Copyright Troll Richard Liebowitz Finally Disbarred
Remember Richard Liebowitz? The lawyer who was not very good at his job but really dove deep into the world of copyright trolling? He was suspended from practicing law a few years ago, but now he's finally been officially disbarred. There are many, many Liebowitz stories out there. It's hard to beat the time he lied about his dead grandfather as an excuse for his bad lawyering. This resulted in him literally having a friend of his parents send the most pathetic please excuse young Richard, he doesn't really law well" letter to the court.
The order officially disbarring him has a pretty long list of his fuckups, covering the details of 14 different cases where misconduct occurred, including the dead grandfather" case. As the order notes, ever since becoming a lawyer and setting up his own firm, Liebowitz's copyright trolling regime focused on high-volume litigation practice, mainly representing photographers for copyright infringement of their photographs on a contingency basis." It becomes clear pretty quickly that filing 2,500 cases in a fairly short period of time meant things... got out of hand for Liebowitz, and rather than recognizing that he just doubled down.
Here are a few of the greatest hits from Liebowitz's short career:
Rice v NBCUniversal Media, LLC, 19-cv-447(JMF)
The respondent represented the plaintiff in this matter. On January 17, 2019, the Honorable Jesse M. Furman, USDJ, ordered the parties to appear for an initial conference on May 2, 2019, and that the parties conduct a mediation session prior to the initial conference. On April 1, 2019, the mediation referral was closed due to one or both parties' failure or refusal to participate in the mediation.
On April 25, 2019, the parties filed a joint letter to the District Court, indicating that the defendant had been willing to participate in mediation and had provided available dates, but that the respondent had not indicated his availability. The respondent also failed to respond to the mediation office's scheduling emails, and thus, no mediation session was held. No relief from the mediation order had been sought or granted prior to the date of the initial conference. At 3:19 p.m. on May 1, 2019, the day before the initial conference was scheduled to take place, the respondent filed a letter motion requesting that the time of the conference be changed from 3:45 p.m. to 10:45 a.m. Judge Furman granted the respondent's request, but warned that the respondent should be prepared to explain the timing and reason for the request." At 11:09 p.m. on May 1, 2019, the respondent filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal signed by both parties. A few minutes later, at about 11:15 p.m., the respondent filed a letter motion requesting that the initial conference be cancelled.
On May 2, 2019, at 9:29 a.m., Judge Furman denied the request to cancel the conference and ordered that [c]ounsel (including Mr. Liebowitz himself) shall appear as scheduled, in part so Plaintiff's counsel can answer for his apparent failure to comply with this Court's orders and rules, including its orders regarding early mediation." The respondent did not appear for the initial conference on May 2, 2019. The District Court's staff inquired about the respondent's whereabouts, but received conflicting information about whether the respondent was out of town or on his way to the conference.
Judge Furman ordered the respondent to show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to rules 11 and 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the District Court's inherent authority. In his responsive papers, the respondent argued that sanctions should not be imposed because his client was unavailable to attend mediation. The respondent also argued that his failure to attend the initial conference was excusable because he believed the Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a Rule conference" after the parties signed the stipulation of dismissal. On July 10, 2019, Judge Furman imposed a monetary sanction on the respondent in the sum of $8,745.50 in attorneys' fees for the respondent's failure to comply with multiple court orders and to secure compliance with the Court's orders and counsel's professional duties in the future." On August 8, 2019, Judge Furman denied the respondent's request for reconsideration.
Rock v Enfants Riches Deprimes, LLC, 17-cv-2618 (ALC)
The respondent represented the plaintiff in this matter. In the complaint, the respondent alleged that the plaintiff was the author of the Photograph" of musician Lou Reed (hereinafter the Photograph) and he had been the sole owner of all right, title and interest in and to the Photograph, including the copyright thereto." The respondent also alleged that the Photograph was registered with the United States Copyright Office (hereinafter Copyright Office) and was given registration number VA 1-766-990. The allegations, however, were false and misleading, and the respondent knew the allegations were false and misleading when he made them. The respondent litigated the case based on a copyright registration certificate he knew, or should have known, did not cover the Photograph because the plaintiff did not hold a valid registration.
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.
On January 29, 2020, the Honorable Andrew L. Carter, Jr., USDJ, granted the defendant's motion for attorneys' fees in the sum of $100,008.13 against the plaintiff, and for sanctions against the respondent and respondent's firm in the sum of $10,000. On May 29, 2020, Judge Carter denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration.
Craig v UMG Recordings, Inc., 16-cv-5439 (JPO)
The respondent represented the plaintiff in this matter. On December 1, 2017, the respondent filed a motion to disqualify the defendants' proposed expert witness, Jeffrey Sedlik, based on a claim that the plaintiff had previously disclosed confidential information to Sedlik. In his moving papers, the respondent argued that the plaintiff had explain[ed] the whole theory of the case to Mr. Sedlik," and that the plaintiff had also discussed litigation" and settlement strategy" with Sedlik. These statements were false and misleading, and the respondent knew that they were false and misleading when he made them. The plaintiff never disclosed any confidential information to Sedlik, but only relayed the basic facts of the case, the plaintiff's career path, and his licensing history, none of which could be properly categorized as confidential. The Honorable J. Paul Oetken, USDJ, therefore, concluded that [i]n addition to the utter lack of merit to [the respondent's] motion to disqualify . . . the motion was made vexatiously and in bad faith." Judge Oetken granted the defendant's motion for sanctions against the respondent and LLF, and denied the motion to disqualify, stating:
[w]ith the full knowledge that [the plaintiff] had not disclosed any confidential information, Liebowitz went ahead and filed this meritless motion. Liebowitz's bad faith is most evident in the omission of the details of the alleged conversation in the moving papers. Those details were fatal to [the plaintiff's] motion, and obviously so under a basic understanding of the applicable law."
Judge Oetken denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration and awarded the defendant the sum of $98,532.62 in attorneys' fees and costs.
Those are just three of the fourteen cases discussed. Now, you could argue that 14 cases out of 2,500 maybe isn't that terrible a track record, but a lawyer isn't supposed to fuck up in these ways in any cases.
I wish that the era of copyright trolling had ended with the suspensions of Liebowitz (and the guilty pleas of the Prenda crew a few years prior). But problematic copyright trolling is still happening all the time, though not quite as sloppily.