Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

John is perfectly correct in what he says below.

Of course, some lawyers like myself take those scruples even
further: I would never accept a case requiring filing of a UDRP
complaint, because of my belief that there is none that adequately
provides due process of law, and is indeed a legalized theft. The
first duty of an attorney is to protect the integrity of the law, and
it is my opinion that the UDRP concept sullies the law from front
to back. (Quite frankly, I have nothing but contempt for UDRP
store fronts.)

If asked, I would defend Osama bin Laden, since there would be
all the protections of the Federal Court system that I could use,
and everyone has the right to those protections and an attorney
who can use them. But no UDRP; it is perverted from the outset,
methinks.

Bill Lovell

"John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." wrote:

> "It is but an open secret that lawyers advising their clients in domain
name
> cases have no scruples about quoting the figures and saying that the odds
> are better with a given provider."

I don't understand that quote at all.  Why is it unscrupulous for a lawyer to
provide statistical information to her client?

What is the "scrupulous" lawyer to do when choosing a dispute resolution
provider for a client desiring to file a UDRP complaint?  Roll dice?  Pick
eRes because they are "better"?

And if the lawyer knows that NAF has a higher complainant win rate than eRes,
that lawyer is "scrupulous" if she witholds that information from her client?

It would be malpractie NOT to seek to obtain the most favorable outcome for
one's client.  Apparently, some former DRP's have no scruples when it comes
to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations.

You know what eRes' BIGGEST problem was?  They were so freaking proud of
their online system that they had zero appreciation for the fact that most
lawyers practice on paper, and don't feel like getting a username and
password for the privilege of submitting their work to a web form which is
going to screw up all of their text formatting.  Complainants were thus
forced to use an interface that they didn't like, and were uncomfortable
with.   The first time I submitted a response in an eRes dispute, I had
carefully converted the response and all exhibits into a single .pdf file for
convenient electronic submission only to find out that I could not submit
anything until the clerk felt like getting around to giving me a password -
maybe even before the deadline.  Only then did I find out that the clerk was
confused, and that they couldn't deal with a .pdf file.  If eRes had ANY
interest in a marketable service, they might have invested some effort into
finding out how lawyers would WANT to submit papers, rather than forcing
people with little time or interest into monkeying around with a bunch of web
forms - lawyers just don't practice that way.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
 

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html