From Above the Law:
For years, Richard Liebowitz ran a very successful operation mostly sending threatening letters to companies claiming that they had infringed upon copyrights held by his photographer clients. Under the best of circumstances it’s a niche practice area that’s… kinda shady. But Liebowitz gained a degree of infamy across a number of matters for high-profile missteps in cases that sparked the ire of federal judges. Now, finally, New York has disbarred him.
Liebowitz wasn’t alone in the copyright trolling practice. A number of entities scour the internet looking for photographs that they can claim are “unlicensed” and demanding thousands of dollars to settle the matter knowing that between statutory damages for copyright infringement and the cost of litigation, most companies will just pay it. Many times, the photo in question actually is legally licensed through an agency like Getty Images, but the plaintiff photographer has, for whatever reason, pulled the image since the license was granted.
This runs the risk that some plaintiff might do this on purpose hoping to catch some legal licenseholder unawares and bank on the target just settling to avoid bringing any lawyers into the situation. Which is why, for example, a judge in one case cited by the disbarment opinion ordered Liebowitz “produce to the defendant records sufficient to show the royalty paid the last three times that the picture at issue was licensed, and the number of times the picture was licensed in the last five years; if the picture was never licensed, the plaintiff was to certify that fact as part of the plaintiff’s production.” In this case, Liebowitz “did not timely produce the required royalty information to the defendant” per the disbarment opinion.
Though most of the opinion describes more fundamental case management problems. From a case brought in 2017:
The respondent stated under penalty of perjury that he did not and had never made a settlement demand in this matter. In fact, the respondent had sent the defendant’s counsel an email in which the respondent proposed settling the matter for the sum of $25,000.
And another case brought in 2017:
On January 13, 2018, the respondent submitted a letter (hereinafter the January 13, 2018 letter) to the District Court, requesting an adjournment of the pretrial conference scheduled for January 19, 2018, and stating that the defendant “had yet to respond to the complaint” and that the plaintiff intended to file a motion for a default judgment. Judge Cote granted the request and ordered the motion for entry of default due on January 26, 2018.
The respondent’s statement in his January 13, 2018 letter that the defendant “had yet to respond to the complaint” was false and misleading, and the respondent knew that it was false and misleading when he made it. The January 13, 2018 letter failed to advise the court of the months-long history of communication between the parties, beginning in July 2017, as mentioned above.
. . . .
From yet another matter:
The plaintiff admitted in a deposition and in other documents that the Photograph had been previously published on numerous occasions. To prevent the defendants from learning that the plaintiff did not hold a valid registration, the respondent stonewalled the defendants’ requests for documents and information. The respondent also failed to comply with an order by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman to obtain and produce Copyright Office documents to demonstrate a valid registration. After it came to light that the Photograph was not registered, and despite the record stating otherwise, the respondent argued, without evidence, that the lack of registration was merely a mistake.
If there’s a lesson to take away from these and the many, many more examples included in the opinion, it’s that copyright trolling outfits are largely unprepared for someone to push back on their demands. Firing off demand letters, memorializing boilerplate licensing agreements, and collecting cash is a tidy business model right up until a firm has to juggle hearings and discovery requests and experts and “not committing perjury.”
But perhaps the most bizarre story involves Liebowitz missing an April 12, 2019 hearing, explaining that his grandfather had passed. When Judge Seibel directed Liebowitz under penalty of contempt to furnish evidence or documentation regarding the date of his grandfather’s death, Liebowitz shot back that the order “likely constitutes a usurpation of judicial authority or a breach of judicial decorum.”
On November 7, 2019, the respondent retained counsel to represent him in the contempt proceedings, and on November 11, 2019, the respondent sent a letter to Judge Seibel admitting that he failed to carry out his responsibilities to the District Court and to his adversary. The respondent also admitted that his grandfather died on April 9, 2019, and was buried that same day.
Link to the rest at Above the Law
While most lawyers don’t engage in this sort of behavior, either because they regard it as intrinsically dishonest or worried they’ll get caught, as the OP demonstrates, somebody is going to call their bluff. That’s easier to do in places that are not so clogged with cases like New York, Chicago, etc.
In less massive and chaotic court systems where a lawyer is likely to encounter opposing counsel in another case sooner or later, the rule of living by the sword/dying by the sword comes into play as an effective deterrent to not being a jerk.