Randazza bragged online: “We have successfully represented clients seeking to protect their domain name interests by stripping others of confusingly similar domain names registered in bad faith and retaining domain names that others have wrongly sought to take away. We are dedicated to seeing that the domain names belong to their rightful owner.”
However, this wasn’t the case, according to the court case. According to U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine, David Dent, the plaintiff in question, felt that he was unfairly treated and that the defendant, Lotto Sport Italia, misrepresented the truth. The court documents state: “Plaintiff enumerates additional instances where he alleges Defendant’s positions in this case were inconsistent with facts in the record, which Plaintiff argues Defendant knew or could readily have discovered, including: Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff had placed advertising on at least one of the disputed domains.”
Dent won summary judgment in March, 2020. Randazza was no longer representing Lotto Sport Italia afterwards.
RANDAZZA FAILED TO GIVE HIS CLIENT THE RIGHT COUNSEL
In the case, Lotto Sport Italia seems to take a position that “Defendant urges that Plaintiff did in fact unlawfully register the two disputed domain names because he did so in bad faith.”
If Randazza had advised his client to do the ethical thing in a persuasive manner, Lotto Sport Italia might not have lost the $237,000 that the court forced them to pay in damages and legal fees.
Some of the false facts presented by Lotto Sport Italia were called out by Dent in court. They include, “Defendant’s attributing to Plaintiff information on the previous owner’s parking pages associated with <lottostore.com>; Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff had placed the disputed domain names for sale; Defendant’s failure to recognize that the disputed domains were locked and that Plaintiff never profited from the domains, which was relevant to an element of Defendant’s allegations of cybersquatting; and Defendant’s failure to recognize Plaintiff’s involvement with a large number of domain names associated with gambling-related endeavors. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant was aware that its case lacked merit but proceeded anyway.”
RANDAZZA SUSPENDED BY PATENT OFFICE, FIVE STATE BAR COMPLAINTS
The State Bar of Nevada sued Randazza for violating Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct on nine counts. He broke the rules in regards to:
Conflict of Interest: Current Clients,
Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules,
Imputation of Conflicts of Interest,
Declining or Terminating Representation, Advisor,
Restrictions on Right to Practice,
The State Bar of Nevada sued for the suspension of Randazza’s license in 2018 with violations of ethics. His license was suspended for a year. However, the State Bar did not put the suspension into effect.
Randazza actually pleaded guilty to two violations: a bribe and a shady loan. He appealed his suspension to the Nevada Supreme Court, but was rejected.