Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
nevada, state bar

Companies:
righthaven



Nevada Bar Investigating Righthaven Lawyers

from the keep-digging dept

It seems things keep getting worse and worse for Righthaven. With its lawsuits losing big time, and the underpinning of many of its lawsuits being dropped as a sham, it appears that the Nevada state bar is now investigating the company and its lawyers, after some grievances have been filed against the copyright trolling operation. People at the Nevada state bar have admitted that there are "two or possibly three" grievances being investigated. Steve Green has the details:
Court records suggest the State Bar in reviewing the Righthaven litigation is focusing on two broad areas:

-- Whether Righthaven and its attorneys have engaged in champerty and barratry – generally defined as the improper incitement and prosecution of lawsuits by parties with no real interest in the outcome – and that hope to profit by such lawsuits.

Attorneys for one of the Righthaven defendants, Thomas DiBiase, for instance, have charged: "DiBiase asserts that the purported copyright assignment from Stephens Media to Righthaven is a sham and that Righthaven is engaged in champerty and barratry by filing litigation on copyrights that it does not own."

-- Whether Righthaven and its attorneys have made misrepresentations to the court. If true, that would appear to be a violation of the Nevada Supreme Court’s Rules of Professional Conduct.

These rules say, in part, "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer" to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." The rules also say, "A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer."
Both of those may end badly for Righthaven and its lawyers, especially the latter. The fact that Righthaven failed to reveal that Stephens Media was a 50% beneficial party to any legal results is a huge omission that I can't see the state bar brushing off as a minor infraction. It's still rather stunning that the company didn't realize that such information would eventually come out.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Mike42 (profile), 21 Jun 2011 @ 1:57pm

    Huge surprise?

    They're lawyers. They think they own everything, can do anything.

    And generally they can and do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    weneedhelp (profile), 21 Jun 2011 @ 2:03pm

    Uppercut, uppercut, uppercut, body blow, body blow, body blow, knock out!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ima Fish (profile), 21 Jun 2011 @ 2:25pm

    Little known legal tidbit...

    An attorney is only allowed to say the words "champerty" and "barratry" in open court if he's wearing a monocle, a top hat, and a handle-bar mustache. A female attorney is never allowed to say such words in open court.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 21 Jun 2011 @ 2:30pm

    Now if only the Colorado Bar would do likewise

    Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of scoundrels.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ron Rezendes (profile), 21 Jun 2011 @ 3:08pm

    Queue the AC apologists in...

    RIGHT - like THAT would ever happen!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2011 @ 3:14pm

    I'm thinking they never thought people would fight back, pay up settlements instead of incurring legal costs. Therefore, no, they didn't think any of this would come to light.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Marc J. Randazza, 21 Jun 2011 @ 3:35pm

    I hate to stick up for Gibson...

    I hate to stick up for Gibson, as I've battled him on a number of these cases, and I have no great love for the man nor for his enterprise.

    Nevertheless, I think that these reports of the bar investigating him are overblown. Anyone can report any lawyer to the Bar, and upon filing such a report, the Bar is deemed to be "investigating" the matter. That does not mean that the Bar was concerned, nor that the Bar decided to open an investigation. It only means that someone was pissed off enough to send a letter to the Bar.

    There are lots of good reasons to criticize Righthaven, and lots of good examples of its problems. Although the crowd here may cheer at the statement that "the Bar is investigating," they should understand that it is not much to cheer about, and I predict that little (if anything) will come of it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2011 @ 4:21pm

      Re: I hate to stick up for Gibson...

      Gibson is a charlatan. I wonder why no one has looked into his association with whosarrested.com, which is another online extortion racket.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Deirdre (profile), 22 Jun 2011 @ 5:24am

        Re: Re: I hate to stick up for Gibson...

        Is Whosearrested.com that nasty site where they put up mug shots from unexciting arrests and then will take then down if the person pays? My state tried to stop it from using the mug shots from the correctional system but I noticed it was doing it again.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2011 @ 6:04am

          Re: Re: Re: I hate to stick up for Gibson...

          Yes, it is deplorable how Steven Gibson, Esq. is making a career out of blackmail and extortion. This site's only source of income is hush money. Give them X dollars and they wont tell the world you were convicted of a crime. Don't pay and soon they will tell your neighbors.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          GGGLOBAL, 28 Jan 2012 @ 1:15pm

          Re: Re: Re: I hate to stick up for Gibson...

          Whosarrested just posted my info from Florida. ( Jan 2012)
          From last year.
          It was a non-issue I cleared up.
          Do you know if the site will be shut down?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Clayton E. Cramer, 22 Jun 2011 @ 12:12pm

        Re: Re: I hate to stick up for Gibson...

        This whosarrested.com is utter sleaze. No one who is arrested has any realistic expectation of privacy about this, but putting the information up and then offering to remove it from view for $99 is despicable. If there's a good reason to make it available, do so. But offering to make it go away for money is so morally bankrupt that I have to ask: What's the evidence that Gibson is involved with whosarrested.com? It fits with his general character, but I would like to see some evidence.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Clayton E. Cramer, 22 Jun 2011 @ 12:16pm

          Re: Re: Re: I hate to stick up for Gibson...

          Found the details: http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/suing-bloggers-for-dollars/ says that Gibson registered that domain name.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2011 @ 1:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I hate to stick up for Gibson...

            He did more than that. Steven A Gibson Esq. also applied for a service mark for whosarrested.com, which was eventually rejected by the US Patent and Trade Mark Office. He is listed on the application as the Attorney of Record. Just like Righthaven, Whosarrested.com is owned by an LLC with two other LLCs listed as its members. And each member LLC has, in turn, the other two LLCs listed as its members. So it is impossible to trace the true ownership of each LLC.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Brian, 10 Jul 2011 @ 9:03am

        Re: Re: I hate to stick up for Gibson...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Karl (profile), 21 Jun 2011 @ 9:43pm

      Re: I hate to stick up for Gibson...

      I predict that little (if anything) will come of it.

      I disagree. Gibson probably will not be censured due to his lack of standing, because he can easily claim ignorance.

      The second point, however, is very significant. Gibson withheld Stephens' interest in the case (denying they were a profiting party), and appears to have done so deliberately. That sort of thing is taken very, very seriously.

      I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if he was disbarred, but I'm betting they'll at least levy a hefty fine against him.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jay (profile), 21 Jun 2011 @ 4:49pm

    Lawyers and ethics?

    Honestly, who looks at lawyers for ethical conduct anyway?

    The most recent stripping I've heard about would be Jack Thompson and even then, his outlandish behavior took quite some time to cause Florida to take away his license to practice law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mr Big Content, 21 Jun 2011 @ 7:03pm

    Always Darkest Before The Dawn

    Nice to see things looking up for Righthaven, for a change. All those who thought they would get away from those lawsuits had better watch out now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Peter S. Chamberlain, 22 Jun 2011 @ 7:14am

    Righthaven, bar discipline

    I'm a retired Texas lawyer, with lots of arcane experience including writing ethics opinions, but not an IP expert though I did one appeal on a trademark etc. issue. It has long puzzled me how either Righthaven, which is kind of like a collection agency, or RIAA, a trade association which represents content creators and copyright holders but isn't one, so that neither appears to be a "real party in interest" in such cases, has standing to and can maintain a suit on what are essentially somebody else's actual or alleged rights. Court can only adjudicate live cases or controversies, and those can only arise between the real owner and somebody. It's only after those jurisdictional issues, that go, among other things, to the court's power to decide a case, are resolved that issues of champetrry and barratry kick in. It like if the private security guard company rather than the store tried to sue or prosecute you for shoplifting or giving the store a bad check.
    I don't know the rules in Nevada, but here, the fact that someone has filed a grievance complaint against a lawyer with the State Bar is private, and the complainant is not allowed to publicize the filing, until after the Grievance Committee has investigated, held a hearing, and made its decision. You are not supposed to use either the Bar grievance or criminal processes to gain an advantage in a civil case.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      SomeGuy (profile), 22 Jun 2011 @ 8:55am

      Re: Righthaven, bar discipline

      I think it's worth pointing out that, as far as I know, there's never been a case of RIAA v. Doe or anything; those cases are always done in the name of the interested labels. This Rightshaven stuff is different.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DogBreath, 22 Jun 2011 @ 10:45am

      Re: Righthaven, bar discipline

      I don't know the rules in Nevada, but here, the fact that someone has filed a grievance complaint against a lawyer with the State Bar is private, and the complainant is not allowed to publicize the filing, until after the Grievance Committee has investigated, held a hearing, and made its decision.

      It may have been that way in Nevada originally, but now for matters filed after Mar 1, 2007, that information can now be disclosed right after the Screening Panel has decided to approve a Formal Complaint (discipline process flowchart pdf), and before any hearing or final decision takes place.


      http://www.nvbar.org/node/96
      Is the discipline process public or confidential?

      Proceedings before a Screening Panel are confidential. For matters filed after March 1, 2007 (when the Supreme Court changed the rule), matters become public when a formal complaint is filed or the matter is concluded.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Math Is Not A Crime
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.