Slashdot Mirror
When Do You Really Need a Lawyer?
"Clearly, once I've been served with legal papers, a lawyer is necessary. But I'm guessing that there are situations where having a lawyer before it gets to that point would be helpful. I'm interested in some general guidelines for when I should pick up the phone and call a lawyer. I'm especially interested in tales of 'I waited to long and got burned' as well as 'I got a lawyer so early it was smooth sailing'. Like most people, I make a decent living, but I cannot afford high legal bills for very long.
For those who are interested, the CEO in question decided to simply report the incident to the FBI. My guess is that the Feds logged the complaint for their statistics and then dropped the matter. However, the brush with someone with enough money and power to drain me financially has left me distinctly shaken..."
At worst, he could find you accountable for the files that were on his computer and _only_ his computer. I would guess that major important documents/programs that your company requires would be backed up elsewhere, and all the other stuff would range from the pr0n on his computer.
IANAL, but if I remember the legal process correctly, if he's suing you for $3000 or less (I could hardly imagine why a computer virus on his computer and only his computer would result in more than that in damages), then it goes to small claims court, which is jury-less and less formal that a full blown class-action lawsuit type dealy you always see in the movies. So I'd imagine that lawyers aren't _that_ extraordinarily helpful in a small claims court.
Karma: Non-Heinous
If you DO ever end up in court, after sending the polite note and getting a lawyer, point out that you have no money for him to take, and that if he does sue you, he'll look like a fool. If the CEO continues to press the suit, carry through on your end and go public.
There are tons of ways for ordinary people to do this. One is your local TV station. My TV station has something called "Channel 3 Reports" which is basically a cosumer line where people can complain if they feel cheated by a business. Channel 3 will send a reporter to the business and make them answer a few questions on camera. This can be REALLY embarrassing, espcially if there is any chance that the business did make a mistake. Many people would rather settle than have a hostile interview on camera.
Newspapers are also your friend. Alternative ones like the "News and Review" will often do interviews with ordinary people who have run afoul of some large business or government agency. Larger papers too might be interested to run your story.
I think enough bad press, and hints of more, will end just about any unfair suit from a CEO who has a company and business to worry about.
Be smart. Be polite. Be truthful. And be persistant. That I think will get you out of any jam that truly isn't your fault.
Peace.
I am a lawyer and I practised in high tech/business for years. I think people run to lawyers far too quickly. I wish they wouldn't panic and waste their own time and money. As soon as I became a lawyer, my father pestered me all the time with issues. I kept saying he should use his head. Figure out what using a lawyer will get you then think about what it will cost (in terms of time, money, frustration, publicity, anger, damage to relationships, etc.)
You need to take a deep breath and work out the pros and cons of using a lawyer. I think the best time to use one is where you are presented with a situation where:
(a) you are IN DANGER OF LOSING ESSENTIAL RIGHTS. Examples are signing contracts where you do not understand what people in your position normally can get (or lose);
(b) you are unfamiliar with the regulations and laws associated with doing certain things (like holding lotteries, running a business, being a landlord etc.); or
(c) you or your property are seriously injured and you NEED compensation to compensate for some significant loss
Using lawyers simply as a replacement for common sense is really dumb. Lawyers move SLOWLY and EXPENSIVELY. Why? Well, because (1) they have a lot of stupid work to do; (2) they are often sick of dealing with issues that should be resolved outside the legal system; (3) their profession is focused on looking at what they can get out of someone or how to hit back vs. constructively and quickly resolving disputes.
Often you will walk into a law office and have a consultation. Suddenly, the lawyer is putting together your case. What the lawyer is SUPPOSED to do is work with you on what you want to get out of this in the end, explain the costs, timelines (which are a lot longer than you think) and the typical results. Results means more than just getting some money. It means the effect of legal action on you and those around you.
Too often, the lawyer acts more like a plumber who plugs your story into his predefined precedents instead of being a professional who consults with you and educates you about all the factors you should know BEFORE proceeding.
That's not what I said. I said if you think you might need one, it's a Clue. If you are being accused of something that could cause conviction or damages to be levied against you, and you are unsure enough about the situation as to not be sure you would prevail, then you need advice.
One source of such advice is a lawyer.
What I would definitely say is, if you are in such a situation and you're unsure enough of your position to not know if you would prevail, get some advice. You may save a lot of money if you can get it from nolo instead of a lawyer, but it also depends on the situation. Nolo is great if you're wondering about patent or copyright infringement or you think you might be sued for libel or slander or your tree might fall on your neighbor's house. (Sometimes their advice is "get a lawyer," even though their logo is a shark with a briefcase.)
If you have been accused of a serious crime involving the possibility of major jail time, it's a no-brainer. Even if you think you do know how it will turn out get a lawyer ASAP. In the situation described by the poster, the lawyer's function might not be so much to avert the dingbat CEO's lawsuit as to engineer the countersuit seeking damages from the CEO for being such a dingbat.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
Great, you've got a guy who's dumb and rich and a CEO. If he's a CEO he's probably got a decent sized ego. If he's got an ego and you drag his e-mails into the public spotlight, he's probably going to get pissed, especially if the context of the posting is to say "look at what an idiot this guy is". He'll sure for any of a number of reasons, from copyright infringement, to libel (that's the print one right?).
No, you disturbed a dragon. Leave the cave quietly and pray he doesn't wake up. He might never win in court but that doesn't mean you'll have to have six mortgages on your house before he's done with you.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
IANAL...
It sounds like you just got somebody with a bee in their bonnet. (And, if you want another cliche,) My experience has been that such people's bark is worse than their bite.
So, if the CEO wants to sue you, first he has to find a lawyer willing to take on the case. In this case, that means that the lawyer would believe that A) there's a reasonable chance of winning in court and B) that if they did sue you, you have enough money to make it worth their while. Now, B is not as critical -- if the CEO in question is a real jerk, he may sue out of spite. But, A... If there isn't a reasonable chance that you'd win and a judge agrees, not only do you win, but the CEO and his attorney could be in trouble for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
The FBI, luckily is more than smart enough to understand forged headers and also knows more about computer viruses than this CEO evidently does. There may be some record in some computer somewhere, but it won't really mean anything.
The real questions are:
1) Is this CEO is the head of the place that *you* work?
and
2) Is he slandering you among other people?
If he is the CEO of your company and he decides to have you fired or something, then you may have a wrongful termination case. If he's going around telling other people about how you wrote this virus and sent it to him, then that's slander (assuming you didn't actually do it...), which is grounds under which you could sue him. In either case, consulting a lawyer may be a good idea.
Probably the best thing is to take the high road and ignore it.
Addendum: I recently got into a rather silly flame war with an AOL user who couldn't find her caps lock key. She threatened to sue if I republished our conversation on the Web.
So I looked into this issue, and it's basically as you say*. But there are a couple of points you didn't mention. First, while you don't have a right to redistribute their creative works, you are allowed to use it in a "fair use" context, and they have no expectation that their message remain private. That is, you can quote the most relevant portions, and explain the whole situation in your own words.
Also, in the case of works with no real commercial value (most e-mail qualifies), you can be successfully sued, but it's very unlikely that you can be sued for monetary damages. The best they can do is force you to take the correspondence down. If your responses were libelous, it's a different story.
Having said that, I side with the posters who say that, in the case of the clueless CEO, the best plan is to back away slowly, document everything, and don't do anything to provoke him. And talk to a lawyer if it makes you feel more secure.
* IANAL, so CYA.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Do not even *think* of speaking to the other lawyer without representation. They are the masters of spin and they will take anything you say and turn it against you. If you speak to him/her and offer no information, then you're uncooperative. That's their job, to make you look like a schmuck. How much money do you think Mr. CEO will invest in his retribution? I'd say if his computer Klez'd an important and equally clueless customer or investor, he's got no choice but to grind you into meatballs.
If Mr. CEO doesn't come to his senses, or if you receive notice of some action, you will need a lawyer who can speak the lingo to tell Mr. CEO's firm why it is a well documented fact that mail headers do not indicate actual message senders, and what sort of filings your side intends to pursue if they do not lay off.
You might even get a clever lawyer who can snooker them into pursuing some cause of action that, once the true facts are presented, will only piss a judge off. And lawyers avoid angering a judge at all costs. Once they're in that position, it's like they're Superman and you've got the Kryptonite. Such a situation might garner you a tidy settlement, out of court and confidential, of course. Yeah I don't favor use of the legal system for personal gain, although I do favor a little "Legal System Aikito (sp?)" when some jackass won't listen to reason.
cat
We often consult with them because it makes us feel better; however, I am a strong believer in doing your own due-diligence. Look for case records on similar topics that apply to your situation. Look for press releases and news articles, etc. You're looking for any type of information for which you can arm yourself and your attorney.
I'm gonna say it -- I can't stand lawyers. I think that many of their practices are just plain bullsh*t, particularly when it comes to how many "hours" they work on preparing documents and doing research. So, do your own, and when you work with a firm, share with them, and stay on top of the firm so that you know exactly how much work their billing you for, what they're doing, etc.
You need a lawyer when you think that it might come to litigation. However, even before that day comes, you must do your own due diligence. That is most important because often, in cases like this, that deal with "high-tech" topics -- attorneys don't have the knowledge or experience to handle your case in the most effective manner. You can save time, a ton of money, and your ass (in terms of winning the case) at the end of the day.
How do I know when I need a lawyer?
You don't need one. Just shut up and ignore this idiot. Save everything he sends you. Write up a log of what's happened (label it attorney work product or attorney client communications). Then shut up. Don't say anything. Don't send email. Don't post on Slashdot. It doesn't matter if you did anything or not or just think you can get away with it.
When will you need a lawyer? When an FBI agent or local officer shows up to ask you questions. Never answer any questions. Not a single one. Well, confirm your identity, but that's it. Get a lawyer then. Tell him everything, preferably in person. Then he'll help you decide what to do. All for only $250/hour.
And, no, I'm not a lawyer, but I am a convicted felon.
However, as mentioned in an earlier post, you are allowed to cite excerpts of the work under fair use.
It would be legal, though not wise, to sell the correspondence on E-bay as "Documents showing the ignorance of [insert company name here]'s CEO. Depending on the profile of the company, you might be able to make a reasonable amount of money.
Of course, I don't advise this.
Ask for an appointment to discuss the matter at his convenience. Then, before the appointment, call the CIO or equivalent at the company, and explain what happened, politely. If he's on the ball, he'll bring up the fact that From addresses can be faked without specifically mentioning your case. At the appointment, let the CEO save face about being wrong, and you are in good shape.
That's my advice, at least.
Also, in the case of works with no real commercial value (most e-mail qualifies), you can be successfully sued, but it's very unlikely that you can be sued for monetary damages.
Under United States copyright law, even if the actual damages are less than $20 (lower limit for a jury trial), the plaintiff can pursue statutory damages, which can be as high as $150,000.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You want advice about what to do, and doing your own legal research is either too time-consuming, or this is a critical issue. IANAL, but I do my own legal research. I have found that lawyers, like the rest of us, are not perfect, so trying to understand the basic legal framework is not a bad idea.
In this case, if it is a Klez virus, the documentation is around about the forged from fields. I would think that it is probably a good idea to keep a diary at this point, and if you want a legal consultation, and want to pay for it, go ahead, but it is probably more important to get the documentation together and document every encounter you have with him.
Also bear in mind that the perspective you get from a lawyer will revolve around a "play-it-safe" mentality, and so the extent that is what you are looking for, legal consultations could be helpful.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Post his name and email address here on Slashdot. Let us know his company name too. Before he knows it he'll be getting email from the President, Bill Gates, Abraham Lincoln...lets see him try to sue Bill Gates...wonder who would win that one.
I'd have to dissent from this view. Speaking to opposing counsel without representation can be very dangerous. Everything you say will be used against you, and admissions of a party are admissible even as hearsay testimony. While I agree entirely that early communications are a great idea -- and amicable resolution is the best result possible in these scenarios -- to do so without your own lawyer may be very risky.
Where a losing side pays a winner's expenses, it makes it difficult for poor folk to get competent counsel when they are plaintiffs. The contingency fee, with all its serious problems, is in fact, the only way many people of even moderate means can get justice. Without the contingency fee, only rich folks tend to be able to be plaintiffs.
I had a similar situation happen to me earlier this year. A women whom owned her own furniture business had e-mailed me in late August when I had got back to college. She made a claim that I had sent her an e-mail containing an attachment with a virus (Klez, I believe) from my college acct. Wondering if it may have been true or not (moreso the latter) I did a full virus scan on my hard drives, to no avail. I then proceeded to e-mail the women back regarding that matter, and KINDLY explained to her the situation, and some non-technical information about how e-mail address can be forged by the virus (and in general). I then sent her a link about the Klez virus from Symantec's website. Needless to say, I received an e-mail the next day with her >thanking me for explaining the situation to her. So just give a shot and try to explain matters to the CEO. It may save you time and a headache in the process ;O).
institutional violence Did you mean to say corporate terrorism?
IANAL, but my father is, and one thing I frequently see him doing is research to find past cases similar to the one he's handling.
For situations that are relatively unique (such as this one), often you can find a similar case that helps validate your position. There are a few big legal research sites (like lexisnexis.com, etc.), though I don't know if there are any that you can use without paying for them. (I also am not too familiar with the amount of legal knowledge necessary to make productive use of these sites).
This may or may not be useful to do right now, but I'd imagine if you end up being sued, precedent-establishing cases from the past can be very useful and perhaps persuasive.
The suggestion made by others to send the CEO a letter *politely* explaining the circumstances seems like a good idea. The suggestion about sending the CEO a forged e-mail to prove the unreliability of the "from:" header is, in my opinion (IANAL), not something you should do. It's a clever idea and may prove your point, but you might be opening up an even bigger can of worms if you do that. While it's obviously not all that malicious, the CEO might equate such an approach to proving that a computer's security system is inadequate by breaking into it. Even if you break in "just to show that the system is insecure" and don't do anything malicious, you're still going to anger people (especially if you can't prove that you didn't do anything malicious). If you do happen to do this, be as tactful and un-assuming as possible in the actual message. I think there is a certain degree of automatic offensiveness to this tactic (from the CEO's viewpoint), though, and this is why I don't think it's a good idea. Also, of course, remember that whatever you send them might be used against you later on.
One more suggestion I think is worth mentioning is that you should try to obtain a copy of the e-mail message (or at least the header) if you don't already have it. I don't know whethr this would be easy or difficult to accomplish, but this would be good to have.
Lawyers are like drugs. When you start using one you will never stop. And it's most expensive.