
1 Farringdon Street
London EC4M 7NS
Tel: (020) 7329 4808
Fax: (020) 7329 4833
e-mail: [email address]
LDE Box No. 395
Website: http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/
Yours sincerely
Joao Curro
Information Compliance Officer - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (Ext 4539)
f: 020 7320 5685
www.lawsociety.org.uk
P Go green - keep it on screen
show quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Make and explore Freedom of Information requests




