Civil litigation history in Biglaw BG check Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi all,

I landed a v5 SA offer and am super pumped for next summer, but there is one thing that worries me... Earlier this year, I was unluckily named as the defendant in a civil suit (filed in federal court) pertaining to BitTorrent copyright infringement that I honest-to-God had no part in; I am writing anonymously here, so if I actually did it, I would fess up. The reality is that my wife's ex-bf downloaded music via bit-torrent on her computer ~7 years ago, and because she knew little to nothing about the technology, she did not realize that the infringing files had been passively uploading ("seeding") ever since. Thus, about 2 years ago, the files were uploaded over our share internet connection for which I was the subscriber. The copyright owner and ISP did a number of sketchy things that led to me being served in the middle of last semester with zero warning (about 6 weeks after the deadline for service that judge had already extended). I was forced to hire a lawyer, who filed a motion to dismiss for improper service/failure to prosecute that was reasonably likely to succeed in getting the claim dismissed w/ prejudice (at least on latter ground), but opposing counsel warned me that, if my motion to dismiss failed, the plaintiff's settlement demand was going way up. I could already barely afford their settlement offer and wasn't willing to take the gamble; I would've gone bankrupt defending the suit, and even though I almost certainly would not have been found liable, the probability of recovering my costs was a toss-up. As such, I paid the settlement but refused to admit liability, and my wife and I were financially (we are still in debt from the ordeal and have no savings).

So given all this, now I am wondering whether my firm's background check for incoming SAs will reveal my civil litigation history (it takes like 5 seconds to look it up on PACER), and if so, whether it will have any effect on my offer? Is there anything I should do now or at the time of the background check to warn the firm and explain what happened? I contacted a major federal docket searching website to explain the issue, and they agreed to depublish my case URL from Google search results (so it doesn't show up when I Google my name), but I don't think there is any way to get it removed from PACER. Any ideas on how to handle this would be much appreciated.

[Lacepiece23]

Hi all,

I landed a v5 SA offer and am super pumped for next summer, but there is one thing that worries me... Earlier this year, I was unluckily named as the defendant in a civil suit (filed in federal court) pertaining to BitTorrent copyright infringement that I honest-to-God had no part in; I am writing anonymously here, so if I actually did it, I would fess up. The reality is that my wife's ex-bf downloaded music via bit-torrent on her computer ~7 years ago, and because she knew little to nothing about the technology, she did not realize that the infringing files had been passively uploading ("seeding") ever since. Thus, about 2 years ago, the files were uploaded over our share internet connection for which I was the subscriber. The copyright owner and ISP did a number of sketchy things that led to me being served in the middle of last semester with zero warning (about 6 weeks after the deadline for service that judge had already extended). I was forced to hire a lawyer, who filed a motion to dismiss for improper service/failure to prosecute that was reasonably likely to succeed in getting the claim dismissed w/ prejudice (at least on latter ground), but opposing counsel warned me that, if my motion to dismiss failed, the plaintiff's settlement demand was going way up. I could already barely afford their settlement offer and wasn't willing to take the gamble; I would've gone bankrupt defending the suit, and even though I almost certainly would not have been found liable, the probability of recovering my costs was a toss-up. As such, I paid the settlement but refused to admit liability, and my wife and I were financially (we are still in debt from the ordeal and have no savings).

So given all this, now I am wondering whether my firm's background check for incoming SAs will reveal my civil litigation history (it takes like 5 seconds to look it up on PACER), and if so, whether it will have any effect on my offer? Is there anything I should do now or at the time of the background check to warn the firm and explain what happened? I contacted a major federal docket searching website to explain the issue, and they agreed to depublish my case URL from Google search results (so it doesn't show up when I Google my name), but I don't think there is any way to get it removed from PACER. Any ideas on how to handle this would be much appreciated.

Thanks for underlining the important parts. I wouldn't worry about it. My firm didn't even background check for SA, and I think most firms are similar. You may want to consider disclosing after you get an offer, but I doubt any firm would actually care about this.

[Anonymous User]

I was a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit in federal court against a fortune 500 company. I split my summer in two v10s, both did extensive bg check on their SA. Of course my litigation popped up, but it was no biggie. I was merely screened from relevant future matters, but it didn't affect me in any other way.

So long as you disclose it for conflict-check reasons, you'll be fine.

[Lacepiece23]

I was a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit in federal court against a fortune 500 company. I split my summer in two v10s, both did extensive bg check on their SA. Of course my litigation popped up, but it was no biggie. I was merely screened from relevant future matters, but it didn't affect me in any other way.

So long as you disclose it for conflict-check reasons, you'll be fine.

TCR... didn't even think about conflict check.

[Thesaurus]

I was forced to hire a lawyer, who filed a motion to dismiss for improper service/failure to prosecute that was reasonably likely to succeed in getting the claim dismissed w/ prejudice (at least on latter ground), but opposing counsel warned me that, if my motion to dismiss failed, the plaintiff's settlement demand was going way up.

Is this ethical behavior?

[los blancos]

I didn't even realize these assholes were still going after torrents and such. Sucks, OP. But you'll be fine.

[los blancos]

I was forced to hire a lawyer, who filed a motion to dismiss for improper service/failure to prosecute that was reasonably likely to succeed in getting the claim dismissed w/ prejudice (at least on latter ground), but opposing counsel warned me that, if my motion to dismiss failed, the plaintiff's settlement demand was going way up.

Is this ethical behavior?

It's sorta bullshit because of the circumstances but nothing wrong with it per se.

[dixiecupdrinking]

If anyone understands that defendants sometimes decide to settle cases without admitting liability for convenience, it should be your V5 firm. Can't imagine this hurting you.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for the helpful feedback everyone. The recruiter already said that my firm would conduct a background and conflicts check when the summer gets closer, but I am wondering whether it is even common for background checks to look into an applicant's civil litigation history, or just criminal/credit history? Also, I completed a couple conflicts check forms prior to callbacks, and they only included a few fairly specific questions, none of which would have prompted disclosure of this incident, so I'm thinking I shouldn't even bother disclosing unless conflicts check calls for it or background check turns it up? Just grateful I don't have a criminal record or I would be freaking the hell out. I figure employers will always assume the worst about anything that turns up in an applicant's past...

I didn't even realize these assholes were still going after torrents and such. Sucks, OP. But you'll be fine.

Yeah, well that is probably because the recording industry at large abandoned this practice like a decade ago. My lawyer, who has handled a lot of these BitTorrent cases, told me that most of the lawsuits these days are brought by porn companies; he said that one gay porn company maintained a list of defendants in ongoing litigation on their website as a means of pressuring them into settling (shows up on Google results). IMO, it is shameless exploitation of the Copyright Act, which was really intended to deter shady entrepreneurs that reproduce copyrighted material and sell it for a profit, NOT individual consumers; that is why the statutory damages are so high ($750-30k per work) and successful plaintiffs are permitted to recover costs. Illegally downloading 2 CDs with a retail price of ~$20-30 can result in a six figure judgment. In my case, the plaintiff demanded $150k for like ~25 infringed songs, knowing full well that they would never be able to recover anywhere near that sum; federal litigation is way too expensive for a person of average income, so as I see it, the lawsuit was essentially a shakedown scheme intended to pressure a quick and easy settlement (mine was in the neighborhood of $5k) via onerous defense costs and the threat of an astronomically disproportionate judgment that would bankrupt most defendants. Can you think of another cause of action that subjects regular f*cking people to federal question jurisdiction? I'm sure they exist, but are few and far between.

My lawyer had actually crossed paths with opposing counsel many times before, and he told me that the guy is essentially a psychopath; he knew I was a law student and didn't care whether or not I was the true infringer, as long as he could squeeze a few thousand out of me (which, to be fair, was his job). The plaintiff was this indie label that signed the sort of "edgy" metal bands which primarily appeal to the kind of angsty high-schoolers who buy all of their clothes from Hot Topic (no disrespect to Hot Topic--they do have some cool shirts and swag). I am a very musically-inclined individual (and I love metal), but I had never even heard of the band whose music I was accused of downloading. THEY would have to pay ME to listen to that crap; I assume this is why they found it necessary to file lawsuits in the first place. If people actually liked the music, they would pay for concert tickets, listen on spotify, etc. Moreover, suing alleged fans is not really a good look for a rebellious metal label--seems like something "the Man" would do...

Ok, rant over.. Thanks again for the advice.