The long-running filesharing cases brought by London firm ACS:Law have come to an end, as the Solicitors Regulation Authority has published the allegations faced by the solicitor at the heart of the controversial claims.

Manchester firm Ralli, which acted for a number of defendants alleged to have unlawfully shared copyrighted material over the internet, confirmed that the cases had come to an end after the parties settled on a confidential basis.

The SRA has published the allegations that will be faced by Andrew Crossley, principle of ACS:Law, before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

Crossley sent out thousands of letters to individuals accused of filesharing.

The letters, sent on behalf of Crossley’s client MediaCAT, asked for payment of compensation to avoid court proceedings. Crossley also started court proceedings against 28 defendants.

Ralli had questioned the legitimacy of the claims, and earlier this year a judge at the Patents County Court struck out the cases in a judgment that was highly critical of Crossley.

Following an investigation, the SRA claims that Crossley allowed his independence to be compromised, acted contrary to the best interests of his clients, and acted in a way likely to diminish the trust placed by the public in him or in the legal profession.

The SRA claims that Crossley acted where there was a conflict of interest, and used his position as a solicitor to take or attempt to take unfair advantage of others.

It is also claimed that he acted without integrity by providing false information in statements made to the court.

Crossley, who closed his firm on 3 February 2011, denies all the allegations against him. He retains a practicing certificate.

In relation to the hearings before HHJ Birss in the Patent County Court, he said his client MediaCAT had instructed him to discontinue the claims.

He said he was unable to respond to the points made by the court and Ralli following his client’s decision to discontinue the claims. He said this was because his client did not issue further instructions beyond its decision to discontinue the claims, and did not waive privilege to allow him to respond.

Michael Forrester, partner in Ralli’s intellectual property and information technology team, said: ‘We considered from an early stage that these actions against our clients were not brought correctly. The judgment and eventual settlement supports our view in all material respects.

‘We are dealing with cases where consumers have explained how they cannot possibly have uploaded or downloaded copyright-protected material, but they are still pursued.'

Forrester added: ‘The legal basis for the claims made against these alleged filesharers involves complex legal and technical principles. These are extremely difficult for a lay person to understand and can lead to an innocent person being pursued.’

Ralli is currently advising hundreds of consumers who claim that letters received from firms alleging copyright infringement amount to harassment.

Crossley's case has not yet been listed by the SDT.