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..."
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.
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.
As a CEO, I am sure he will sue for lost time to clean up the virus. In addition, it sounds like the CEO (mistakenly) believes that the poster is targetting the corporation, which would mean anything from a few computers up to several thousands (all of the the associated tech support fees for getting rid of the virus).
So the CEO has lost documents, lost time, and has to pay a computer guy to clean his computer.
Already the CEO is able to blow this out of proportion to well over $3,000.
I am not a lawyer, but I am the son of one. My advice? Send a nice note through snail mail. Certify the letter, and keep a copy yourself.
In the letter, explain the virus and why you are not at fault. Do some research, and include quotes and backing evidence that support your claim. That should not be too hard to do, a simple search of Symantec and Macafee should give you quite a bit right there.
Start the explanation "I did some research into what seems to have happened, and I see how you mistakenly believe I sent you the email. However..."
End the letter with something like "Before you decide to follow through on any legal action, I am sure you too will research the computer virus (Klez) you recieved and will come to the same conclusion I did - that I am in no way responsible for the harm that has come to your computer and your corporation."
For less than an hour of work and about a dollar to send the letter, you can cut off most chances of legal action. In addition, if the CEO decides to go after you, it will never get to the courts. Lawyers on both sides will quickly figure out that there is no case and never let it get that far. You playing nice and courteous goes a long way to show that you are not only innocent, but deserve some slack for your composure under wrongful attack.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
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!
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.
How are the costs of legal actions payed in the US? AFAIK, each side pays his/her own bills. This seems quite silly, because in a case such as this, the rich player can simply drown the poor player in legal fees. I see this as a major flaw of the US legal system.
At least here in Finland, generally the losing side pays both side's expenses (unless decided otherwise by the judge - so nobody has to pay ridiculous expenses). This way nobody can drown the other player out for a silly matter such as this. Of course, this adds risk to filing a suit, which could limit the small man's willingness to sue, but I'd say that on the whole it's a better system. What's your take on it?
I doubt, therefore I may be.
So say I'm wrong and you sue me.
fine, I lose, and the court awards you damages.
but you want me to pay your expensive lawyer too!? that should come out of your winnings. Else we are basically giving the lawyer the right to assess damages me as well, but without any legal guidelines as to the ammount.
Seems fairer to me that the suit bringer always pays his lawyer, and also the defendant's, if the suit is overturned.
That way, people only sue if they are sure to win, and rich people or companies can't sue poorer people just to harass them into settling out of court.
And there's no risk in sticking your neck out if you know you are right.
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