iPod Lawsuit Lawyers Sue Their Own Plaintiff?

Guinnessy writes "Jason Tomczak, who is mentioned as the lead to the iPod Nano 'Scratch' Class Action law suit filed against Apple computers has published an open letter to the mac community. In it he claims that he never asked to be represented by David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, the lawyers in the case. He spoke to them once by phone about his scratched iPod case and asked that his name not be used. In fact, the two firms agree there is no signed document proving that Tomczak asked for representation. However, because Tomczak wants nothing to do with the case, David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro are currently suing him to try and stop him from pulling out. They also say Tomczak is legally liable for their fees if they lose the court case against Apple. Needless to say Tomczak isn't happy with the arrangement, and is likely to still lose thousands of dollars under the best scenario."

Comments

next up

[iocat]

a lawsuit for slashdotting his server. No posts and already dead.

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

Open Letter to the Mac Community
The Truth Behind the iPod Nano "Scratch" Class Action Suit

May 22, 2006

Dear Mac Community:

Hello! My name is Jason Tomczak. Many people around the world rightly know me as a mild-mannered techie, photographer, writer, and nature-lover. I am an Apple fan and have been fortunate enough to use Mac computers and other Apple products since about 1985.

On October 19, 2005, my life changed due to the unauthorized conduct of others. From that date forward, countless numbers of people around the world were driven to hate me and slander my name, sometimes using foul and threatening language.

Since October 19, 2005, my name has been infamously tied to the iPod Nano "Scratch" Class Action law suit filed against Apple.

What You Don't Know About The Nano Suit
The truth is that I never sought out nor did I ever hire David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro to represent me in any case, much less the iPod Nano Class Action suit.

The iPod Nano Class Action law suit was initiated by David P. Meyer & Associates Co. LPA of Columbus, Ohio and their representative firm, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP of Seattle, Washington and filed on October 19, 2005.

David P. Meyer & Associates contacted me, soliciting my opinions and comments about the scratching of my iPod Nano after finding Nano-related blog posts I'd written on my own website, on The Unofficial Apple Weblog and on The MacCast. They informed me that they had received an "overwhelming number of complaints" about the Nano and that they wanted my "insight into the problem". Yes, I answered their communication and told them that I had problems with my iPod Nano, however I clearly told them that they should do their own professional and technological study of the iPod Nano.

I emphasized that I did not have any access to any specific data about the materials used in making the iPod Nano. David P. Meyer & Associates used my personal comments and opinions as the basis of the iPod Nano suit. To my knowledge, there was no actual technical study done on the iPod Nano before the Class Action suit was filed.

Additionally, I told David P. Meyer & Associates that I wanted to remain private, and that my wish for privacy, among other considerations, would preclude me from getting involved in the case.

No Documentation
At no time did David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro ever receive any attorney-client agreement form from me. On their own time and based on their own schedules and plans, they prepared the paperwork and filed the iPod Nano Class Action suit in California using my name as Lead Plaintiff, however this was done without my knowledge or consent.

The Filing and The Call
The senior partner of David P. Meyer & Associates and one of his representatives called me during the afternoon of October 21, 2005 to urgently request my signature on an attorney-client agreement - two days after the Class Action suit was filed; two days after they began their action against Apple; two days after the press had begun running the story. They then warned me that my family, friends, clients and I should expect to hear from the media and others interested in the iPod Nano Class Action suit.

During that phone call to me, David P. Meyer and his associate blamed the faulty Nano filing on Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

Spin Cycle
During that week and the following months, my name was posted in relation to the iPod Nano Class Action suit on websites all over the world, even in foreign publications like Russia's "Pravda" newspaper, the Enquirer, Stuff Magazine, Popular Mechanics, CNN, BusinessWeek, MTV, VH1, etc.

Google results for my name skyrocketed. I began getting hate mail from people upset about the iPod Nano suit. I had to take my website down and remove legitimate references to my name on numerous web services. My fiancee and I were afraid to go outside in our own home town for fear of recognition a

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

So if his letter makes it really really clear that he's suing them (and that they're putting up an aggressive defense), why does the Slashdot headline say that it's them suing him?

Re:next up

[phoenix.bam!]

The filed a lawsuit using his name as the lead defendent.
They would not remove his name from the lawsuit even though they had no proof he wanted to be involved and he explicity stated he want to NOT be involved.

They did not comply so he was forced to file a lawsuit to clear his name. Instead of settling, the offending lawfirm counter-sued using Anti-Slapp laws. Now the guy will be in for a boatload of money because some scum bag lawfirm decided to use a few quotes of his from a blog and his name inappropriately for a class action lawsuit.

The headline says they are suing him because that is the news. This guy should be suing the lawfirm, but them suing him? Now that's news.

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to repeat the facts stated in the letter. I read it. I understood it. If accurate then the law firms have behaved despicably. However, he is suing them according to his letter. They are not suing him, according to the letter. They have filed an anti-SLAPP motion to make his suit more difficult, according to the letter, and if the letter's contents are accurate then that's a terrible misuse of anti-SLAPP provisions.

However, there is nothing in the letter that suggests that they have sued him. No matter how much it might be news if they were suing him, that simply isn't something that you can get out of that letter.

Re:next up

[jcr]

What a fucking pack of shysters. They should get disbarred over this.

-jcr

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy is getting hate mails and fear for reprisal? ... I think some people *love* Apple to the point of fanaticism.

Re:next up

[falcon8080]

Sooo, October 19th his name became infamous, and hes only just releasing his letter? Somethings not quite right here....

Re:next up

[Trillan]

One day people victimized by lawyers will want to file a class action suit against them. But who will they turn to? :)

Re:next up

[farble1670]

i don't believe him. i guess anything is possible, but the idea that not one but TWO lawyers would screw up to this extent is unfathomable to me. lawyers live by dotting i's and crossing t's. am i to believe they forgot to even get his signature before filing the suit?

like most things, the truth is probably somewhere in between the two sides of the story.

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

They are counter suing, hence they are suing him. Read your own post. Yes the headline could be more clear but it is not incorrect.

Re:next up

[pilgrim23]

Shakespeare did once posit a good lawyer solution.
Methinks his idea was too moderate...

Re:next up

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Shakespeare did once posit a good lawyer solution.

No he didn't. He had some drunken idiot fantasize about killing lawyers.

Re:next up

[cfulmer]

First, Plaintiff's firms are very different from the general practice firms that you're thinking about. They are often the bottom-dwellers of the legal profession.

Second, there is always a race to the courthouse with class-action suits: the firm that gets listed as lead counsel stands to get a big share of any settlement. Whereas most of the class ends up getting things like coupons, the counsel gets a big chunk of change. Being the first to file, especially if they have a good representative plaintiff, will be considered favorably by the court when picking a lead counsel.

I don't know much about either firm, but in this environment, it wouldn't surprise me to find a few i's and t's that weren't crossed. I suspect that they don't often get a lead plaintiff who says "Not interested."

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

lawyers live by dotting i's and crossing t's.

You are obviously not a geek who has ever worked with patent attorneys.

Some lawyers are mouth-breathing neanderthals who can barely figure out which end of a pen the ink comes out of.

Don't be so incredulous at the notion that this may have all began when a couple greedy idiots who happen to be lawyers filed a lawsuit against Apple and forgot to get a client first.

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I defend *against* class actions, this is almost certainly a highly deceptive account, incorrectly reported.

First, he is suing the plaintiffs' firms, not the other way around. His letter actually states this, but it's buried. That's the reason that he was deposed by malpractice defense firms. That's also standard procedure. If you sue someone, they may depose you and any law firm will hire a malpractice defense firm to do it. Depositions are invasive, but if you're subjected to one you'll have your own attorney to object to questions beyond their permissible scope. He doesn't mention it, but that attorney was sitting right beside him.

A firm does not need a written agreement to use a person as a lead plaintiff, but they won't do it without knowing *everything* about you. You have to want to be part of the case and want it *badly* for a class-action plaintiffs' firm to put you in that position. For two firms to have done so means that this person submitted to all sorts of pre-screening, interviews, and reference-checking. Notwithstanding the tactics he's now using, a class-action suit that loses its lead plaintiffs (or even whose lead plaintiffs don't hold up to scrutiny by the defense) surely will lose the case. Given how much money goes into these, it's simply not a chance that firms would take. Not getting a written agreement from him was a big gaffe, but don't think for a second that that means he didn't agree to do this. Without question, he did.

If he never wanted to be a part of this suit? Why didn't he go public immediately? The plaintiffs' firms *can't* sue him under those circumstances, so he could tell his story with impunity.

A "demurrer" is a motion to dismiss, nothing more. He makes it sound like a counter-suit, but it isn't. He sued them; they moved to dismiss. Under those circumstances who wouldn't? And of course they want to block discovery during the pendency of their motion to dismiss. Discovery is expensive and damaging to a law firm. It's entirely proper for them to "pause" discovery until a judge rules on their motion to dismiss..

I could go on, but you get the idea. The man is lying through his teeth.

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

"methinks" is a very, very old phrase dating from no later than the time of ælfred, who was writing just around 900 C.E. it is not a substitute for "i think," but rather, "me" is serving as an object (as one would expect), and "to think" here is an archaic sense meaning "to seem." "methinks it" means "it seems to me" with "it" as the subject of the sentence; if you want to use "methinks" to indicate that his idea is too moderate, the subject is "his idea." "methinks his idea too moderate" is a better usage here, roughly "his idea seems too moderate to me."

this is analogous to the form seen today in modern spanish, "me gusta esta cosa", which is used colloquially to express liking something, but "esta cosa" is the subject, which pleases (gustar) the speaker.

"methinks" today runs against modern english's stricter requirements on the order of words in a sentence; an object-verb-subject ordered english sentence is very rare. perhaps this was the pressure which made "methinks" an archaic form.

Re:next up

[damacus]

Legal proceedings take a *LOT* of time. 7 months is relatively little when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm sure in the earlier stages he felt much more positive about the chances of getting things straightened out.

In fact, it was only on May 1, 2006 that he received the news about the SLAPP. That and any discussions after that probably led him to draft this letter and go through a process with his lawyers to ensure they were ok with him posting it, and helping him edit the letter to ensure it doesn't jepordize his legal standings. They may attack harder because of it, but if it was written well (and it looks like it was) at least they won't face additional charges.

IANAL

Re:next up

[Ruff_ilb]

Slashdotting their server is a good start...

But seriously, it's not as if lawyers band together, or anything. I'm sure a rival firm would love to sue the pants off of these guys.

Re:next up

[myowntrueself]

Shakespeare did once posit a good lawyer solution.

No he didn't. He had some drunken idiot fantasize about killing lawyers.

Totally.

A *good* lawyer solution would be one part lawyer, 10 parts hydrochloric acid. Or whatever other acid dissolves meat best.

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

competent lawyers live by dotting i's and crossing t's.

You missed a key word in that sentence.

Re:next up

['nother poster]

They didn't forget to get a client, they just failed to inform their client that he was their client, whether he wanted to be or not.

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

Your points are well taken, and if I were to guess, I'd guess this scene was incorrectly described. But I'm not convinced of Mr. Tomczak's dishonesty.

Unless you want to talk about the proper methods by which to balance the processor consumption versus memory bandwidth consumption of index generation algorithms using doubly linked list sectorization on Opteron processors, I can't think of what you could question me about for six hours that wouldn't intrude on my sense of personal-space.

As a lawyer you might find these things routine, but to the average citizen six hours of questioning by people with hostile intentions has to be a bit unnerving.

The statement, "...but they won't do it without knowing *everything* about you" seems self-disproving. That sounds like an assumption by a competent person about how these things should be handled. If they'd questioned him enough to know close to *everything* about him they would have chosen another lead plaintiff. The fact (if it is a fact) that they couldn't produce a single signed document from Mr. Tomczak to defend their (mis)use of his identity would seem to me to lend credence to the argument of that their research was cursory at best. I don't know what the minimum number of whiners have to be to start a class action lawsuit, but I'd guess it's several, and I find it hard to believe Mr. NoPaperwork was the best choice for a competent legal firm, when suing Apple.

"Discovery is expensive and damaging to a law firm." When you stated this you were making a good point about the reason for a motion to dismiss. But I empathize with the fact that it's proportionally more expensive for Mr. Tomczak. How much disposable income does he have to put toward this. He'd have to be pretty rich to just laugh off his likely expenditures thus far.

That the lawfirm he is fighting is just doing what is most likely to make them money seems obvious. I wouldn't vilify them for knowing how the game is played.

That said, it was their lack of proper research that caused this mess, and had they done this properly they could have (rightfully in my opinion) chosen a non-adversarial approach to solving this problem. For X thousand dollars (where X is a single digit number) I'll bet they could have purchased a statement from Mr. Tomczak that stated he would not be able to participate for "health reasons." This would seem a great excuse to amend their complaint. Real lawyers would come up with dozens of even better alternatives, that would have allowed them to continue to pursue the juicing of Apple. Instead, they acted as unmitigated jerks and ruined their grab for the golden ring.

The shortsightedness of their behavior is to me the most convincing argument against the assertion that Mr. Tomczak is being deceitful. I would counter that he views his legal predicament through a glass darkly.

Re:next up

[bsartist]

why does the Slashdot headline say that it's them suing him?

Two words: Clueless. Editors.

Re:next up

[Ath]

i don't believe him

Well, fortunately for everyone whether you believe him or not is irrelevant. I am pretty sure that every state requires that attorneys obtain an agreement in writing with a client. I know for a fact that California requires it. Either they have a written agreement or not. There is no middle ground. His intentions are completely irrelevant. The signed agreement is the only relevant issue of fact. If they cannot provide proof of one, then there is no dispute of fact.

The sad point here is that they are just trying to bleed him of financial resources using legal tactics. I think they are playing a dangerous game here for two reasons. First, a judge is very likely to sanction them really heavily and make them pay all costs if he can get it that far. Second, the California Bar will very likely discipline some of these attorneys if he files a complaint.

IAAL

Re:next up

[Cramer]

No, the paralegals and clerks dot the i's and cross the t's. If you'd seen a single word doc directly from almost any lawyer, you'd wonder how anything ever gets done. They are, in fact, as bad or worse than the average slashdot geek. ('tho far more entertaining.)

Re:next up

[dgatwood]

One day people victimized by lawyers will want to file a class action suit against them. But who will they turn to? :)

Hopefully, a sand company.

What do you call a thousand sleazy class action lawyers buried up to their necks in sand?

Not enough sand.

Re:next up

[Cramer]

... this is almost certainly a highly deceptive account, incorrectly reported. ...

You are just as much in the dark as we are, so you're simply guessing. Maybe you don't make this kind of mistake. Maybe the firm(s) where you've worked are the few good, upstanding, ethical law firms that never make any mistakes. (most likely y'all are simply better at covering your oopses.)

However, it's also entirely possible the firms involved dropped the ball and actually did file without his legal authorization -- and possibly despite his request to remain anonymous. We don't have the complete story, assuming there's one to be had.

Re:next up

[farble1670]

Well, fortunately for everyone whether you believe him or not is irrelevant. I am pretty sure that every state requires that attorneys obtain an agreement in writing with a client. I know for a fact that California requires it. Either they have a written agreement or not. There is no middle ground. His intentions are completely irrelevant. The signed agreement is the only relevant issue of fact. If they cannot provide proof of one, then there is no dispute of fact.

okay i guess this wasn't clear to you. i believe that lawyers need signatures. i don't believe his account is 100% accurate / truthful. just because the guy writes a letter and tells everyone that he didn't have an agreement / etc. with these lawyers, doesn't make it true, right? this is just his account. it's not proof of anything.

seriously, the guy is having is life ruined over this. he has a pretty good motivation to say anything he can to get the apple lovin' public off his back.

Re:next up

[AusIV]

Since October 19, 2005, my name has been infamously tied to the iPod Nano "Scratch" Class Action law suit filed against Apple.

It does not say that his name became infamous on October 19th, he said it became tied to the case on October 19th. He didn't even know about it for two days after that. When dealing with legal issues, it generally isn't wise to rush out and publicly attack people who you're going to be seeing in court. He waited to see if the issue could be resolved peacefully before speaking out. Speaking out early on may have hurt his chances of a peaceful resolution when they still existed. At this point it seems a nasty court battle is inevitable, so the letter won't do much harm.

Re:next up

[Ath]

A firm does not need a written agreement to use a person as a lead plaintiff

You will have to enlighten us where this is actually true, because in California it is absolutely not true. You can be, at a minimum, disciplined and, at a maximum, disbarred, for not having a client agreement in writing. Exactly how do you think the law firm got its authority to file the lawsuit in the plaintiff's name? Firms cannot go around and just file lawsuits in people's names without an agreement ... in writing.

There is actually no such thing as a lawsuit that is filed as a class action. A lawsuit is filed on behalf of individuals. The attorneys can then petition the court to certify the petitioners as a class. This makes the lawsuit into a class action. So I am a bit at a loss to understand how that gets done without any written authority from the actual individual.

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the law firms pursuing the class action lawsuit produce a written document with Tomczak's signature on it showing that he wished to participate in the class action I'm gonna believe Tomczak. I think the law firms went full steam ahead with the class action and used his name without his permission.

I could go on, but you get the idea. The law firms are lying through their teeth.

Re:next up

[Max Threshold]

You readily admit you're some type of lawyer, but you expect us to believe your speculation over the testimony of an actual human being? Riiiiight...

Re:next up

[imdx80]

...and its using a old typewriter style font, that makes it appear much more official and serious...

Re:next up

[CptNerd]

just because the guy writes a letter and tells everyone that he didn't have an agreement / etc. with these lawyers, doesn't make it true, right? this is just his account. it's not proof of anything.

All the lawyers have to do is present the signed agreement and his case is dismissed. If they don't allow anyone to look for such an agreement, or they refuse to produce one, it makes his case harder to dismiss. It sounds like they want to prevent his team from looking for such an agreement, which they likely would do if it didn't exist.

Re:next up

[Bastard of Subhumani]

I defend *against* class actions, this is almost certainly a highly deceptive account

Objection. Speculating.

Re:next up

[tsm_sf]

If you're not part of the solution you're part of the precipitate?

Re:next up

[rgravina]

Second, the California Bar ...

Is that the one with the nougat centre covered in peanuts and chocolate?

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

People tell lies.

People change their mind.

People get confused, and forget what they said.

People have terrible memories, and are fickle.

That's why we have written documents - so there is a version of what was agreed that can be referred to.

So in this case the firm in question didn't obtain written approval, so exactly why are they not sunk at square one because if the opposite were true the lawyers would be the first ones to be jumping up and down shouting "where are the fucking papers????

Re:next up

[ccmay]

I could go on, but you get the idea. The man is lying through his teeth.

I don't care. I would still like to see all lawyers boiled in oil.

-ccm

Re:next up

[frost22]

The only person who is lying here is you.

• you are obviously a lawyer
  
• not wanting to be involved in some extortion racket like case is very natural. You make it sound like a crime
  
• it is very obvious that the only ones profiteering here are the lawyers. This in itself is abuse of the legal system. That you cheer it or at least consider it normal speaks volumes about you
  
• your diction tells it all. You say "to use a person as a plaintiff". Where I come from, lawyers work for clients, they do nout "use them".

So, to make a long story short, you are part of the problem - a parasitic lawyer caste sucking the lifeblood out of the economy without contributing anything. I'll let others speculate about solutions. In my country, you would already have been disbarred, and probably held liable in some form.

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

Meyer's a member of the Ohio Bar, which does not yet require signed agreements in every case. (BTW, IAAL too, and actually in Ohio. I'm not sure why you think the California bar gets to regulate his ethics; at worst, they disallow him from practicing pro hac vice and report him to the Ohio Bar).

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that the one with the nougat centre covered in peanuts and chocolate?

No, it's completely nuts, through and through.

Re:next up

[Ath]

Meyer's a member of the Ohio Bar, which does not yet require signed agreements in every case. (BTW, IAAL too, and actually in Ohio. I'm not sure why you think the California bar gets to regulate his ethics; at worst, they disallow him from practicing pro hac vice and report him to the Ohio Bar).

I will leave it to you to reread the article and figure out for yourself why California law applies here. As you are an attorney, I am confident you will figure it out.

Re:next up

[derubergeek]

Folks - keep in mind the fact that an AC is often just that. Which might include bloodsuckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers from Columbus, OH or their spin doctors.

Just a thought...

Re:next up

[farble1670]

another way to look at it is that all HE has to do is NOTHING. if he never signed anything, if he never made any other sort of legally binding agreement, then he has no problem.

the idea that they could force him to be a plaintiff when he never agreed to is, to say the least, far-fetched. i think there's something more to the story.

Re:next up

[punkr0x]

What kind of idiot law firm lists a person as their lead plaintiff without getting ANY paperwork? What kind of idiot law firm lists some guy as their lead plaintiff based on his BLOG POSTING and a phone call? Makes me wonder how many other class action cases were dreamt up by scumbag lawyers with nothing better to do than drag our society down a notch.

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading the entirety of the letter by Mr. Tomczac and then reading this posting, it seems highly probable that this person is already somewhat familiar with the details of the case based on his responses.

It's also highly likely that this person is associated with the legal firms attacking Mr. Tomczac, again based on his instant negative responses and his defense of the lawyers involved. That and the fact that this person is posting as an "Anon Coward" should tell you something about him.

If it quacks like a duck ... shoot it.

Re:next up

[jedidiah]

There are plenty of lawyers that are screwups. Ambulance chasers generally are drawn from the bottom of the law class and are specifically those people that aren't that great at dotting the i's and crossing the t's. They might be good at business development however. That's why they're out chasing ambulances and not doing something more reputable like divorce law.

Let me re-iterate: Typically, the ambulance chasers are the BOTTOM OF THE BARREL academically.

Re:next up

[sgtrock]

Then you've clearly been very lucky in life. Slimeballs who will lie to you and about you, and take every advantage of you that they can do exist. Unfortunately, they tend to gravitate to professions that allow them to do this where they hold all the cards.

Used car salesmen, for example, are notorious because they know that once the vehicle is off the lot they are pretty much free and clear. They are in a business pretty much defined by caveat emptor.

Lawyers, for whatever reason, seem to come in just two flavors; those who are passionate about the law and its ability to create a set of circumstances that allow a civilized society to flourish, and the bottom feeders preying upon the weak. Guess which type I think the partners of these two law firms are?

Re:next up

[jedidiah]

It is also useful to note that Ohio judges will quite happily apply California law to these jokers if it is appropriate. Fleeing to your home state after making a big pile of poo somewhere else will not necessarily insulate you from the laws of the state you're hiding from.

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

It's = it is, its = belongs to it. Get it right please.

Sutdeis hvae shwon taht incrrecet sepillng otfen dosne't eevn solw dwon yuor aibltiy to raed vrey mcuh. Myabe tehre are mroe ipmoratnt thnigs to wrory aobut.

Re:next up

[MoneyT]

but the idea that not one but TWO lawyers would screw up to this extent is unfathomable to me. lawyers live by dotting i's and crossing t's. am i to believe they forgot to even get his signature before filing the suit?

You need to do some research about the current and ongoing duke rape case then. For money, fame and votes, some lawyers will seem to do anything.

Re:next up

[MoneyT]

Not that it wasn't an interesting lesson in the word history but what is the effective difference between "I think" and "It seems to me"?

Re:next up

[farble1670]

right, and we'd never be able to come up with any examples where the plaintiff has not be truthful. if you don't believe me, why don't you go and do some research on it?

i really don't get the logic where this guy writes a letter and states his innocence, and it therefore becomes true. maybe you'd like it to be true. and maybe you hate lawyers. try to separate that from the facts presented so far by this guy, in this forum, which are none. is it so hard to fathom the possibility that he DID make a verbal agreement, then backed out when we saw how much harassment he was going to take for it? a lot of people file silly lawsuits, what's your proof that this guy was any different? even if a verbal agreement is not binding in this case (i have no idea, is it?), that doesn't make him innocent of his original intent.

Re:next up

[Gilmoure]

But it does annoy the piss out of me and makes me give less weight to the poster's argument or opinion.

Re:next up

[Gilmoure]

object-verb-subject ordered english

Over it went my head?

Re:next up

[Cobblepop]

Unless you want to talk about the proper methods by which to balance the processor consumption versus memory bandwidth consumption of index generation algorithms using doubly linked list sectorization on Opteron processors,

So you're the guy writing 24's scripts!

Re:next up

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but more and more the USA appear to be a very very sick country.
(my opinion after reading this article and the one about a 17 year teenager expelled from scholl because of one of his blog entries.)

tcp_fin/Europe

Re:next up

[MoneyT]

I said nothing of the sort, I merely stated that your assertation that it is inconcieveable for a lawer to fuck up this badly is wrong.

Re:next up

[SwiftOne]

I know a lot of lawyers, and some of your statements I find highly out-of-character from what they were taught in law school. (Unlike many posters, I'll reserve my anti-lawyer sentiments for only those that deserve it.)

Foremost that you're willing to make any sort of definitive conclusion based on this vague hearsay, but we'll let that slip since you did it as an AC.

For two firms to have done so means that this person submitted to all sorts of pre-screening, interviews, and reference-checking.

This indicates no experience with large firms where someone assumes that someone else has handled that detail. Even if you worked at a small law firm, any experience with class action suits should reveal that mistakes happen because flesh-and-blood people will assume that someone else has followed procedure.

A firm does not need a written agreement to use a person as a lead plaintiff

There's a lot I don't know about class-action suits. Perhaps they are all done in Federal Court, and thus follow the same Rules of Procedure. But a "lawyer" speaking on the internet without leaving clauses for different jurisdictions makes me leery.

Without question, he did.

Your only evidence for this is that a firm would be foolish to move forward without it. You cite nothing other than procedural incentives for the conclusion of an act. I might say that NASA would never smash a satellite because no one checked Imperial/Metric conversions. Or perhaps you could say that a major energy company would never create fictional trading partners to hide debt? Or perhaps you could say that the TSA procedures mean that no one would ever smuggle bomb-like equipment on planes.

In each case, procedure wasn't enough, and a lawyer should be well aware of it.

If he never wanted to be a part of this suit? Why didn't he go public immediately?

1. A lawyer never wants a client to go public without careful scrutiny. Why are you recommending it?
2. A lawyer is well aware that clients will have diverse motivations (such as this person's claimed desire for privacy).

I could go on, but you get the idea. The man is lying through his teeth.

You have a post that is half useful-details, half this-sort-of-conclusion-without-evidence. _No_ lawyer I know would make that sort of one-sided conclusion based on this little evidence. Obviously this man put out a letter slanted towards his view. But to conclude that he's "lying through his teeth" based only on three facts:

1. The suit was filed with him as lead plaintiff
2. He claims that he did not desire this
3. He has made a _public_ objection only now.

On this you will determine the truth? Do you also conclude your research with the first case you find?

Please sir, list your firm so that I can steer everyone I know away from you.

Re:next up

[farble1670]

if i implied "inconceivable", that's not what i meant. i meant unlikely. the scenario this guy has painted is unlikely.

what's more likely? the lawyers screwed up in a way that will get them disabarred, and instead of backing off / correcting their problem, they actualy highlight the issue by filing suit against the fellow ... or, that this guy isn't telling the whole story. lawyers screw up, but out of self interest they also avoid actions that will make get them banned from law practive forever. whatever amount of money they stand to make isn't worth that risk.

their suit against him must have some basis. do you think they are going to say to the judge "hey this guy won't sign this and we want him to, can you make him please?" there's *probably* more to it than that.

like i said earlier, the truth is going to be somewhere between the two sides of the story. it always is.

Re:next up

[MoneyT]

I'd say it's equaly likely if not more likely that the lawers are the ones that fucked up something awful here. That was why I directed you to do some research into the duke case, a perfect example of a lawer (in this case a DA) forging ahead and making things worse and worse in the face of almost insurmountable evidence against his case. Lawyers are people too, they are just as suceptable to greedy screw you in the ass tactics and lousy judgement power grabs as everyone else, the difference is, when the lawyer is done, you'll have the kid and be paying child support to the lawyer.

Re:next up

[rdoger6424]

The fact that you are posting as AC should tell people something...

Re:next up

[pilgrim23]

Methinks grammer nazis and lawyers should both partake of the same simple?

Re:next up

[rdoger6424]

Legal proceedings take a *LOT* of time. 7 months is relatively little when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm sure in the earlier stages he felt much more positive about the chances of getting things straightened out.

In fact, it was only on May 1, 2006 that he received the news about the SLAPP. That and any discussions after that probably led him to draft this letter and go through a process with his lawyers to ensure they were ok with him posting it, and helping him edit the letter to ensure it doesn't jepordize his legal standings. They may attack harder because of it, but if it was written well (and it looks like it was) at least they won't face additional charges.

IANAL

Ripped off from http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186589&c id=15398421

Re:next up

[udoschuermann]

IANAL but when you're involved in a lawsuit your most prudent course of action is to say nothing whatsoever (in public) about the suit. Let your legal counsel do all the talking. Your lack of legal knowledge could complicate or even compromise your case.

That would certainly explain why he's gone public with this only now.

And given the facts as Jason presents them, I am astounded that the first judge to look at the facts hasn't asked a couple of pointed questions and brought the gavel down on the lawyers who are forcing their representation on Jason against his will and under threat! Is our legal system really so convoluted and messed-up that some lawyer can decide against your will to represent you and you become trapped in obligation as a result? What am I missing here?

Re:next up

[Jesapoo]

Lawyers are the only socially acceptable cannibals in the western world ;)

Re:next up

[sjames]

the offending lawfirm counter-sued using Anti-Slapp laws.

That just proves that the legal system is so thoroughly screwed up in the U.S. that nothing in it is beyond abuse.

The entire point of anti-SLAPP laws was to prevent the big money from pummeling the little guy with questionable lawsuits to shut him up.

From the sound of things, the lawyers in this case should spend the rest of their lives employed as migrant interstate rest area toilet scrubbers, but they will probably continue to be respected and successful in their current profession.

Re:next up

[Egregius]

I wouldn't vilify them for knowing how the game is played.

I'd vilify them for being willing participants in that game.

IANAL...

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, no signed contract means the two law firms have no case. I'm sure with some legal back channels they could try to sue this guy but isn't this wrong? What judge will even bother listening to this?

Re:IANAL...

[Intron]

Verbal contracts are binding, and who wouldn't trust the word of a lawyer?

Re:IANAL...

[windex]

Every judge that's ever lived?

Re:IANAL...

[rovingeyes]

Verbal contracts are binding...

NOT TRUE. If it were, lot of men would be married to lot of women.

Re:IANAL...

[iocat]

They *are* binding, but tough to prove.

Vis-a-vis scumbag guys, I think a promise of marriage is more like an LOI than an actual contract.

Re:IANAL...

[Chirs]

Actually, in many places verbal contracts *are* binding, as long as they meet certain criteria. See the following for some details.

http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/contract/verbal. html

Re:IANAL...

[AuMatar]

Verbal contracts are definitely binding, except in very specific circumstances. Marriage and real estate are two of those. However, your burden of proof of having the contract is high, and since the contract is not written the judge is going to impose what he thinks are reasonable terms on it. For example, if you have an oral contract to paint a house and one of you claims the amount was for 6 rooms and the other for 1 room, the judge will decide which is more likely correct based on market rates.

Re:IANAL...

[agibbs]

As a law student I can categorically say that you are wrong. With only a very few exceptions (sale of land for example) verbal contracts are just as binding as written ones. The only issue is an evidentiary one of proving that the oral contract existed, which can sometimes be a bit difficult.

Re:IANAL...

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, I think the guy meant to say that verbal contracts like marriage, which are generally done while under the influence of alcohol and sometimes a gun are not binding.

Given the proposals I know of, that's the assumption I made...

Re:IANAL...

[gid13]

Presumably, that assumes that the plaintiff can demonstrate that there was an oral contract at all. That might be difficult or impossible in this case, regardless of who is telling the truth.

Re:IANAL...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oral contract and marriage?

Hell that is the first sex act that goes out the window as soon as she eats the cake.

Re:IANAL...

[jpampuch]

Verbal contracts can be binding, but lawyers will have a difficult time explaining why, as experts in the field, they didn't go to the trouble of getting a paper contract. I doubt they could win based on what is exposed here. (But remember, this may be just one part of the story.)

Re:IANAL...

[ichigo 2.0]

Maybe they should ask the NSA for transcripts of their phone conversations?

Re:IANAL...

[larry bagina]

First off, a marriage proposal is not a contract. Second, courts refuse to enforce specific performance if it is an unreasonable burden (ie, marriage).

Re:IANAL...

[Mateito]

All contracts - verbal or otherwise, require offer, acceptance and consideration. Under Australian law add reality of consent, capacity to contract and legality of object.

Offer and acceptance in verbal contracts are where the debate usually lies, but something of value needs to move between the parties - ie consideration. It doesn't need to be sufficient, but it needs to be. So if your Mum decides to give you her house, you need to buy it for a dollar to make to contract water tight.

Thus "I give you $8 and you give me that packet of cigarettes over there" is a contract, but "I'll wash your car on Saturday" is not.

I this case, I don't see the consideration. You may be able to argue that the lawyers have given him something, or at least the possibility of something. But if he hasn't given them anything, then there is no contract.

IANALBIDACLSIMMBA
(I am not a lawyer but I did a contract law subject in my MBA)

Re:IANAL...

[Anonymous Coward]

The statute of frauds (requiring certain contracts to be in writing, generally those involving real estate and lasting more than a year) comes up more often than you might realize from the short time you spent on it in contracts class.

Re:IANAL...

[Peyna]

One step further is the fact that attorneys generally don't have the same kind of protections even with representation agreements, etc. If you want to get rid of your attorney, you can, but you will owe them for everything up until the point you fired them.

Attorneys are in a worse situation than employment-at-will in most cases.

Re:IANAL...

[wile_e_wonka]

I don't know--I think the statute of frauds would not make binding the verbal contract alleged by the lawyers. The matter is one of over $500 and will last (probably) for more than 1 year. So, since the supposedly breaching party does not admit to the existance of a contract, the statute of frauds will not allow recognition of the contract.

I do note one thing missing from the letter, though:

"The senior partner of David P. Meyer & Associates and one of his representatives called me during the afternoon of October 21, 2005 to urgently request my signature on an attorney-client agreement - two days after the Class Action suit was filed; two days after they began their action against Apple; two days after the press had begun running the story. They then warned me that my family, friends, clients and I should expect to hear from the media and others interested in the iPod Nano Class Action suit.

During that phone call to me, David P. Meyer and his associate blamed the faulty Nano filing on Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro."

There's something missing from that paragraph... This should be the paragraph where Jason says something along the lines of, "but I refused his request for a signature and would agree to nothing of the sort." Instead this paragraph is mysteriously silent on the point.

Though later Jason says:

"neither David P. Meyer & Associates nor Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro ever received a single document or written communication from me agreeing to be any part of the iPod Nano Class Action law suit."

Obviously Jason did not sign a contract like the lawyer requested, or the lawyer would have that contract. However, Jason's statements in his letter sound suspiciously to me like he may have entered into an oral agreement with the lawyer who called him. However, even if the agreement can be proven, I think the statute of frauds would still require this contract to go unrecognized since the allegedly breaching party won't admit to its existance, and the contract is for something that is over $500.

Re:IANAL...

[Mycroft_VIII]

Remember most judges are lawyers with a "promotion". This gives the knowledge you speak of, but it may compromise thier willingness to aknowledge it.

Mycroft

Re:IANAL...

[tehcyder]

But we all know (1) that verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on.

(1) Thanks to Sam Goldwyn.

Re:IANAL...

[Tim C]

Hence he said "However, your burden of proof of having the contract is high" - you do have to be able to prove that the contract existed.

Re:IANAL...

[Anonymous Coward]

Verbal contracts are binding, and who wouldn't trust the word of a lawyer?

Funny you should ask.
I'm 60 years old, and in all my life, I
have only been cheated out of money one time - and that was by a lawyer.

Re:IANAL...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all lawyers are bad. Its just that 99% give the other 1% a bad name.

Re:IANAL...

[drewsome]

wow, a whole single datapoint, huh? ;)

Did the guy have blonde hair, or brown hair? Cause, you know, you can't trust those blondes; a blonde girl once broke my heart. Or myabe that was my wrist...

Just go away.

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Never talk to them again; if you get a phone call from them, hang up immediately; if you get a letter, leave it in the mailbox and tell the postman you are refusing mail from them. If they cannot demonstrate proof that the guy asked for representation, no bounty hunter is going to go after him to get court fees.

Re:Just go away.

[gardyloo]

if you get a letter, leave it in the mailbox and tell the postman you are refusing mail from them.

      *gasp* Refuse a friendly fellow citizen his rightful job? You should be sued for that.

Re:Just go away.

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

*gasp* Encourage litigation!? You should be sued for that!

Re:Just go away.

[jtwronski]

Unfortunatly, since he's apparently sued them for legal malpractice, any letters would go to his attorney's office, not to him. There is also some legal "expectation" that says if it got sent via USPS, then it got there. You can also pay extra and get a delivery receipt proving that the letter got to where it was addressed. IANAL, but I do work for a few of them.

-jtw

Re:Just go away.

[torpor]

*gasp*! [nsl-nsl-nsl-nsl-nsl-]!! [nsl-] should be [nsl-]'ed for that!

Re:Just go away.

[Roody Blashes]

You don't have to accept any mail. If you refuse to sign it, they'll just note that it was delivered, but you refused to sign for it. If you really wanted to, you could refuse things like jury duty notices and court summons.

You'd still be in trouble, of course, but you could do it.

Re:Just go away.

[patio11]

That doesn't stop the losses he is suffering: damage to his name (which, granted, I think he's stretching a bit -- Mac users might be fanatics but I doubt they know the name of everyone to have appeared in a suit about apple and care enough to assault his fiance on the street), stress, etc. And in the unlikely event that a bunch of lawyers wanted satisfaction from you, they wouldn't send in "bounty hunters" -- they'd walk up to their favorite courtroom, tell the judge "he has been evading contact with us", sue you for nonpayment of services, serve you with the lawsuit, win by default (it doesn't matter that they have no case, if you don't contest it you'll lose), and ask for a lien slapped on your bank accounts/house/etc. Its the 21st century -- you can screw somebody without ever speaking with them.

Re:Just go away.

[MBGMorden]

Do that and it might end up going to a collection agency (and hence your credit report), which is not as far fetched as it seems. I've got bills on my credit report that I've never heard of. Hell one of them was actually my father's bill which somehow got put onto my report (same name). Then there's those hospital bills from 2 years ago . . . when I haven't been in a hospital for 5 years (and then it was for an on the job injury that was completely covered by workman's compensation). Seems like almost anybody can throw a bill onto your credit report. It's a bitch to get the mistakes corrected too.

Re:Just go away.

[Cramer]

First, the USPS is NOT a reliable transport. They do lose, destroy, and otherwise misdeliver items. Every. Day. Statistically, they have a high sucess rate, but they move a huge number of things around every day -- 0.001% lose turns out to be a big-ass number of lost postcards and fruit cakes. Second, "registered" mail only means the carrier put it in A mailbox. It is not a 100% blanket certainty that it was (a) put in the correct mailbox, (b) actually seen by the addressee, or (c) not subsequently removed from the mailbox by the postal service.

Unless it's delivered and signed for in person, there's no guarantee it's been delivered. This is why process servers ask for you by name and hand you the papers in person.

wow

[El Pollo Loco]

That's insanity. They're suing HIM for their court fees? I hope he wins this. I hope those lawyers are disbarred. Morso, I wish this was all a joke. What are these people doing???

Re:wow

[ShibaInu]

Bottom line, when you call a lawyer, be very careful what you say. If you mention a public company and potential for class action, they will run with it.

Re:wow

[loraksus]

What are these people doing???
Making hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in "legal fees" from a case that will eventually get all the people in the class 5 free songs off iTunes.

Typical class action stuff. The lawyers win, we get screwed.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

This is typical. The bar for liability, either being an attorney or other officer of the court, is next to impossible to reach. As a consequence, attorneys feel invulnerable in a legal sense (much like police officers essentially being allowed to arrest anyone these days without fear of meaningful repercussions). So, you have bad things like this case happening.

Re:wow

[Duhavid]

It will be 7 songs at half price ( probably still a profit ).

Re:wow

[loraksus]

You're probably right :(

Re:wow

[cinnamoninja]

The lawyers win, we get screwed.

Also, the company that produces and markets defective products get screwed, and consumers win when honest, reliable companies take their place.

It's complicated.

(Not saying the Nano is defective, or that the lawsuit has value, but class action lawsuits are a critical consumer protection.)

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

They're just being lawyers.

This is what they do. I have been through similar issues with lawyers, and had to represent myself on more than one occasion because of this sort of unprofessional and predatory conduct on the part of licensed attorneys.

It sounds to me like they know they goofed, and are trying to scare him into paying them. This is a common tactic employed by "legal professionals" when they screw up. Since there is no signed consent, they have no legal leg to stand on. Since the unwilling Plaintiff in the iPod case has been harassed and his living jeopardized, he now has a claim for punitive damages. Might not get much beyond expenses and so on, but it will be something.

The other possibility is that he pissed someone off. Lawyers are cruel vindictive self righteous little people. They usually have some sort of porn addiction and play too much D&D. This makes them feel strong, and seems to give them the idea that they can do no wrong. Fortunately for him, these lawyers will always loose at bench trial.

Just one thing that strikes me as odd about the post:

If they're asking him questions that are not relevant to his case, why aren't his lawyers objecting and getting the questions stricken? If I were a lawyer, that would be my gauge of the other side. If the questions that were not relevant got answered, our friend here, the reluctant Plaintiff needs better legal representation.

Re:wow

[loraksus]

Also, the company that produces and markets defective products get screwed

Do they? Because the majority of class action suits I've seen involve giving the class a 20% off coupon at the offending company's online store, something like the netflix settlement or something that pretty much ensures that any financial reward the members of the class received will go to the offending company.
I'd be surprised if a majority of companies lost money overall due to the suits.

Re:wow

[Eccles]

The U.S. Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 requires courts computing attorneys' fees for "coupon" settlements to judge the value of the settlement based on the redeemed, rather than the face, value of the coupon. So things aren't quite as bad as they used to be. Credit where credit's due, thank the Republicans and the Bush administration for pushing this change.

Re:wow

[Duhavid]

So, will that change it to 12 songs at 60% of list?

Re:wow

[Reliant-1864]

I seem to remember reading that in a deposition, when the defense lawyer objects, it is for a judge to decide if the objection is correct, unless the questioning lawyer chooses to withdraw or rephrase the question. In the SCO vs IBM depositions, the lawyers object to most questions, and the questions get answered anyway, with the validity of the objection to be determined at a later date

Re:wow

[cshark]

Right, but if the question is ruled as not relevent, it cannot be used as evidence. It has to be stricken.

Re:wow

[greenhollow]

I think they should pay the lawyers in the same way they pay the plaintiffs. i.e. 100 million free songs.

The only solution that makes sense

[Space cowboy]

... is to disbar the lawyers from ever practising again, *and* to make them liable for his fees. That's assuming he's telling the truth, but it sounds like he is.

Not only are they giving their profession an even worse name (who'da thought it possible!) but they are in effect forcing him to pay for their lawyers fees when he didn't want anything to do with it. It beggars belief!

Lawyers ought to have a hippocratic oath, just like doctors... "Do no harm". Not sure how that fits with defending a murder suspect, but it certainly seems wrong for them to (ab)use someone's name like this...

Simon

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you're exactly right. Disciplinary actions need to be brought by the Ohio and Washington Bars - one of the most basic rules of professional responsibility (1st/2nd year of law school) is that a lawyer does not do _anything_ (enter into settlement agreements, file suit, etc.) without the client's authorization and consent. Even a bar exam flunkee would know this very basic concept.

I haven't read any of the pleadings in the case, and of course there's two sides to every story (it should be noted that the above letter was drafted or approved by this guy's lawyers) but based on the facts made available, something should happen to these lawyers. If not disbarment, then at least a suspension, or fines payable to this guy.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Associate]

I can think of several sensible solutions.
But they involve things that might require one to seek legal council.
It's a vicious cycle.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[linefeed0]

I would think disbarment is quite possible here. The fact that their lawyers started asking him unrelated personal questions in a deposition, blatantly fishing for dirt, is quite possibly a criminal offense (harassment and abuse of process).

Too bad that the Mac community is so full of mindless toadies that they joined in the harassment from their own side. I don't think *they* deserve an apology from this guy, who did nothing wrong.

"I began getting hate mail from people upset about the iPod Nano suit. I had to take my website down and remove legitimate references to my name on numerous web services. My fiancee and I were afraid to go outside in our own home town for fear of recognition and reprisal."

I mean, seriously folks, you love a defective product *that* much? It sounds like great advertising for Apple...except for the whole "well, we sell so many of these because people are mindlessly attached to our brand and don't want to hear anything bad about them" bit.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Syrrh]

I can't imagine they can make a case out of this. Verbal agreements may have some binding, but they need witnesses to carry any weight against him simply denying it. Otherwise, there's nothing to keep lawyers in line. Who needs to chase ambulances when you can just take the names off an accident report and then extort legal representation out of them?

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[cpt kangarooski]

Oh, we have an oath. They vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, of course. I practice in Massachusetts, so the oath I took is as follows:

I (repeat the name) solemnly swear that I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless, or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent to the same; I will delay no man for lucre or malice; but I will conduct myself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity as well to the courts as my clients. So help me God.

I certainly don't see how there'd be conflict with defending a murder suspect. It's important to force the state to prove their case, lest innocent people be wrongly accused and punished for things they didn't do.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Homology]

Not only are they giving their profession an even worse name (who'da thought it possible!) but they are in effect forcing him to pay for their lawyers fees when he didn't want anything to do with it. It beggars belief!

This is in USA, and this happens all the time: Justice for those with deep pockets. Why do you think that so many cave in for RIAA at the mere threat of a law suit? Note that these tactics don't work in Europe.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Space cowboy]

The "do no harm" thing w.r.t a murder suspect would be "a bad thing" if the suspect was indeed the murderer, but the lawyer successfully argued his case and got him off, at least IMHO.

I think it'd be hard to argue that a lawyer oughtn't do his/her utmost to protect the client (in *any* circumstance), but if justice does not prevail, I'd consider that "harm" to society as a whole - it's not about having baby-eaters wandering the streets, after all. If you commit the crime, the idea is that you get caught. That was all I was trying to say... I took too few words :-)

Simon

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Dunbal]

lest innocent people be wrongly accused and punished for things they didn't do.

      But innocent people ARE still wrongly accused and convicted. The lucky ones are released a few years later. Some are pardoned after they are executed.

      What about those criminals who everyone knows are guilty as hell, yet are let off because of a technicality?

      The system is by no means perfect. Unscrupulous lawyers only tilt it out of balance even further.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that these tactics don't work in Europe.

I haven't heard of such cases happening to date, but do you want to provide any reason why it couldn't? Simply pointing to foo, and saying "this wouldn't work in Europe" doesn't make it true.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Osty]

but if justice does not prevail, I'd consider that "harm" to society as a whole

But what is justice? In the legal system, it's being able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The state has the burden, and they must do so using only legal methods (thus many cases won on technicalities like an illegal search). It sounds like the system is set up in favor of the criminal, but that's not the case. It's set up in such a way that a false-negative is much more likely than a false-positive. In a country that (supposedly) values freedom, it's more important to let a guilty man go free than to wrongfully convict an innocent. Maybe you think that's wrong, but those are the ideals that drive our justice system.

Although I'm sure that will change as we give up more and more freedom in exchange for "security". Before you know it, we'll be back to "guilty until proven innocent". (as if we're not there already. How many of you think OJ killed his wife? But he was never proven guilty, thus he must be innocent under "innocent until proven guilty".)

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[vertinox]

Lawyers ought to have a hippocratic oath, just like doctors... "Do no harm". Not sure how that fits with defending a murder suspect, but it certainly seems wrong for them to (ab)use someone's name like this...

It fits even for that. Especially if the murder suspect is innocent.

And remember, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

As absurd as it seems... If 20 people see you kill someone in public, on camera broadcasted to thousands of witnesses, you are innocent until the jury hands you a guilty verdict.

No ifs, ands, or buts.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[cpt kangarooski]

The "do no harm" thing w.r.t a murder suspect would be "a bad thing" if the suspect was indeed the murderer, but the lawyer successfully argued his case and got him off, at least IMHO.

So if the prosecutor had no idea who was actually the murderer, randomly picked a name out of a hat, and only by sheer luck it was the correct one (not that he knew that), it would be a bad thing to defend the murderer?

I'm not seeing that. The murderer is a bad guy, but the prosecutor who doesn't have to prove his case is worse. Most of the time he not only will punish the innocent, but he will fail to punish the guilty. It's more important that he do his job right. It's safer for most of us, and it's more successful at doing what is intended.

Civil rights guarantees -- such as the means by which evidence can be gathered, or the right to be defended, or the right to a jury -- are all there to protect the innocent and limit punishment to those who are proven to be guilty. If a high standard and burden of proof are not required, then it is a certainty that justice will not be done.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[cpt kangarooski]

But innocent people ARE still wrongly accused and convicted. The lucky ones are released a few years later. Some are pardoned after they are executed.

What about those criminals who everyone knows are guilty as hell, yet are let off because of a technicality?

The system is by no means perfect.

That's true. However, we're looking at a couple of different kinds of imperfection there. In the first case, the state is acting imperfectly in that they're going after the wrong guy. Also, the defense is acting imperfectly, in that they aren't managing to win. In the latter case, the fault is with the state again. There's no such thing as a technicality. If the police violated the Fourth Amendment or something, then it's quite intentional that the state lose the case; law enforcement has to protect us, but it can't run roughshod over us in the process, or else we're just replacing one danger with another. And let's remember that 'everyone knew' that the Earth was flat, and that there were witches who were in league with the devil. What 'everyone knows' isn't reliable, and isn't safe to be around.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Space cowboy]

I don't think there's any cast-iron guarantee, but in general, the loser pays the court costs (for *both* sides) in Europe, which tends to discourage lawsuits unless you think you have a good chance of winning...

As I understand it, typically the costs are paid by the relevant parties (ie: you're responsible for your own costs) in the USA - so there's less downside if you sue and lose...

Simon

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Moofie]

"Too bad that the Mac community is so full of mindless toadies"

Where are there communities without mindless toadies?

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[kenrick]

Lawyers ought to have a hippocratic oath, just like doctors. Doctors don't take the traditional Hippocratic Oath these days, as it forbids abortion or surgery. At least in the UK, the guiding principles are nonmaleficence; beneficence; respect for autonomy; and justice.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

A lawyer friend of mine once told me how everybody asks him about getting out of a speeding ticket.

"Were you speeding?"

"Yes, but I don't want to pay it."

But when he's defending someone being charged with murder etc, people ask him how he could be defending it.

The circumstances are a lot more complicated than water cooler gossip, more complicated than the newspapers portray it. Prosecutors always go for the jugular, tack on extra charges, assume 1st degree murder vs 2nd degree, etc. in order to encourage a settlement.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[innocent_white_lamb]

you are innocent until the jury hands you a guilty verdict. No ifs, ands, or buts.
 
So if you are arrested after killing those 20 people and kept in jail for several weeks or months before and during your trial, you are then a currently innocent man sitting in jail.
 
How does this square with your statement? If I am innocent I should be free to leave and go where I want to, should I not? Bail? Why should I, as an innocent person, be punished by having to post a bond or abide by conditions that don't apply to other innocent people?
 
What do you think?

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[ScrewMaster]

Well, if we truly believe that it is better to set a criminal free than imprison an innocent man, we have to accept that some accused bad guys will go free. The scales of justice can be biased either way (and they swing pretty far the other way in other parts of the world.) I can live with some crooks getting a free pass now and then, because if I am ever wrongfully accused of a crime, the odds are in my favor.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[tftp]

you are then a currently innocent man sitting in jail.

Yes. A judge has power to put innocent people in jail when there are good reasons to do so. For example, when the police reasonably believes you are a 2nd coming of Jack the Ripper. The community will be best served if you are temporarily put out of circulation.

Besides, it is possible that your twin brother did the mayhem and then escaped through the sewers, while you were leaned against the wall and mostly drunk. After the smoke clears you may well be arrested for your brother's misdeeds, and then you will be a real innocent man in jail.

If I am innocent I should be free to leave and go where I want to, should I not?

No. Innocence or guilt is unrelated (orthogonal) to being or not being under arrest. A convicted felon may escape and walk free; a driver may forget his papers at home, be stopped at night, behave suspiciously and get arrested until things clear out and his wife brings the papers to the police station. The felon remains a felon, and the driver is a suspect at most, though most likely people get arrested at such situations for their own good (like when not exactly sober, confused, or driving dangerously.)

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Peyna]

Lawyers ought to have a hippocratic oath, just like doctors... "Do no harm". Not sure how that fits with defending a murder suspect, but it certainly seems wrong for them to (ab)use someone's name like this...

Lawyers are officers of the court and therefore take similar oaths to all other public officials (uphold the laws of the state and constitutions, etc). They also generally take an oath to zealously represent their clients. As to your comment regarding defending a murder suspect, I don't see where you are going there. First of all, murder "suspects" are all innocent (until the state carries their burden of proof in a court of law) and have the right to counsel guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Greater harm would be done by not defending those suspected of crimes.

Anyway, most criminal defense attorneys don't necessarily see their job as helping criminals get away with crimes, but instead, they see their job as ensuring the Constitution is upheld (something all lawyers swear to do). If that means that a few "bad people" have to go loose, it's probably worth it in the long run. That's exactly the weighing of harms that our forefathers did when writing the Constitution. It is better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent one for a day. (apologies to whomever may have said something similar before me).

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[sco08y]

Especially if the murder suspect is innocent.

And remember, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Everyone is legally innocent until proven legally guilty. It's only harm if the murder suspect was factually innocent.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Overly Critical Guy]

Hey, don't generalize the Mac community for the actions of a few. I'm sure you wouldn't want people thinking the Slashdot community was nothing but GNAA posts and anti-"M$" trolls. Every community will have its extremists, and that includes you Linux guys. Most Mac fans are graphic artists, film editors, musicians, etc. who are too busy getting work done on their shiny white plastic to care about some iPod suit. Of course, I can't speak for iPod fans, who form a much larger group of people than Mac fans.

The iPod community has more Windows users than Mac users, so again, don't lump us in with them.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad that the Mac community is so full of mindless toadies that they joined in the harassment from their own side. I don't think *they* deserve an apology from this guy, who did nothing wrong.

You do realize the Mac community doesn't care as much about iPods, and that most iPod users are Windows users?

If you want real hate mail, say something derogatory about Richard Stallman on Slashdot and leave your email address. You will never be left alone.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[PaulBu]

I was always in favour of an idea that a judge who finally signs on a punishment for a person who is later found innocent would have to have to endure the same punishment him/herself... Would decrease the number of death sentences drastically, do not you think?

Paul B.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[porcupine8]

Honest question:

I (repeat the name) solemnly swear that I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;

How does a lawyer get around this if they know for a fact that their client is guilty? Do they never actually state in court that their client didn't commit the crime?

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[loupgarou21]

I was recently on jury duty, after listening to the whole case I was pretty certain that the defendant was guilty based on the evidence and testamony given. One of the other jurors stated durring deliberation that they believed the defendant to be guilty because he had been brought to trial. I found myself trying to convince the guy that just because the defendant had been brought to trial didn't make him guilty, but he never relented on that opinion, especially since durring the trial it had been revealed that the defendant had had other run-ins with the law and the nature of the charge implied that the defendant had been convicted of another crime. Ultimately, we both believed the defendant to be guilty, but I hate to think that there are actually people out there that feel the way that juror did.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Osty]

I was always in favour of an idea that a judge who finally signs on a punishment for a person who is later found innocent would have to have to endure the same punishment him/herself... Would decrease the number of death sentences drastically, do not you think?

Judges generally have nothing to do with death penalties. Prosecutors get to ask for it (if the case warrants and the jurisdiction allows) and juries get to hand it out. The judge has some discretion to decide if the jury is completely off-base, but he's not going to decide for the death penalty if a jury decided against it. Like the government, the judicial system is set up with checks and balances on power so a single person can't be prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.

I guess if the defendant opted for a bench trial rather than a jury trial the judge would get to decide, but nobody's stupid enough to choose a bench trial in something as important as a murder trial (I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if a bench trial is even an option in a felony case like murder).

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Mycroft_VIII]

It's not, for the most part, a 'justice' system. It's a leagle system.
Try fighting a wrong ticket where the officer checked 'pace' on the ticket.
Innocent till provent 'beyound a reasonable doubt' my ass.
    If you can't prove the officer's allegation wrong (and that's flat out prove, not put a lot of doubt on it) on any ticket the judge just rules against you.

Mycroft

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Bastard of Subhumani]

I hate to think that there are actually people out there that feel the way that juror did

That's the point of a jury - statistically, you'd hope the other eleven would have a bit more sense.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Ed_1024]

He could do the unexpected and ask Apple if they will help him. If he's willing to act as a product evangelist for them now, they might overlook his previous complaint. It would certainly boost their karma...

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Osty]

If you can't prove the officer's allegation wrong (and that's flat out prove, not put a lot of doubt on it) on any ticket the judge just rules against you.

See, the flaw in your logic is that traffic infractions are a "special case" -- they're income. As such, the system has every incentive to make it difficult for you to prove your innocence, and since the penalties for you are "light" (maybe an increase in insurance, beyond the ticket price you'll pay) they're not so concerned about innocent or guilty. If you really care, do what I do. Find yourself the best traffic attorney in your area and hire them for any ticket. It doesn't matter how small, or what insurance increase I may or may not be looking at, or even if the ticket price plus the premium increase is less than the lawyer's fees. I will hire the attorney and the attorney will get the charge cleared. Sure, I may spend more, but at least that money doesn't go to the government (directly, anyway -- the attorney still has to pay his taxes of course). It's not a matter of right and wrong. It's a matter of principle. If the government can't run on the tax dollars they're already getting from me (property and sales here, as there's no state income tax), then they'll just have to tighten their belts. If everyone fought their tickets, there'd no longer be an incentive to use them for income and we might actually see some sane traffic laws and enforcement (proper 85th percentile speed limits, true elimination of quotas, enforcement of more egregious behavior like lane discipline violations, etc).

Good thing I only get a ticket every couple of years, or I'd go bankrupt on principle :)

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[91degrees]

That's the point of a jury - statistically, you'd hope the other eleven would have a bit more sense.

I wonder if there's a birthday paradox type issue here - Where the probability of a totally stupid jury in at least one case is unusually high...

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Mycroft_VIII]

You didn't point out a 'flaw' in my logic, I presented none. You pointed the reason behind my observations.
    And I pretty much do fight every ticket that is bogus. I do it myself and have only had to go up a level once, and haven't had to pay fines on several over the years (I do a lot of driving, and much through a municipality known for "if it moves ticket it!").
    I have hired the local ticket fixers (traffic law firms) once or twice, once when it was clear the P.A. wouldn't plea bargin, once when I did screw up (my fault, but I feel that offence chosen was excesive and less accurate than a lesser), and the first ticket I ever got a long time ago.
    If you go to court for a trial the officer often doesn't show (if you 'apeal' the odds of him showing up for both is pretty low in my limited experience) and this gets the case tossed.

Mycroft

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[evan1l38]

I asked a friend of mine who is a public defender that question. He says the only way to "know" a client is guilty is if that client tells him he's guilty. If my friend thinks he's guilty but the guy claims he is innocent, then that guy still deserves a good defense - again, the case should have to be proved, as folks that we think are guilty are sometimes innocent.

If the guys SAYS he's guilty, then my Public Defender friend says that he will then enter a guilty plea and try to get the best sentence possible. If the guy says he's guilty but wants to plead innocent, my friend won't do it. He doesn't want to sit there and watch his client lie under oath. If the guy insists on doing that, then my friend says he'd have to recuse himself, but has never had to do that.

IANAL, I just asked my lawyer buddy about this a while ago. Other lawyers may feel differently about all this.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[booch]

You could probably have reported that to the judge, and he would have declared a mis-trial.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Associate]

Not a bad idea.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Osty]

If you go to court for a trial the officer often doesn't show (if you 'apeal' the odds of him showing up for both is pretty low in my limited experience) and this gets the case tossed.

Maybe the cops are different where you live, but I've never felt comfortable enough to bet on the officer not showing (cops are paid to go to court. It's a nice, easy day off the street. Why wouldn't they go?). I hire lawyers because I don't know all of the legal proceedings and it's not worth my time to learn. I do know that my lawyers never use "hope the officer doesn't show" as their only legal tactic (or a legal tactic at all -- judges are all too likely to grant a prosecutor's continuance request to allow the officer time to show up). They file for discovery, attack the accuracy of the measurement system (radar: has the officer religiously followed the maintenance schedule? pacing: when was the car's speedometer last calibrated? When was the officer last through training? laser: Was the officer stationary? What's his sharp-shooter rating?), and find all of the little loopholes and tricks that a lay person will never know existed. It's worth the money for a lawyer for what is essentially a guaranteed victory regardless of the traffic infraction (I'm talking stuff like tickets, here, not DUI or at-fault accidents). Just the simple fact that I don't have to be at the courthouse in person is worth the price of the lawyer, because I'll make up the cost by not losing hours of productivity.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Mycroft_VIII]

You eigther have better traffic law firms or pay a lot for better lawyers, here all they do is walk up to the prosecutor and say "hey Fred, got three more here, got some non-movings you can change them too that costs twice as much, you do thanks, see you at the golf course wednessday."
    Maybee not exactly that, but invariably you wind up paying the court twice as much for a non-moving violation and your lawyers about a hundred bucks.
    The two times I reached an agreement with the prossecutor it cost me about half without the lawyers fees and twice the cop didn't show, and once the prosecutor failed to return after the lunch break.

Mycroft

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Osty]

You eigther have better traffic law firms or pay a lot for better lawyers

Maybee not exactly that, but invariably you wind up paying the court twice as much for a non-moving violation and your lawyers about a hundred bucks.

There you go. I do pay more for a lawyer. The attorney I use charges $250-$300 per ticket (it's been a while, so I don't know if her fees have increased), but she has a 5+ year winning streak (she's so good that several local municipalities have enacted laws specifically to counter-act her). I pay my attorney $300, and then walk away. Anywhere from a week to two years later, she sends me a letter in the mail saying that the issue has been successfully resolved and that it was a pleasure working with me. Traffic tickets here trend rather high, averaging $100 or so per "trivial" ticket. Court fees aren't much cheaper, so unless I want to just pay the ticket I can expect to be out ~$200 fighting it on my own (because if I fight it on my own, I expect to lose). $300 for an attorney is not a bad deal when you look at it that way, especially since I don't pay anything to the court (well, unless I lose, but my attorney's never lost for me yet).

once the prosecutor failed to return after the lunch break.

Wow! No way would that happen here.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Doctors don't take the traditional Hippocratic Oath these days, as it forbids abortion or surgery.

I took the Hippocratic Oath, and I don't do surgery or abortions.

The surgery stuff is covered by the part about leaving it to "practitioners of that art"; i.e. once you have entered a surgery residency you are considered a practitioner of the art of surgery and no longer bound by that part of the great Oath.

The abortion part, well I have never cared for abortion and once almost lost a job because I would not participate in one. I was proud to swear I'd never kill an innocent baby. Of course the hairy-legged ball-breaking lesbian cunts in my medical school class gagged on that part of the Hippocratic Oath, and insisted on taking something else called the Oath of Louis Lasagna, i.e. the usual mealy-mouthed left-wing milksoppery.

Re:The only solution that makes sense

[Bastard of Subhumani]

the probability of a totally stupid jury in at least one case is unusually high...

And that's why there's an appeal process...

Seriously, it's still much more unlikely that twelve people are all crazy or biased (and in the same direction) than a single judge or panel of three would be.

Sing Sing?

[dotslashdot]

If they lose, do they go Sing Sing?

my god...

[rjpaw]

A lawyer trying to screw someone to make a profit... what is this world coming to!

Re:my god...

[fireman sam]

What do lawyers and prostitutes have in common?

They both screw for profit.

What is the difference between lawyers and prostitutes?

Prostitutes wont screw lawyers for profit.

Re:my god...

[Moofie]

"Prostitutes wont screw lawyers for profit."

Huh?

Re:my god...

[Anonymous Coward]

is english your first language?

chum...

[p!ssa]

Nothing like sharks eating thier own! Now if we could just get ALL of the lawyers suing each other maybe the rest of us could get something done,

Steve Berman...

[Starxxon]

Steve Berman from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro was one of the lawyers handling the nano suit. He's one of Microsoft's favorite lawyer, having defending MS in more than 50 class-action suits made by the states and consumers.

Let's say that the following is completely speculative and happens in fantasy-land. (I don't wan't to get sued!)

One day in autumn 2005, Bill Gates is playing golf with his lawyer friend Steve Berman.

-Steve: Did you see the new iPod nano?

-Bill: Yeah yeah I did...nice little player but you know my position about iPods... We had big plans with the RIAA to impose WMA as the audio standard, by this year we were supposed to drop Red-Book audio from all CD sold in the US, replacing the content with DRMed WMA. You can imagine how the iPod and iTMS screws up our plans badly.

-Steve: I guess many big-players are pissed-off by the iPod success.

-Bill: Yes they are, but the iPod seems unstoppable... Even with dozens of our ghost-writers publishing negative articles about the iPod, it keeps dominating the market.

-Steve: I've read that the iPod nano scratches very easily, and that some of the early batches had screens that spontaneously break.

-Bill: I know about it, our ghost-writers are already trying to spread the word... but we need something bigger, we don't have a choice.

-Steve: There's a guy that built a website to complain about his iPod nano screen problems and he's very vocal about it.

-Bill: What if your law firm gave him a hand to help him build a class-action suit against Apple?

-Steve: Yeah we could do that, but what if he doesn't want to be part of the lawsuit?

-Bill: I'm %100 sure your great firm will be able to "convince" him... And by the way, you owe me that, remember that "thing" I sent you last month?

-Steve: Oh right, that "thing" was very enjoyable... I guess I owe you that one...Let me see what I can do!

Re:Steve Berman...

[NutscrapeSucks]

As far as conspiracy theories go, this one's pretty good.

But, there's a whole cottage industry out there dedicated to suing Apple over product misrepresentations. I think at least 50% of Apple's products have had a class action suit assocated with them. So, whenever Steve Jobs takes the stage, a whole bunch of lawyers are just waiting for him to say/do something sue-worthy. (In this case, pull the Nano out of his Jeans pocket.)

Re:Steve Berman...

[mcmonkey]

-Steve: I've read that the iPod nano scratches very easily, and that some of the early batches had screens that spontaneously break.

-Bill: I know about it, our hired-goons are already working their way across the country, breaking into homes and scratching nanos... but we need something bigger, we don't have a choice.

There, fixed that for ya.

Re:Steve Berman...

[Starxxon]

While it was funny, I'm not sure what you meant with your "additional" editing. I'm not denying that the nano scratches easily. I just don't think it warranted a class action suit claiming that using it normally renders the screen unreadable in two weeks.

I have a 6 months old iPod nano, I use it almost everyday, without a protective case...Sure there are tiny scratches all over the surface, but the screen is still perfectly readable. It's only a cosmetic problem that can be taken care of with some $5 scratch repair kit. If you really care about this cosmetic aspect then buy a case or use the included one...

We have a word for this:

[Paladin144]

Clusterfuck.

This poor guy. I hope things turn out okay for him. Conversely, I hope the lawyers are eaten alive by a cauldron full of insane, demonic, snow-weasels. Or another group of lawyers. Whichever is more painful.

Re:We have a word for this:

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Paladin144, I have recently received notice of your threatening other lawyers. I quote, "I hope the lawyers are eaten alive by a cauldron full of insane, demonic, snow-weasels. Or another group of lawyers. Whichever is more painful.". I warn you, under Section 37B of the attacks and counterattacks act of 1957, it states that "all threats against lawyers is a crime against the state, and..." oh hello, little weasel. You do seem cold today. What's that you want? You want sdffj gdfgjdfg AAAAH my face aaah it's trying to eat my face aaaah actuallythatwasquitenice AAAAAAHHH

Re:We have a word for this:

[kfg]

I hope the lawyers are eaten alive by a cauldron full of insane, demonic, snow-weasels.

Why bring Canadian lawyers into it?

KFG

Re:We have a word for this:

[FidelCatsro]

" hope the lawyers are eaten alive by a cauldron full of insane, demonic, snow-weasels"
So what you are saying is that Lawyers should become cannibals

Re:We have a word for this:

[Anonymous Coward]

Should become??

Re:We have a word for this:

[Fulby]

You've got weasels on your face.

Re:We have a word for this:

[johansalk]

"Conversely, I hope the lawyers are eaten alive by a cauldron full of insane, demonic, snow-weasels." And then sued in hell 'cos their flesh poisoned the weasels.

What I do not understand...

[SuperKendall]

If he is listed as the lead plantif, why can he not simply ask for the case to be dropped OR dismiss the law firm handling it? People persuing lawsuits seek other legal counsil all the time.

If indeed he did not file the case that would seem the best revenge, but them out of the loop (and the winnings).

I would say the lack of any signed document stating the case is truly in his behalf almost certainly indicates his story is the correct one, for what lawyer would even pick up a pad of paper without a full and binding contract signed in triplicate?

Re:What I do not understand...

[RingDev]

I would assume that if he took any action regarding the case it would show his intent to be involved in the case and would give the law firm grounds to demand payment from him.

-Rick

Re:What I do not understand...

[TheRaven64]

I am not a lawyer (but I play one on Slashdot), however there is difference between being involved with a case and being represented by a law firm. If he writes to the court where the case is due to be tried and states that the suit is being brought without his consent and that he wishes it to be dropped, then they should do so.

If the lawyers then wanted him to pay their fees then they could sue him. In this case, I would expect him to turn up on the first day with a motion to dismiss unless they can provide a contract, signed by him, authorising them to represent him.

Re:What I do not understand...

[abelenky17]

Sadly, the slashdot article is misleading, if not wrong.

Jason Tomczak is NOT the lead plantiff. He was listed as lead-plantiff when the complaint was originally filed on October 19th, 2005. ( documentation here: http://www.ifoapplestore.com/blog/nano_lawsuit.pdf )

But the lawyers amended their lawsuit 6 days later (October 25th, 2005) naming James M. Wimmer as the lead-plantiff ( documentation: http://www.hbsslaw.com/files/1ST_Amd_Complaint%20( v2)1130368932535.pdf )

But by the time Jason was dropped, the damage was done. He is referenced all over the 'net as a sue-happy whiner.

The lawyers are NOT suing Jason to stop him from dropping out. In fact, as best I can tell from Jason's letter, he is suing them for all the problems they caused him.

BTW: Its significant to note that this is the same law firm suing Apple over hearing-loss issues related to iPods.

Re:What I do not understand...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I would assume that if he took any action regarding the case it would show his intent to be involved in the case and would give the law firm grounds to demand payment from him.

What if he told the judge he wasn't associated with the lawyers or the case?

Re:What I do not understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

A class action lead plaintiff virtually never pays the law firm representing him. The plaintiffs' firm works at their own expense unless they win or settle. That's one reason that contigency fees are as high as they are.

As to your general point, though, you're right--all he has to do is drop out.

Re:What I do not understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

The new plantiff wrote a negative Amazon review about the nano on October 21st. Hmmm....

Re:What I do not understand...

[Bastard of Subhumani]

if he took any action regarding the case it would show his intent to be involved in the case

I presume that on your planet saying "Fuck off and leave my alone for ever, you ambulance-chasing carpet-bagging shysters!" doesn't contitute an action.

Re:What I do not understand...

[RingDev]

No, what I'm saying is that if the guy contacted the court and said he has no relation to the case and never gave the law firm to use him as the primary plaintiff, he would be fine. It would be up to the court to decide what to do.

If he stepped up as the primary plaintiff and told the judge that he would like to drop the case, he would be liable.

His best option is to deny any and all involvement.

-Rick

Or, as they say on Blazing Saddles...

[__aaclcg7560]

Lawyer: Hand over the iPods or I'll blow the sucker-plaintiff brains all over this place!
Plaintiff: Do what he says! Do what he says!
Citizen (Male): Do it folks! He's not messing around!
Citizen (Female): Isn't anyone going to help the poor man?!
Plaintiff: Help! Help!
Lawyer: Shud up!

Re:Or, as they say on Blazing Saddles...

[jftitan]

I thought it was... "A black Sheriff?"

OT I know...

Re:Or, as they say on Blazing Saddles...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is funny!

slimiest lawyers I've heard of in a while

[ummit]

Presuming we can believe Jason's letter, these guys are mondo scumbags. The "anti-SLAPP" suit they filed is normally intended to protect "little guys" who are being legally harrassed by big companies. In filing one against him, they're implying that he's harrassing them. Lovely.

Re:slimiest lawyers I've heard of in a while

[Cal Paterson]

Presuming we can believe Jason's letter

An important qualifier. Not to say that I don't believe him; I have no opinion either way.

The attorney is in the details.

[Suzumushi]

Proof once again that the subject matter, outcome, and purpose of a lawsuit are all secondary to the primary reason for lawsuits...that the lawyer get paid.

this is why...

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>...is likely to still loses thousands of dollars under the best scenario ...a loser-pays court system is the only reasonable way, like in the UK.

no wonder the USA legal system is so fucked if you can do no wrong, tell the truth, and still by charged money that is a significant part of your wages. whereas companies can provably break laws, be found guilty, and still be charged a meaningless fraction of their profit.

Re:this is why...

[bm17]

Let's say that I am done some wrong by a big evil company. I sue them but their team of evil, overpaid lawyers wins the case by trickery (let's say they overwhelm my lawyer with paperwork and filings beyond my ability to pay). Assuming a loser-pays system, am I now faced with millions in fees? That potential outcome would prevent most people from even considering a lawsuit to address grievences.

Re:this is why...

[EvanED]

"a loser-pays court system is the only reasonable way"

No!

I firmly believe that a guranteed loser-pays system is worse than what we have now. What we have now encourages frivilous, unfounded, and stupid lawsuits, but having a loser-pays system makes it nearly impossible to file well-founded but risky lawsuits against big companies. You think that the story in Erin Brokovitch could have happened with a loser-pays system? No way in hell. You wouldn't find someone willing to take that risk.

Re:this is why...

[nuzak]

> Assuming a loser-pays system, am I now faced with millions in fees? That potential outcome would prevent most people from even considering a lawsuit to address grievences.

This is largely what happens already, as countersuits are a very standard response to litigation. Sure, a blanket policy of loser-pays is stupid, but what we're really talking about is expanding greatly the scope of cases where legal fees can be awarded at the discretion of a judge, which is the way it actually is in so-called "loser pays" jurisdictions. A bad judge could conceivably screw you over, but that decision itself is subject to appeal. Any system can and will be gamed to screw the little guy ... but the existing one is gamed even more than what is being proposed.

Re:this is why...

[Zoop]

They also say Tomczak is legally liable for their fees if they lose the court case against Apple.

So you say: ...a loser-pays court system is the only reasonable way, like in the UK.

So...in America, you can have a lawyer misrepresent your status with them, sue, lose, and have to pay your lawyer's fees. Whereas in the superior British system, you can have a solicitor misrepresent your status with them, sue, lose, and have to pay both sets of legal fees. And this is supposed to help the little guy, because he loses twice the money in the British case.

Re:this is why...

[caldodge]

Perhaps you'd care to find a better example than that fraud Brockovich? See http://www.fumento.com/erinwsj.html for more info.

Re:this is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite.

In the UK small claims track for cases under £5000 (English law) then *neither* side can claim solicitors fees at all.

What's more is that you don't even need a solicitor. You file the papers, you show up and sit round the table with the district judge. I've taken a large multinational PC maker to court and they showed up with the heavyweights. Didn't do any good, and the judge remarked that he thought it "a little over the top". I won by being reasonable, having my paperwork prepared and not being intimidated. No bottom-feeders needed....

Re:this is why...

[menace3society]

I think we need to switch to a "no lawyers" method, myself. The way they handled it in ancient Greece. You got beef with somebody, you show up in court, in person, and talk for an hour or so to explain why he's guilty. Then he talks for an hour or so and says why he's not. Then the jury decides. Then THAT'S THE END. No appeals, no countersuits, nothing.

I suppose there's a good reason for having lawyers in criminal cases (i.e., findings of fact) since there's a lot at stake wrt evidence and expert testimony, but as far as day-to-day legals affairs go, if people can't understand the law then the law does not serve them.

Re:this is why...

[Scudsucker]

Interesting, but one link from a random site does not a debunking make. There are a lot of ways to spread disinformation; see the anti-global warming people or just about any talking head from the White House.

Re:this is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Loser pays" deters people without financial means from suing, since the risk of losing is too great for them.

So..... how is that a good thing???

Re:this is why...

[jazman]

Why do people always seem to assume that "loser pays" is implemented in the most retarded way possible: loser pays all costs incurred by winner regardless of personal ability and winner's invention? In the UK the loser pays, but the judge decides what the loser pays. If you sue Microsoft and lose, and they claim their lawyer cost them a googolplex pounds and you've got a sub-poverty income, the judge will order you to pay a minimal amount, court costs perhaps; the amount will be appropriately punitive. You will *NOT* be reduced to permanent debt to the winner.

Yes, that does mean the winner can lose out overall. That is what keeps the system relatively sane and provides a good incentive to BOTH sides to settle out of court.

Not fair on winners, who haven't done anything wrong and therefore shouldn't lose anything? Maybe. Is it as retarded as US "justice"? No way. Can you buy a favourable outcome if you stump up enough cash, even if you're in the wrong? Definitely not. Personally I prefer our system; it's not flawless by any means but overall I think it does a reasonable job.

Re:this is why...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it should be more like the game Monopoly, where the winner assimilates all the assets of the loser. Now that would be a good system!

Re:this is why...

[Lijemo]

no wonder the USA legal system is so fucked if you can do no wrong, tell the truth, and still by charged money that is a significant part of your wages. whereas companies can provably break laws, be found guilty, and still be charged a meaningless fraction of their profit.

"...this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the corporations and by the corporations and for the corporations shall not perish from the earth..."

Gotta love it!

[garylian]

What is this law firm going to do next? Sue the poor guy for using his own name for things, since the law firm will want to trademark his name?

Since the only real winners of a class action lawsuit are the lawyers, you have to wonder why anyone tries to be a part of one.

Re:Gotta love it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't trademark a name; he's safe there.

On the other hand, if you're named Thomas, you can trademark Thomas, Inc., so he'd better not hope to own a business with his name.

Re:Gotta love it!

[bm17]

>Since the only real winners of a class action lawsuit are the lawyers, you have to wonder why anyone tries to be a part of one.

For justice? Probably not.

Most people don't seem to understand the tort system. How are we to keep big comanies honest? We could maintain an expensive federal agency that regulates every single thing that every single company does. Or, we can tell them "Do whatever you want, but if it's not cool, swarms of hungery lawyers will sue your ass off.". The tort system is a good system and the lawyers deserve the bulk of the punative damages for doing the work of protecting society. I sleep better at night knowing that big comanies are kept in line by fear of lawsuites.

The problem is the small number of lawyers who file frivilous suits, hoping for a settlement. It seems like they are more common than they really are because no one pays attention to just lawsuites.

Re:Full text of Open Letter

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be contacting the state bar association, making complaints about their ethics.

Obligatory Shakespeare quote....

[Anonymous Coward]

""The First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lawyers"
      -Henry VI

Fanboy danger

[Tx]

My fiancee and I were afraid to go outside in our own home town for fear of recognition and reprisal.

I'm scared of many things, but raging hordes of Nano fanboys fanatics? I think not.

Seriously though, this guy played it all wrong. It sounds like if he pulls out, the case is sunk, so he should've been like "What's my cut?". If the case is won, those lawyers would made a stack, I'm pretty certain a deal could have been struck.

Re:Fanboy danger

[doublem]

The problem is, as things stand now, if they lose the lawsuit, which is likely, this poor guy would be on the hook for all the legal fees concocted by the lawyers.

In other words, he'd end up selling everything he owns and spending the rest of his life in debt if Apple wins the lawsuit.

Re:Fanboy danger

[huckda]

You've been out of high school too long. =)

Re:Fanboy danger

[Syrrh]

Asking for a cut is dangerous. That would certainly be considered a volunteering to take charge on the case. It would also tie him to the anchor if they lose the case, his 'cut' would be paying the same percentage of their expenses. Lawyers don't work based on the risk of winning or losing, they'll still get paid either way.

Re:Fanboy danger

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm scared of many things, but raging hordes of Nano fanboys fanatics? I think not.

Typical of cult-like behavior, otherwise harmless zealots tend to be utterly ruthless when one of their own goes astray.

Re:Fanboy danger

[The Dark]

That is what the slashdot blurb says, but it is not what the article says. From TFA:

In their Motions to Strike my case against them, they also requested of the Court that I be held financially responsible for their attorneys' fees and costs.

As far as I can tell, this is about his case against the lawyers, not about the lawyers' case against Apple.

Anyone else asked the lawyers for clarification?

[Anonymous Coward]

I read his letter yesterday and thought t might be worth writing about. I emailed every contact address I could find on the sites of both law companies, unfortunately I haven't gotten a reply.

info@dmlaws.com
rcarey@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
info@hbsslaw.com
mark@firmani.com

Unfortunately none of them has responded so I can't clarify the truth of the allegations. Perhaps some other people should email them asking for clarification as well.

i say it all the time

[blew_fantom]

i say it all the time but if lawyers and doctors were professions that legally needed to be provided for free and practitioners could not make a dime out of their practice, i wonder how many would still choose that as their careers? while there ARE lawyers and doctors who truly care, they always seem to be the minority.

Re:i say it all the time

[Dunbal]

while there ARE lawyers and doctors who truly care, they always seem to be the minority.

      Hey! I care!

      That will be $45 please...

      Dr. D

Re:i say it all the time

[eln]

Well if they literally couldn't make a dime at it, then no one would except for people who are already independently wealthy. You can't very well make something your career if you don't get paid to do it.

Re:i say it all the time

[ceoyoyo]

Um, I don't think anyone would choose a career that they can't make any money out of. Well, maybe a few rich people.

There would probably be quite a few hobbyist doctors. There are already some who go and work in Africa for basically nothing except the pleasure of getting shot at.

Lawyers... well, some. They'd probably go back to calling themselves advocates though.

Re:i say it all the time

[Nightspirit]

I do not know about lawyer school, but med school is difficult (I'm taking 23-29 units a quarter, and during finals can have up to 11 tests within one week), and a good percentage of people who make it in (which is difficult just in itself) don't make it all the way through.

I made $10-12 an hour delivering pizza, which required 5 minutes of training. My father makes 80k a year (MRI tech) with one year of junior college. Should the pay not reflect the training? Teachers are an exception, and no offense to any teachers, but the training to get there is quite easy (although I would agree some of you are underpaid).

Re:i say it all the time

[buck_wild]

Wait. If pay were related directly to training, how would the stay at home soccer-moms claim their $134k?

Re:i say it all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

well, I think the parent was suggesting a system like doctors in the UK's NHS. The get paid, they get paid quite generously (recent reports of up to £250,000 /yr for GPs), but they get paid a set salary, they can't only see more lucrative clients and your ability to have access to a doctor is not dependent on your level of access to money. (Of course, lots also practice on the side, but we'll skip over that for purpose of this comparison).

You can't tell some person with more money that health problems that they need a bazillion unnecessary treatments (ala Dr. Kelso) just to fleece some cash out of them, you also won't sucessfully fleece it out of the NHS (Individual doctors surgeries get prescription budgets).

The law could use a big overhaul like this - imagine a system where your ability to win a case wasn't depended on how good a solicitor you could afford or how long you could keep sinking money into case - since lawyers wouldn't be getting paid any more for stringing a case out they wouldn't do that either. It would also give people access to free legal representation in civil cases, which, if the current media industry lawsuits are anything to go by, is more valuable than a free lawyer to defend against some criminal charges (cases which people will pay $3000 to settle out of court, the idea being that it's advantageous to settle out of court because it'll cost less - what criminal conviction will likely attract a fine of $3000?, ignoring offences where you can get jail time)

Re:i say it all the time

[Confoundit]

i say it all the time but if lawyers and doctors were professions that legally needed to be provided for free and practitioners could not make a dime out of their practice, i wonder how many would still choose that as their careers? while there ARE lawyers and doctors who truly care, they always seem to be the minority

Wow. That's some of the dumbest shit I've ever read. How many people would do ANY job if they couldn't make a dime doing it? Do janitors clean shitty toilets just to make the world a better place? Do people work at McDonalds because they REALLY DO love to see you smile?

Yes, the vast majority of doctors wouldn't spend 4 years in college, 4 years in medical school, 2-3 years in a residency program (around 3-8 years if you want to specialize in surgery, cardiology, etc) if they weren't PAID WELL for it. And after all that you'll pay literally tens of thousands of dollars each year for malpractice insurance. Obstetricians who have NEVER BEEN SUED have to pay over a hundred thousand dollars a year for malpractice insurance.

Most doctors do care about helping people. And they hate the fact that some insurance company asshole is the one telling them what drugs they can prescribe and what procedures they can perform.

Sleazy lawyers?

[jcr]

Whoever heard of such a thing?

-jcr

there comes a point...

[Anonymous Coward]

when hiring a hit man is cheaper than dealing with their legal tricks.

Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

1. File class action lawsuit without plaintiff's permission.
2. Sue plaintiff.
3. Profit

Re:Profit

[ScrewMaster]

Step #3 only works if the plaintiff is filthy rich. That doesn't seem to be the case, in this case.

Re:Profit

[cgenman]

To be fair, they're not actually suing their plaintiff. They're "agressively defending" themselves from a lawsuit HE brought against the iPod lawyers. They're also asking for legal fees if he loses, which is not uncommon to ask for.

Check the letter. The entire time he's talking about the terrible things being done to him by the iPod Lawyer's defense team.

Re:Profit

[Ohreally_factor]

Yeah, and it's really not clear on what grounds he is suing them. Not everything here is as it seems.

Business plan 2nd list item..

[alexhs]

I think I've found the definitive answer to fill the answer marks of the second item :

1. Sue
   
2. SUE AGAIN !
   
3. Profit !!!
   

What needs to happen is a massive ...

[3seas]

...petition of the law firms to against this man to ough up the proof this man agreed to their blathering claims.

and when they fail to do so, to reemburse this man all legal expenses he has incurred as well as punitive damages.

If this fails then there sould be a class action suit against these law firms for contributing to the distrustfullness of the legal profession.

either they have proof or that don't anbd if a judge can't simply request that info and see that then the judge needs to be disbarred for abusing the legal system for personal blindness.

If this guy is lying, then who cares?!

Re:What needs to happen is a massive ...

[dhasenan]

A class action suit? They've been doing this to a number of people, then? Where did you get that information?

As for the judge, judges can't exactly be disbarred; they're usually elected. While most of them are lawyers, practicing law would be a conflict of interest.

Contact the ABA

[ChefAndCoder]

IANAL, but what you're describing seems to be a serious breach of ethics on the part of the lawfirms involved. Yes, some lawyers actually take their ethical obligations to society and the courts seriously. I think you or your lawyers would be well advised to immeadiately contact the ABA (American Bar Association) and talk to them about your situation. The simple fact they cannot produce a client-attorney agreement when a lawsuit has been filed in your name is pretty damning. More then that, their behaviour after the fact is plain out wrong and the ABA may be able to help redress that.

Re:Contact the ABA

[doublem]

That assumes the ABA will do anything about this or even care.

It sounds like the law firm in question is using the various loopholes in the system to keep their scam running. If they win the suit with Apple, the guy won't get anything because the entire settlement would be declared eaten up in court costs.

If Apple wins, they'll bankrupt the guy with lawsuits if he doesn't cough up about 20 years of his potential income to pay off their fees.

Either way, they're going to screw him over any way they can.

Re:Contact the ABA

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the ABA has no disciplinary authority. The respective state bars need to be contacted, and they can disbar, suspend, or reprimand the lawyers involved.

I can't believe how stupid these law firms are. There's really no other way to characterize them. Once it became apparent that the client (or purported client) wasn't going to pay, they should have gotten out and cut their losses. One thing I learned about law practice is that no matter what, you don't sue your client for fees. It's absolutely guaranteed that the client is going to try to dig up dirt on the way you handled the case, the way you've been handling other cases. Chances are good that such information will mar your reputation as an attorney, and possibly subject you to discipline before the Bar. Not only that, public opinion isn't going to be on your side, no matter what the circumstances.

Even if the lawyers do eventually end up winning, it will not have been worth it, no matter how vexatious the client was in refusing to pay. They're going to be in a world of pain, and rightfully so.

Re:Contact the ABA

[huckda]

Just in case:

http://www.abanet.org/email.html

that's their contact page on their website

Re:Full text of Open Letter

[Kaenneth]

From the Washington State Bar Assoc. Rules for Professional Conduct...

RULE 7.3 DIRECT CONTACT WITH PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS

        (a) A lawyer shall not directly or through a third person solicit
professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has
no family or prior professional relationship in person or by telephone,
when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's
pecuniary gain.

        (b) A lawyer shall not send a written communication to a prospective
client for the purpose of obtaining professional employment if the person
has made known to the lawyer a desire not to receive communications from
the lawyer.

RULE 1.2 SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
        (f) A lawyer shall not willfully purport to act as a lawyer for
any person without the authority of that person.

(CAPCHA: 'Sexual')

Either Or ...

[dbretton]

Either he is not telling the entire truth here, or these attorneys are out of their minds. I don't see any middle ground here.

If this fella *is* telling the truth, he simply needs to report this incident, along with all evidence of correspondence and communication, to the Bar Assn. An egregious misuse of the law such as this could get the attorneys disbarred.

Re:Either Or ...

[doublem]

Yeah. Good luck with that. I'm sure the ABA will clear this all up right quick.

Re:Either Or ...

[lawpoop]

There are millions of dollars that the lawyers for the plantiffs stand to gain if they are successful in this class action suit. Apple settles to pay the damages for millions of iPod users, which is millions of dollars. Divided out, every nano owner gets some three dollars and fourty-three cents, and the lawyers get 30% of the settlement, which is 3 million dollars.

This figures are totally bogus, but they're in the ballpark. That's why this law firm is so interested in pursuing this case -- millions of dollars.

Re:Either Or ...

[Peyna]

Actually, it would be the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio that would handle such a complaint. The ABA is a voluntary professional organization that has no such power over attorneys. (Although they are involved in drafting the Model Code of Professional Responsibility).

OSBA article explaining how to file a complaint against an Ohio attorney.

You might be right but....

[EmbeddedJanitor]

that won't stop the lawyers from trying to harrass him into joining or supporting their case. Not all lawyers rate the same on the scum-bag-o-meter. IMHO Class action suiters are the worst (patent trollers a close second). Patent trollers work in a similar way. A company might be legally OK to be using some ficticious IP, but often it is easier to pay off the trollers then get your products held up pending a court hearing.

The class action suite is severly diluted if the highest profile person is not party to the action. They hope to harrass him into joining their case.

Re:You might be right but....

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't want him for his "high" profile, they want him to pay their fee(s), costs, and, should they lose, any penalties assessed by the court. They also need at least one member of the class to even file suit. So, they also need him to avoid having the case thrown out on grounds that would surely get them reprimanded (if not worse) by their state bar.

They are harassing him in order to prevent him from having the court recognize, contrary to its present belief, that he never was a party to the case in the first place. U.S. courts are all too willing to accept representations that have no basis in fact from attorneys just by their bare assertion. It is a very incestuous system (and rarely does anyone call them on it, more so successfully).

How is this even plausible?

[dozer]

They also say Tomczak is legally liable for their fees if they lose the court case against Apple.

If Tomczak has no prior arrangement with those law firms, how can he be involved at all? Let's say those law firms lose their case against Apple (likely) and file a suit to recover their fees... Wouldn't any judge just throw it out with prejudice?

Someone please explain!

Re:How is this even plausible?

[ummit]

I think the /. post got that part wrong. I think they're trying to hold him responsible for their fees in his little suit against them telling them to take his name off the big suit, or perhaps for their fees in their own suit against him for failing to participate, but not for their fees in the big suit against Apple. (That'd be completely insane!)

Re:How is this even plausible?

[doublem]

Since lawyers are involved, I must first state that the following is my opinion, and is not to be considered authoritative in any way shape or form.

They'll either make it less expensive to pay them off than to fight them in court, or they'll drive him into bankruptcy.

It's about getting paid, and failing that, getting vengeance on someone, regardless of if it's that person's fault.

precedent

[reldruH]

Can there be any better proof that lawyers are running rampant than the fact they can sue somebody for not hiring them? For not wanting to have anything to do with them? If these lawyers aren't reprimanded, soon, severly and publicly, the precedent this sets could be disasterous.

Re:precedent

[geekoid]

Can there be any better proof that slashdoters don't read the article before posting?

The summary, as usual, is incorrect.

It's not about "right"

[doublem]

It's not about who's right and who's wrong.

It's about who has the better lawyers.

Re:It's not about "right"

[Jason1729]

The problem here is that even if he's right *and* he has the better lawyers, he's still out thousands of dollars to pay for those better lawyers.

I'd like to say I can't believe this...

[Anonymous Coward]

But we all know how slimey lawyers can be. As someone else mentioned, this is this worst I've heard in a long time and does a great job of making lawers seem worse than they already do!

All that being said, let's remember that we have a history in this country of the big guy lording it over the little guy, so I find no reason to disbelieve him. How about this: let's put this community of ours to work here and raise funds to help him against these lawyers. There are so many readers here at /. that we could each dump a buck or two into a Paypal donation account for his legal fees that he actually might be able to get a legal team truly able to stand up to these big, nasty jerks. If somebody'll set it up, I've got a buck or two! How about you? Are you going to just stand there and make a bunch of noise, or are you going to be part of the solution and help this guy out?

Re:I'd like to say I can't believe this...

[ScrewMaster]

Actually, the whole human race has a history of the big guy lording it over the little guy. Beating the shit out of the little guy ... slicing him, dicing him, and pounding him into the ground. Now, you can say that "we have a history in this country ..." but remember that America's legal system was expressly set up to limit that kind of behavior, and it worked damn well for a long time. Truly, from that perspective life was better here that it ever was in most other nations. Unfortunately, that system is breaking down, and it's the lawyers that are bloody well making it happen.

Re:I'd like to say I can't believe this...

[mstone]

The history of human interaction, illustrated with monkeys:

Phase 1: When two monkeys want the same banana, the big one gets it, and the little one writes a treatise on ethics.

Phase 2: Eventually, monkey-kind learns that a dozen little monkeys with nothing left to lose can kick the living shit out of a single, well-fed big monkey. Shortly thereafter, the big monkeys hold a press conference to announce their discovery of, and commitment to, the principle of enlightened self-interest.

Phase 3: From then on, all monkeys spend their time trying to invent a way to be: A) big enough to take bananas by force whenever they want, but B) 'small' enough, by some definition, to claim bananas by moral entitlement.

This can't happen...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP works hard to prevent this kind of fraud. Look:
http://www.hbsslaw.com/report_a_fraud.jsp

Re:This can't happen...

[jftitan]

Is it me... or was this link intentionally placed here so that all of the wonderous world could report this single point that Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, has been doing wrong???....

nah its just my imagination at work again.

Why you dirty commie!

[spun]

What, don't you believe in the free market? We have the best justice system money can buy! I bet you just want to drag everyone down to the same level. Hah! If I have tons of money, that proves I am a better person and more deserving of justice. Damn commies with your "justice should be blind" crap. If I wanted justice to be blind, I would have hired someone to poke her eyes out.

Re:Why you dirty commie!

[Anonymous Coward]

It sure must be nice not having to think before speaking.

Re:Why you dirty commie!

[Anonymous Coward]

It sure must be nice not having any sense of humor what so ever.

Re:Why you dirty commie!

[Anonymous Coward]

It sure must be nice not having any sense of humor what so ever.

You obviously oughta know.

Re:Why you dirty commie!

[DigiShaman]

What, don't you believe in the free market? We have the best justice system money can buy!

Huh? I thought the law was supposed to be impartial to wealth status. When this is no longer the case, it's called "corruption".

Re:Why you dirty commie!

[BVis]

Huh? I thought the law was supposed to be impartial to wealth status. When this is no longer the case, it's called "corruption".

Thank You, Captain Obvious.

You've missed the point entirely.

Wow - holding bloggers acountable - that's evil!

[i am kman]

While, if true, it's a terrible injustice (although it seems so blatantly unfair that I'd think the courts would throw out such crap). (Personally, I'd bet there's more gray than the open letter admits to after the whole topic seemed to steamroll out of control).

However, it does make one wonder how accountable folks are for the rants they make as bloggers....

While I probably don't want to be named as a plantiff, if I complained on a blog that my Viagra didn't work (or, rather, if my girlfriend complained - not that she ever would, of course, but I digress), can I be dragged into court as a hostile witness against Pfizer? What if I go the extra mile and setup a blog that has frequent criticism of the product?

Minimally, it seems reasonable for lawyers might want to scan blogs for witnesses and potentially even compell them to testify. Even without being named a plantiff, that's pretty scary.

Thus far, I think most of the questions about a blogger's accountability have centered on slander. But using blogs as evidence or compelling bloggers to testify seem like potentially serious and legitimate issues that haven't really been explored much.

Shouldn't he go throught different channels

[91degrees]

Defending in court would seem rather foolish considering these guys know how to play the system extremely well. However, surely it should be possible to make a complaint to the bar organisation or something. these guys have clearly acted in a somewhat unscrupulous way. The professional body should be told.

Someone mod parent "funny"

[sfled]

" oh hello, little weasel. You do seem cold today. What's that you want? You want sdffj gdfgjdfg AAAAH my face aaah it's trying to eat my face aaaah actuallythatwasquitenice AAAAAAHHH
LOL

wise like a fox

[Scrameustache]

Much like scorpions, lawyers will act according to their nature.

Tell these dipweeds what you think...

[moosehooey]

David P. Meyer & Associates
1-866-827-6537
info@dmlaws.com

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
(206) 817-9357 (press guy's cell)
(206)-623-7292
info@hbsslaw.com

Re:Tell these dipweeds what you think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to put my free SkypeOut service to work.

Re:Tell these dipweeds what you think...

[Anonymous Coward]

neither websites show the nano class-action lawsuit listed under their current or closed list of investigations

http://www.hbsslaw.com/frontend?command=Lawsuit&iL awsuitStatusId=1

http://www.dmlaws.com/ConsumerClassAction/CurrentA ctions.aspx

HBSS has an open CAL against apple for the high decibel issue, but not this one.

what happened?

Re:Tell these dipweeds what you think...

[Anonymous Coward]

here it is

http://www.hbsslaw.com/ipod_nano_litigation

it is now an "amended" lawsuit.
details here
http://www.hbsslaw.com/files/1ST_Amd_Complaint%20( v2)1130368932535.pdf

no mention of Jason.
they have a new plaintiff. how convenient!

It's not about making the case

[doublem]

Since lawyers are involved, I must first state that the following is my opinion, and is not to be considered authoritative in any way shape or form.

Here's the deal:

They didn't care about actually getting the necessary documents signed before filing.

They need this guy to keep quiet so they can pursue the lawsuit.

They want to keep him tied up in legal proceedings until the Apple case has been resolved, and they're using a number of dirty tricks to do so.

If they win, he won;t get a dime anyway, as it will all be eaten up in "legal fees."

If they lose the suit with Apple, they'll then go after this poor guy with everything they have to either get him to cough up some obscene legal fees or declare bankruptcy. After all, if they lose, SOMEONE has to suffer for it.

It's not about proving anything about if he's really their client. It's all about delaying him so they can continue going after Apple.

Re:It's not about making the case

[Just Some Guy]

They want to keep him tied up in legal proceedings until the Apple case has been resolved, and they're using a number of dirty tricks to do so.

I don't know. Seems like he'd make an ideal witness for Apple. He's provably not biased toward them (the whole episode started because he had a problem with their products), yet clearly doesn't want this to procede.

To be honest, I think Apple should make peace with him by introducing him to the happy side of their legal department. Shysters against little guy? No problem. Shysters against Apple's legal unit? Not so easy. It'd be relatively cheap for Apple and great PR.

Re:It's not about making the case

[Anonymous Coward]

But you forget that Apple sues their fans, it doesn't defend them.

Re:It's not about making the case

[Anonymous Coward]

> If they lose the suit with Apple, they'll then go after this poor guy with everything they
> have to either get him to cough up some obscene legal fees or declare bankruptcy. After
> all, if they lose, SOMEONE has to suffer for it.

Actually, the new bankruptcy law doesn't permit discharging debt that is related to legal fees.

This shouldn't be surprising, since lawyers wrote the damn law. They want to make sure they get paid.

Even dismissial?

[SuperKendall]

I would assume that if he took any action regarding the case it would show his intent to be involved in the case and would give the law firm grounds to demand payment from him.

If he writes a note to the judge saying that he did not authorize the case and wants it dismissed I don't see how that's any indication he owes them anything.

It would be more the case if he dropped them as legal council and used someone else. But perhaps that new law firm would take the case on contingency and also as payback for the obscene amounts of money they'd be receiving from the main lawsuit.

Apple should get involved

[_spider_]

Maybe Apple should move to strike the class-action lawsuit, since it seems to *only* benefit the lawyers. I think they were hoping he would jump onboard and sign anything they threw at him saying he would get a lot of money back from the class action suit (like $0.01 for every dollar they got in reality). But when he didn't go with it, they are going after him since it leaves them out there with their pants down.

I think Apple should help this guy beat the lawyers, and get the C. A. suit dismissed. Probably be cheaper for them anyway. Give this guy some ammo to fight back, as, its in their best interest.

Thats what I think..

-Me

Re:Apple should get involved

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a good idea on Apple's part,
I'm a huge Apple fan, I couldn't imagine using anything else...
but I won't pretend that as a company, they strike me as being the "good guys" in most cases; I wish that they would do something avery now and then that involved sticking up for the little guy.
In this case, whether that man is being 100% honest or not, is irrelevant -he's gotten to the point where he's pleading for help. He has listed his finances, his personal life, his peace of mind, and his life in general as being damaged from making the mistake of speaking his mind.

A lot of us do that, and it's pretty unsettling to think without your signature or consent, it could cost you so much, or at least...
in America anyway. Since last I heard, that's supposed to be one of our basic freedoms... to speak our minds without getting sued by lawyers soliciting those opinions in the first place.

Now is a golden opportunity for Apple to do the right thing, to show that they're not avaricious and evil, etc...
This guy is a loyal customer, and he's asking for help.
Who better to help him now than Apple?

Contact the STATE Bar (was Re:Contact the ABA)

[McNally]

I think you or your lawyers would be well advised to immeadiately contact the ABA (American Bar Association) and talk to them about your situation. The simple fact they cannot produce a client-attorney agreement when a lawsuit has been filed in your name is pretty damning. More then that, their behaviour after the fact is plain out wrong and the ABA may be able to help redress that.

Not a terrible idea but.. the American Bar Association is largely a legal-profession advocacy group and doesn't have much of anything to do with licensing or with punishing unethical behavior. For that you'd want to contact the appropriate department of the state bar association for the state in which the case was filed.

Crazy lawyers...

[nosredna]

This seems to be shooting themselves in the foot more than anything else. AFter all, what kind of incompetence has to exist for a LAW FIRM to not know enough to get everything in writing? Even if they win this piece of inanity, they're basically demonstrating to the entire world that not only are they willing to litigate against their own client during his proceedings (hey, conflict of interest... maybe if they sue him, the guy gets a free out on his other associations with them), but they're not even intelligent enough to wait until they have signed papers in hand to begin representing someone.

Re:Crazy lawyers...

[Sancho]

Maybe I'm cynical, but I imagine a signed document will pop up eventually.

Re:Crazy lawyers...

[KarmaMB84]

Perhaps a forgery because it would be insane for this guy to publicly claim he never entered into such an association, jeopardize the class action and possibly end up on the receiving end of a lawsuit brought by the firm. Even if this was an attempt to stop any harassment from the Mac fans, he'd be just as likely to end being harassed by members of the sunken class action suit that don't realize they wouldn't get dick even if they "won".

Contact info for David P. Meyer & Associates

[loraksus]

http://www.dmlaws.com

Phone numbers
866.827.6537 Toll Free
614.224.6000 Local
614.224.6066 Fax

Address
The Arena District
401 North Front Street
Suite 350
Columbus, Ohio 43215

If you wait outside their offices, you might even be able to say "Hi" to them and have a conversation about the case.
What's that? You don't know what they look like? Sure you do.
David P. Meyer, principal
Marnie C. Lambert, Associate Attorney Possible home address Possible home phone: (614) 469-1400
Patrick G. Warner, Associate Attorney
Shelly J. Coffman, consumer claims investigator

He didn't call them

[A nonymous Coward]

You say when you call a lawyer but he didn't. Here is what he says:

The truth is that I never sought out nor did I ever hire David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro to represent me in any case, much less the iPod Nano Class Action suit.

The iPod Nano Class Action law suit was initiated by David P. Meyer & Associates Co. LPA of Columbus, Ohio and their representative firm, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP of Seattle, Washington and filed on October 19, 2005.

David P. Meyer & Associates contacted me ...

http://www.hbsslaw.com/report_a_fraud.jsp

[Anonymous Coward]

"Please fill out this form if you believe you have information regarding fraudulent activities at a company or organization."

Hmm. This would apply, no?

Re:http://www.hbsslaw.com/report_a_fraud.jsp

[Magic5Ball]

Great idea! Let's Katamari as many different lawyers into this as possible and let it loose into space.

Re:http://www.hbsslaw.com/report_a_fraud.jsp

[walter_f]

On a different page of their site, this same law firm HBSS explains what a class action is all about, from their special point of view perhaps:

---
Step 3: The judge directs notice be given to all parties having a similar claim during a particular time period so they may be informed and have input on the case. This first notice gives people an opportunity to "opt out" (not be part of the class or represented by the party who brought the case).
---
http://www.hbsslaw.com/class_action_faq.jsp

If the due procedure were indeed "opt out" (as opposed to "opt-in") then the law firm would possibly not need an attorney-client agreement in writing.

As my sympathies are with Mr. Tomczak rather than the law firm, I hope the "opt out" version is not applicable.

I am not a lawyer - shouldn't that be "opt in" instead?

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong please.

Careful now,

[Anonymous Coward]

they might sue you, or at the very lease charge you. Let's see you emailed them 5 times. Let's say their billing rate is a low $50/hr, with a 2 hour min. So each email incurs you a $100 charge. So $500, add another $100 to process the bill. And you already own them $600!

Re:Careful now,

[Syrrh]

Yikes, don't give them ideas!

They're already trying to bill a guy that doesn't have a written contract, if you send them an e-mail soliciting advice, they'll sue you for harrassment, and then counter-sue *themselves* to collect legal fees with you as the unwilling defendant!

Re:Careful now,

[DigiShaman]

Simple. Just counter sue. State that they are wasting your time. Being that "time" is priceless to you, state they are committing murder.

Basically, when they waste or take unauthorized time from you, they're murdering you out of minutes/hours of your life.

That should make them STFU.

Re:Careful now,

[ktappe]

Simple. Just counter sue.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. They prevented him from doing this with their anti-SLAPP motion. These guys are sleaze, but unfortunately they are smart sleaze.

-K

Re:Careful now,

[DigiShaman]

They prevented him from doing this with their anti-SLAPP motion

Ya? Well, well...I would file a motion to Bitch-SLAPP their anti-SLAPP.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that finds it ridiculous that he received hate mail from the flock of Apple fanboys for complaining about a Apple product but also feels like he has to apologize to the entire Mac community?

If you think this is outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro have also announced their intention to represent defendant Jason Tomczak in the case of David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro v. Tomczak. In the case the defendant declines this unilateral offer, the offices of David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro intend to double sue Mr. Tomczak for declining to accept their offer of defense against their suit.

No! Lawyers aren't suing him, he's suing them!

[cinnamoninja]

The iPod lawsuit lawyers are not suint their own plaintiff. I realize that the page is slashdotted, but plenty of people on this page have reposted it. In it, he:

1.) Complains that the law firm contacted him for advice
2.) Complans that they ignored his desire for privacy, and slapped his name on the class-action suit
3.) He then claims that he received harassment and hateful treatment from third parties, because of his perceived attack on the Nano.
4.) Then, he sued the lawyers for Step 2):

Call For Help
Given the gravity of the situation I was facing, I had to hire a law firm to protect myself, clear my name and set the record straight. David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, when contacted by my lawyers, did not even offer to correct any of their press releases. Not even an official apology was offered

Now, he is complaining, and loudly, in this "Open Letter to the Mac Community", that the law firm is defending themselves. They're even *gasp* making him come to court to give a deposition for his prosecution. He is also furious that the law firm dared to file a Motion to Strike against his lawsuit, since he believes it is obvious that he has been abused.

I don't know the merits of Mr. Tomczak's case, but it is clear that he is suing the iPod Lawsuit Lawyers, not the other way around.

Re:No! Lawyers aren't suing him, he's suing them!

[uw_badgers]

I don't know the merits of Mr. Tomczak's case, but it is clear that he is suing the iPod Lawsuit Lawyers, not the other way around.

You forgot step 5:
5.) In their Motions to Strike my case against them, they also requested of the Court that I be held financially responsible for their attorneys' fees and costs.

I don't know if that technically qualifies as a countersuit by the law firm, but in effect it's a countersuit.

Re:No! Lawyers aren't suing him, he's suing them!

[Bryansix]

They're even *gasp* making him come to court to give a deposition for his prosecution.

WRONG! They are calling him in for what they call a "deposition" so they can fuck with him, cost him thousands of dollars in travel and wasted time and then cancel the second day of deposition.

Re:No! Lawyers aren't suing him, he's suing them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, did you even READ the letter?
 
1) He's stating facts, he isn't complaining that they contacted him for his opinion.
 
2) Again, he states a fact that he asked not to be involved in the lawsuit.
 
3) Ok, he was harrassed, don't know what that has to do with your overall statement, but I'm more than willing to concede he claims he was harrassed.
 
4) No where does it state he sued the original law firm. It even says in the part you quoted "I contacted a law firm to help me clear my name". That doesn't mean he filed a lawsuit, it means he contacted a lawyer to help him speak with the originating law firm. Contrary to your belief, speaking with your attorney and asking them to "work something out" with someone who's harassing you isn't the same as filing a lawsuit. It was at the point his lawyer asked the original lawyers to pull their heads out of their asses that the original lawyers filed suit against him.
 
I swear, you're either reading more into this than ever happened, know something that isn't documented in the open letter or are working as a shill for the scumbags... errr... lawyers suing him.

Re:No! Lawyers aren't suing him, he's suing them!

[cinnamoninja]

I don't know anything other than what's been posted here, but it's pretty clear that he filed a lawsuit. Here, you can read the letter reposted in this comment:

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186589&c id=15397568

A SLAPP In The Face
On May 1, 2006, David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro defense lawyers filed Motions to Strike the entirety of my case against the two firms despite evidence that I had unwillingly and unknowingly been made Lead Plaintiff in the iPod Nano Class Action suit. In their Motions to Strike my case against them, they also requested of the Court that I be held financially responsible for their attorneys' fees and costs.

IANAL, but a Motion to Strike seems like a pretty routine request. ("Hi, Judge! I did nothing wrong, and this lawsuit is obviously ridiculous. Can you send it away please?") As a previous poster indicates, he probably does have a reasonable libel lawsuit, so I imagine the motion would fail. However, that's hardly cause for any kind of indignation from the Slashdot community.

I don't know how common it is to request attorney's fees, but I know that in the UK, for example, it is common practice to make the loser pay the legal fees for both sides. So, if you think you are in the right, it does not seem crazy to ask for them.

Note that they do *not* seem to be requesting lawyer's fees for if the iPod Nano Class Action law suit fails. They're asking for reimbursing if the case the Jason Tomczak is bring fails. (Much more rational.)

Re:No! Lawyers aren't suing him, he's suing them!

[cinnamoninja]

They are calling him in for what they call a "deposition" so they can fuck with him, cost him thousands of dollars in travel and wasted time and then cancel the second day of deposition.

I don't even *get* this argument. The lawyers called him in to testify on April 20 and April 21, 2006. After six hours of testimony on April 20th, they cancel the remaining deposition on the 21st.

Honestly, if I were the one getting grilled like that, I would be thrilled to let free a day early. Would he have been happier if they had scheduled a one-day deposition, and decided that they needed a second day at the last minute?

It's entirely possible that they cancelled it because they weren't getting anything from him that helped their case. In which case, double w00t!

Also, how can a day of cancelled travel cost him thousands of dollars? Did he decide to purchase a brand-new, first-class, last-minute plane ticket or something? Just stay in Los Angelos for a day, and enjoy your vacation, man.

Re:No! Lawyers aren't suing him, he's suing them!

[HrothgarReborn]

Actually I am pretty sure this is a normal thing. If I read it right they are not asking that he be held accountable for the fees from suing Apple if they lose the Apple case, but instead they are asking that he be held accountable for their fees defending themselves against his suit should they be found not liable. This is normal. If someone sues you and you whish to defend, you would normally state that if you sucessfully defend yourself you should be reembursed for the attorney fees you paid out to do so. I am pretty sure the slashdot article has it wrong. (Shocking!)
So basically he sued two attorney firms, they hired defense. This is normal. They moved to strike the case. This is a normal thing to try. If the case is totally without merit they might succeed. They ask that if the case is stricken (struck?) they get paid for thier time.
I really do feel for the poor guy. One way or another he has gotten himself into a horrible mess. He does seem to be trying to stay very honest in his letter. I do not think he is entirely lilly white in this matter. He did entertain some conversation with these guys. They probably overstepped their bounds. And where was his laywer when he was being deposed? I still think justice will prevail. It will take time but if he is as innocent as he claims he should be awarded damages that will more than cover his expense.

Re:No! Lawyers aren't suing him, he's suing them!

[uw_badgers]

If I read it right they are not asking that he be held accountable for the fees from suing Apple if they lose the Apple case, but instead they are asking that he be held accountable for their fees defending themselves against his suit should they be found not liable.

Ah, that makes sense. I had thought that they wanted to be reimbursed for the Apple lawsuit.

Re:No! Lawyers aren't suing him, he's suing them!

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG! They are calling him in for what they call a "deposition" so they can fuck with him, cost him thousands of dollars in travel and wasted time and then cancel the second day of deposition.

Generally the lawyer has to pay for travel costs for depositions and will travel to where the person is to take the deposition. Unless they can get a subpeona.

Re:No! Lawyers aren't suing him, he's suing them!

[Ohreally_factor]

And where was his laywer when he was being deposed?

Sitting next to him, I imagine.

Initially, on first reading, I believed the guy and felt sympathetic. But there are too many omissions, to much he has not said. He's not being straightforward. And if he's not being straightforward, he's trying to conceal something from the reader (us). Indeed, one must read between the lines to discover that he is suing the class action law firm! Why couldn't he be upfront about that, and tell us on what grounds he is suing? Again, this makes me wonder what he's not telling us.

California State Bar

[revery]

Here is the contact page for the State Bar of Ohio and here is the same for the State Bar of Washington.

You may want to drop them an email or make a phone call and see if they are looking into this.

Re:California State Bar

[Ocular Magic]

More specifically, here's the info from the Directory of Lawyer Disciplinary Agencies. This is who to contact regarding lawyers in Ohio.

Jonathan E. Coughlan
Disciplinary Counsel
Office of the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio
250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 325
Columbus, OH 43215
614/461-0256
FAX: 614/461-7205
Website: www.sconet.state.oh.us

Faith

[Joebert]

I'm sure most of us have had an experience where "Good Faith" was involved.

A firm calling & requesting an urgant signature two days after a conversation sounds a little like long distance communication, a rather new lawyer, & Good Faith.

It might be intresting to see how this turns out.

It's called "sarcasm"

[spun]

It's a rhetorical device where one says the opposite of what one means, for emphasis. Perhaps you should look it up, you may find it useful.

Re:It's called "sarcasm"

[mjeppsen]

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter

Re:It's called "sarcasm"

[OldManAndTheC]

It's a rhetorical device where one says the opposite of what one means, for emphasis. Perhaps you should look it up, you may find it useful.

Oh right, I'll just look it up. That'll take care of everything. You've been so helpful! How much do I owe you? and where do I send the check?

Re:It's called "sarcasm"

[jzfredricks]

You dont say?

Re:It's called "sarcasm"

[warrigal]

The rhetorical device of saying the opposite of what you mean is called "irony". Perhaps you should look that up. Maybe I've stumbled on the reason most Americans don't understand irony.

Re:It's called "sarcasm"

[tehcyder]

No, irony is not just "saying the opposite of what you mean".

Irony is more like "someone attempting to correct a parent post's definition, but giving the wrong definition themselves."

Hope that helps!

Re:It's called "sarcasm"

[castle]

Sarcasm or Devils Advocacy.

MOD PARENT UP

[niXcamiC]

They managed to flood his inbox with hatemail, lets turn the tables :)

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Neoncow]

You know, when I read the article summary, the first thing that came to my mind was "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Clearly, lawyers have a better chance of winning when suing. So obviously when something goes wrong, you find someone you can blame it on, sue them, and you've made a bit of money and some publicity. Problem solved.

Similarly, when Slashdotters are outraged by stupidity, you find the closest people to blame, google them up, and post their email addresses on Slashdot. Problem solved.

hmm...

[Cryptnotic]

So the guy brought a lawsuit against a law firm and he's suprised at the serious response he got. That's like trying to pet a tiger and being suprised when you get bitten.

Re:hmm...

[dartmouth05]

Exactly! Jason Tomczak filed a lawsuit against two law firms, and he acts outraged when the law firms hired attoneys to defend themselves from his lawsuit. It is one thing for someone to cry foul about being a "sole individual" when they are targets of a lawsuit. But when you are suing someone else, it is disingenious in the extreme to complain when they turn around and get defense counsel.

Re:hmm...

[KarmaMB84]

The outrage is due to rather than doing as he asks (the right thing), they are going to stall in an attempt to bleed him dry.

Re:hmm...

[Cryptnotic]

They never wanted to bleed him dry. They wanted to bleed Apple dry (or at least feed off of the fat cow). In their type of class-action suit, they win and Apple pays $10 per iPod nano sold. Of that, the lawyers a lot of money covering their fat salaries and bonuses and the members of the class get a check in the mail for whatever's left. That's the way they do it.

Of course, they screwed up when they filed a class action suit without an actual member of the class signed in on the lawsuit. You actually have to have that. It's pretty important. So he was in a very good position. They needed him to continue. He could have negotiated with them for a percentage of the winnings, I bet. But instead, he screwed up and hired other representation and brought action against them. Nothing good will come of this for him now. And you know, his lawsuit actually is frivilous. They're not going to "go away" now that they have a pending lawsuit against them. That's the last thing they'd do. What an idiot.

Re:hmm...

[Bastard of Subhumani]

And you know, his lawsuit actually is frivilous

It's not, and it's not frivolous either.

They dragged his name in the mud by involving him in the case without his consent. The bunch of shysters should be disbarred, bankrupted and flogged.

IANAL

[OYAHHH]

But,

I would say he possibly has a libel case on his hands, with him being the beneficiary.

Assuming he did not enter into an enforceable verbal (or written) contract, then he is potentially gonna make a buck off of those boneheads. And that's assuming they did more than merely quote him.

If he is so certain his case is so great, and the legal fees are getting him down, then he should find a firm willing to work on contengency.

Better, yet, drop the lawsuit and simply cooperate with the weasily lawyers who did this to him.

Then, at trial simply testify for Apple instead. That would get the lawyers good!

RTFA: He Sued them.

[dividius]

From the article:

"Given the gravity of the situation I was facing, I had to hire a law firm to protect myself, clear my name and set the record straight"

"(DPMA HBSS) when contacted by my lawyers, did not even offer to correct any of their press releases. Not even an official apology was offered."

"Then (DPMA HBSS) each hired professional defense law firms to fight against me." ...

DEFENSE firms.... as in DEFENDANT not PLANTIF.

So, he sued them, they hired defense firms to fight his suit (Lawyers hire defense team? INCONCEIVABLE!). Their defense firms are making motions, digging & delaying (Defense lawyers play dirty? INCONCEIVABLE!). These motions could cost him thousands of dollars, stress, etc. etc. etc. (Lawsuits cost money and take time? INCONCEIVABLE!).

Do DPMA & HBSS sound like scumbags?
      Yes.
Does the slashdot article title reflect the content or meaning of the linked site?
      No. INCONCEIVABLE!
Is this guy an idiot if he thought suing a lawfirm would be free and stress-free?
      He's been slandered enough by the scumbags, I'll leave it to you to answer for yourself.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:RTFA: He Sued them.

[Anonymous Coward]

[in best spanish accent]

You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re:RTFA: He Sued them.

[DragonWriter]

"Defense firms" does not mean that they were sued. When someone hires a lawyer and the lawyer contacts you to complain about something you've done, that's a red flag warning that you are likely to be sued. People that can afford to that think legal action is likely or even possible often preemptively hire appropriate counsel (for example, as I recall, President Bush hired a personal criminal defense attorney very early in the Plame leak investigation -- this doesn't mean criminal charges had been filed against him.)

And "defense law firms" are not incapable of preemptively suing, either.

Re:RTFA: He Sued them.

[dividius]

Yeah, that's nice, but I'm gonna have to go with RTFA again. I copied specific lines because it seemed pointless to quote the whole thing. Nevertheless the subtext of the whole section subsequent to "Call For Help" suggests that he sued them. And before you attack the notion of subtext, here's some more specific text:

"On May 1, 2006, (DPMA HBSS) defense lawyers filed Motions to Strike the entirety of my case"

MY case - HIS case - RTFA.

"The defense teams filed 'demurrers' against my filings which state"

MY filings - HIS filings: HIS suit - RTFA.

"They also filed an Anti-SLAPP motion against me and my claims "

MY claims- HIS claims: HIS suit- RTFA.

"Their malpractice defense law teams scheduled me for deposition"

Can a lawyer preemptively file a malpractice defense suit?

RT ... ah you get the point.

Karma?

[Sargeant Slaughter]

Umm so, this nerd was in contact with the one lawfirm for an extended period of time. He didn't just tell them to shove it from the get go. That tells me he really was considering the lawsuit.

He probably thought, holy crap, maybe, just maybe I'll get rich off of this...
Instead of just blogging the problem and leaving it at that ( no doubt effecting IPOD sales) he had to consider litigation. I hate people who sue, and I think this little Apple douche probably had it coming.

Re:Karma?

[The Cisco Kid]

*They* contacted *him* asking him some tech questions. He *did* specifically tell them he was NOT interested in participating in any case.

Pic of said lawyer

[SoCalChris]

How could you not trust a lawyer that looks like this?

Re:Pic of said lawyer

[AndroidCat]

Now that's just begging for a Fark photoshop contest.

The hell?

[Nekomusume]

Ok, so now lawyers can decide to sue people in your name, not only without a contract, but without your permission, and then sue you for what ammounts to pointing out that you aren't actually their client? The mind boggles.

Re:Full text of Open Letter

[tacarat]

Great research, but I'm sure he verbally waived those protections when this got started.

can't these lawyers

[superwiz]

get jobs as respectable mobsters? I mean, if this kind of extortion is not covered by RICO, why anything be?

Re:Wow - holding bloggers acountable - that's evil

[Anonymous Coward]

"...my Viagra didn't work"

The class action lawsuit will be filed in the morning, the lawyers are already working on it.

No signed document, no contract. Nothing.

[gilboooo]

If he has not asked for legal representation, and has not signed anything
with those lawyers, he should not care. They have to show proof (signed document
from him) that he asked for legal representation.

He did publish an open letter explaining that he did not ask for anything,
and he should say that those lawyers are not acting on his behalf.

No signed document, no contract. Nothing.

never talk to lawyers without your own lawyer.

[Anonymous Coward]

this is where he went wrong. at the very least, he should've recorded the initial conversation. it seems one of the problems here is that he has no way of proving that he requested his name from being mentioned in the class action lawsuit. honestly, verbal contracts are worthless unless you have a third party there to witness it. that third party should be your own lawyer or a $20 answering machine that can record your phone conversation. just be sure all parties on the line know that the call is being recorded.

disclaimer: i'm not a lawyer.

Engineers!

[Anonymous Coward]

"But who will they turn to?"
 
The engineers of the world. We're relatively underpaid, under appreciated, and capable of creating things much more devastating than laws (although you might not guess that from our current crop of legislation coming out of DC).

Re:Engineers!

[Sj0]

I agree. To paraphrase a contemporary philosopher:

"Do you know why? Because WE'VE GOT THE BOMBS. That's right, nuclear fucking weapons. Lawyers? Politicians? They can have all the freedom and democracy they want; They can have a nice big democracy cakewalk right through the middle of Tienemen square, and it doesn't make a lick of difference, because we've got the bombs."

Or do you think the PRESIDENT knows how to build, maintain, and operate those things?

Re:Engineers!

[Gilmoure]

Ever since beancounters and lawyers replaced engineers in upper management, this country has gone to hell in a handbasket.

Video Rollover ad on comment page?

[Lord_Dweomer]

This isn't really off-topic because technically its regarding this story submission....but did anybody else get annoyed by the video ad under the blurb?

Is this the new Google Video Ads? If so, why IN THE HELL is it set to play on rollover? I thought it was supposed to only play on click! I don't want to have to be paranoid about my computers volume at work because I might rollover an ad, and I don't want my bandwidth consumed because I slide my mouse past it.

Re:Video Rollover ad on comment page?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Google video ads aren't out yet. Try not to hurt yourself jumping to conclusions.

Re:Video Rollover ad on comment page?

[binford2k]

Was that the Flash that I didn't see because I've got Flashblock installed?

Mafia!

[OrangeTide]

I'm only half serious.

Maybe we can just find a million people to *anonymously* mail the bad laywers a picture of goatse or whatever.

Mod Parent Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: IANYourL

Please mod this parent up. Grandparent is on the right track with reporting, but parent is correct: it's the state bar one contacts. And that's the state bar where the lawyer is a member, not where the complaint is filed (though that doesn't hurt either for reasons I'll leave out to keep this brief).

I'd do it myself, but... an attorney on /. with kharma? Who's kidding who here?

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[Peyna]

Actually, it depends on the state. In many states, the Supreme Court is in charge of such issues and the bar association is merely an optional liaison. In others, the bar association is charged with such issues (and membership is usually mandatory).

mnb Re:Contact info for David P. Meyer & Assoc

[Anonymous Coward]

That phone exchange doesn't match that address.

Anymore that means less and less, just saying.

Welcome to America !

[jbssm]

No really, sometimes I'm glad I live in Portugal, a country with the shittiest legal system in EU.

Every trial takes ageeeeesss, in fact many cases prescribe.

So, to the hell with RIAA and all those idiots, in here, they don't stand a chance against the system, I can just say "Ok, take me to the courts over those downloaded songs." and I know I can prolong the trial for years until they get tired. :-D

If you can't win them, join them.

Disbarment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell me at least some of the lawyer involved can be disbarred for malpractice of this magnitude?

I know where you got that plot...

[michaeldot]

You did a find and replace with SCO and Linux.

An interview with Meyer, the 'SuperLawyer'

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Screwed Investors' Lawyer. When a prominent Columbus, Ohio, business magazine used that cover headline to describe David Meyer, it made a statement that was both bold and accurate. [...]"

http://dmlaws.com/CmsData/Site/Documents/Meyer_Sup erLawyers_article.pdf

I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would Apple's lawyers mind representing this guy? Maybe that'd be too ironic (or involve some kind of conflict of interest) but damn... wouldn't that beat all? :)

Disclaimer: IANAL. I have absolutely no idea whether they could or would do such a thing.

Why do we tolerate this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there not a quotation from Shakespeare's HENRY IV about killing all the lawyers? I realize the original quote was made by those advocating dictatorship but perhaps it is more appropriate today for the advocates of democracy since the United States is quickly becoming a dictatorship by and for those employed in the legal "practice"

So *he* says.

[Anonymous Coward]

We only have his word for this at the moment.

Sometimes I tend to agree with Dick the Butcher

[alexo]

Henry VI, part 2, Act 4, Scene 2 (excerpt)

Re:Sometimes I tend to agree with Dick the Butcher

[ummit]

You realize, of course, that Dick was advocating that not 'cause he thought the lawyers were scum, but because he was afraid they'd be righteous and unmasking of the atrocites that Cade and his rabble were contemplating...

Re:Sometimes I tend to agree with Dick the Butcher

[alexo]

ummitwrote:
> You realize, of course, that Dick was advocating that not 'cause he thought the lawyers
> were scum, but because he was afraid they'd be righteous and unmasking of the atrocites that
> Cade and his rabble were contemplating...

I find the other opinion more to my liking.

However, you are somewhat right. Not all lawyers are scum.
The problem is that 99% of them give the others a bad name.

Re:Sometimes I tend to agree with Dick the Butcher

[ummit]

I find the other opinion more to my liking.

Ah, fair enough. (Good for Seth!) I stand corrected; I'll stop parroting the "Dick was indirectly praising them" argument.

scum

[TheDunadan]

Lawyers are acting like scum!?! I never saw that one coming...

Odd choice ...

[kitzilla]

... filing suit against the first law firm. He could have cleared his name by going to the state bar. To collect legal fees from this guy, the lawyers would have need to prove a contractual relationship existed. No paper? Good luck with that. THEN it would be time to petition the Court to remedy a rather glaring abuse of process. Judges hate that sort of thing.

Re:Odd choice ...

[cmdr_beeftaco]

I don't know how to "petition the Court to remedy" so I guess I would need to hire a lawyer. Thus under the best case he is out a couple of grand and he still has a scratched Nano, poor guy. I say we all kick in and buy him a tube of brasso.

Stupid US Legal System

[The OPTiCIAN]

Attention citizens of the united states: Reform your legal system so that judges can award costs.

Re:Stupid US Legal System

[sco08y]

Attention citizens of the united states: Reform your legal system so that judges can award costs.

Comments from the 51st State are, of course, always welcome.

Re:Stupid US Legal System

[Ohreally_factor]

How could you tell he was from Canada?

Re:Stupid US Legal System

[forlornhope]

You realize you just pissed off a bunch of people in D.C. and Puerto Rico.

I call bullshit.

[spiritraveller]

As a lawyer building a class action lawsuit, all you need is one lead plaintiff to represent the class. It can be anybody who bought an ipod nano. It could be a 16 year old kid who dropped out of high school. It doesn't have to be someone who knows anything.

They would have no reason to use his name without his permission when there are thousands of people they could have used WITH permission.

I might be biased since I'm a lawyer (ducks).

Re:I call bullshit.

[Sj0]

It seems like there are an awful lot of lawyers on slashdot today. Is it national "Gawk at the nerdyfolk" day?

Re:I call bullshit.

[spiritraveller]

A lot of lawyers happen to be nerdy folk too.

How do you think we memorize the numbers for all those statutes and regulations?

With formatting and links intact

[Anonymous Coward]

Open Letter to the Mac Community
The Truth Behind the iPod Nano "Scratch" Class Action Suit

May 22, 2006

Dear Mac Community:

Hello! My name is Jason Tomczak. Many people around the world rightly know me as a mild-mannered techie, photographer, writer, and nature-lover. I am an Apple fan and have been fortunate enough to use Mac computers and other Apple products since about 1985.

On October 19, 2005, my life changed due to the unauthorized conduct of others. From that date forward, countless numbers of people around the world were driven to hate me and slander my name, sometimes using foul and threatening language.

Since October 19, 2005, my name has been infamously tied to the iPod Nano "Scratch" Class Action law suit filed against Apple.

What You Don't Know About The Nano Suit
The truth is that I never sought out nor did I ever hire David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro to represent me in any case, much less the iPod Nano Class Action suit.

The iPod Nano Class Action law suit was initiated by David P. Meyer & Associates Co. LPA of Columbus, Ohio and their representative firm, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP of Seattle, Washington and filed on October 19, 2005.

David P. Meyer & Associates contacted me, soliciting my opinions and comments about the scratching of my iPod Nano after finding Nano-related blog posts I'd written on my own website, on The Unofficial Apple Weblog and on The MacCast. They informed me that they had received an "overwhelming number of complaints" about the Nano and that they wanted my "insight into the problem". Yes, I answered their communication and told them that I had problems with my iPod Nano, however I clearly told them that they should do their own professional and technological study of the iPod Nano.

I emphasized that I did not have any access to any specific data about the materials used in making the iPod Nano. David P. Meyer & Associates used my personal comments and opinions as the basis of the iPod Nano suit. To my knowledge, there was no actual technical study done on the iPod Nano before the Class Action suit was filed.

Additionally, I told David P. Meyer & Associates that I wanted to remain private, and that my wish for privacy, among other considerations, would preclude me from getting involved in the case.

No Documentation
At no time did David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro ever receive any attorney-client agreement form from me. On their own time and based on their own schedules and plans, they prepared the paperwork and filed the iPod Nano Class Action suit in California using my name as Lead Plaintiff, however this was done without my knowledge or consent.

The Filing and The Call
The senior partner of David P. Meyer & Associates and one of his representatives called me during the afternoon of October 21, 2005 to urgently request my signature on an attorney-client agreement - two days after the Class Action suit was filed; two days after they began their action against Apple; two days after the press had begun running the story. They then warned me that my family, friends, clients and I should expect to hear from the media and others interested in the iPod Nano Class Action suit.

During that phone call to me, David P. Meyer and his associate blamed the faulty Nano filing on Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

Spin Cycle
During that week and the following months, my name was posted in relation to the iPod Nano Class Act

Motion is not a lawsuit

[MikePlacid]

They filed a motion in a lawsuit initiated by him. Technically that does not make them sue him.

Re:Full text of Open Letter

[Peyna]

Great research, but I'm sure he verbally waived those protections when this got started

Those aren't rights that the client can waive, those are laws the state made regulating the conduct of attorneys.

Re:Contact info for David P. Meyer & Associate

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on what one person posted on a webpage, and with no other source to back up the story, you are encouraging people to harass someone.

You are a fucking moron.

As Mark Twain would say...

[Prof. Pi]

I hope the lawyers are eaten alive by a cauldron full of insane, demonic, snow-weasels. Or another group of lawyers.

"... but I repeat myself."

No he wont lose anything

[Tweekster]

He can represent himself and ask for the signed agreement for representation. When they cant produce, he asks the judge for a dismissal.

Honestly, not everything requires a lawyer, particularly a trivially idiotic matter like this. They cannot prove he agreed to be represented by him, the matter will barely win the laugh test of the judge.

Hell, my traffic lawyer had me sign a piece of paper and cut him a nominal fee saying he was representing me, that was in regards to a minor traffic accident (his fee was all of $150).

Re:Contact info for David P. Meyer & Associate

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck do you know that?

Maybe the poster is the guy's brother, his lawyer, or the guy himself?

Maybe he painstakingly researched the accuracy of the original poster?

You sir, are the fucking moron....

Re:Contact info for David P. Meyer & Associate

[loraksus]

Encouraging? How?
Did I post something like "CALL THAT FUCKING NUMBER OVER AND OVER! MAKE THEM PAAAAAAATYY!!11"
No, I did not.

Did I post something like "Sign up for a free account with skype for an more or less anonymous number"
No, I did not.

Re:Contact info for David P. Meyer & Associate

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree -- you also didn't mention that there are websites where you can proxy your caller-id to read whatever you would like before you call them.

URGENT - CAREFUL NOW

[Hootenanny]

To those who are posting home contact information of the attorneys involved in their case, and to those who are interested in contacting those attorneys:

You have every reason to want your voice heard, regarding this case. I am outraged at what appears to be happening. However - go through the proper channels to have your say. Contacting these attorneys *at home* is not appropriate.

Complaining to the attorneys through professional channels is okay, and filing a complaint with the proper legal governing bodies is even better. But if these attorneys receive harassing messages at home, this may be interpreted as a threatining action. Because of the pending lawsuit, this may come up in court and make the "little guy" look bad.

I am not taking the lawyers' side by any means. But think before you speak, so you don't add to the fella's pile of trouble.

Re:Anyone else asked the lawyers for clarification

[uncreativ]

wow--just looking at their company web sites says a lot about what kind of firms they run.

Thanks, much clearer

[SuperKendall]

Thanks, that makes a lot more sense - although to me it seems like he could possibly still hold some residual power over the whole case by originally having been listed as lead plantiff. Unlikey I realize...

dumbass

[Anonymous Coward]

Never communicate with lawyers unless a court forces you to or you are the one that initiates it. He should have hung up the phone and sent their emails to /dev/null.

You must now remove this post or be sued.

[sjs132]

I repreresent the lawfirm of Whodwe, Screwend, Howe... I must inform you that if you do not remove all references to this case on this webserver and the rest of the internet and socalled "World Wide Web", hereforth refered to as WWW, we shall be forced to bring leagel action against you and all your readers. You will imidiately hand over the list to all subscribers of this listserver immidiately or face even more hanious letters & threats....

Just remember... No body expects....

The spanish inquisition... Our chief weapons are lawyers... Lots and lots of lawyers... And fear.

Good Day.
Mr. Whodwe

Sr. member of:
Whodwe, Screwend, Howe

That is quite a "unique" viewpoint

[@madeus]

I find it interesting that you take so hostile a tone against the plaintiff, and that you attempt to portray irrelevant details as him hiding information or attempting to be deceitful. It appeared like neither to me as I assumed them (perhaps I don't need things to be spelt out as clearly for me though and I'm just able to read between the lines).

I'm fully willing to accept there are two sides to the story and take both sides with a pinch of salt.

That said, it's incredible to suggest that there is "simply not a chance" that the legal firm decided to take on a high profile case guaranteed to generate an enormous amount of free publicity and do try and do it off the back of "some guy they found on the internet" (who they can later try arm twist into staying on board by trying to make him feel like he's "locked in" and has agreed to it all).

There is every chance the legal firm did not behave appropriately, realised they made a mistake when they couldn't arm twist the "plaintiff" into going along for the ride and are now engaged in damage limitation.

I think you'll find there are plenty of highly unscrupulous law firms who take on cases of dubious merit and cajole people into taking up legal action in order to drum up business for the legal firm (even when the plaintiff's are unsure of the merits of the case and are liable to regret it later - it's not like these guys are family solicitors and can be counted on to look after your best interests). If your in any doubt of their prevalence, sitting down in front of the TV and watching the adverts should resolve it.

To be even more explicit, the plaintiff is asserting the legal firm called him after finding his details on the internet. That ought to raise all sort of warning flags and brings the legal firms credibility in to further disrepute (it is possible that's a lie, but it would be a ridiculous thing to lie about as it's going to be reasonably easy to prove or disprove either way from call logs from the operator).

Not getting a written agreement from him was a big gaffe, but don't think for a second that that means he didn't agree to do this. Without question, he did.

No, that's exactly the question, that's what is being disputed.

In a case like this, the failure to get written agreement is in itself highly suspicious. It's not as if they are an amateur legal firm. Given the case, I can't imagine this being an 'oversight' by any credible professional organisation.

I can't even signup for a library card without signing for it, let alone take out a high profile legal case against a large corporation. You don't start issuing press statements that your taking on Apple Computer over a case involving iPod's after looking up the details of some guy on the internet and getting his verbal agreement over the phone.

I think it's far more likely the legal firm knew exactly what they were doing and were counting on the pliability of the plaintiff, and that the approach appears to have backfired (free publicity notwithstanding).

Re:That is quite a "unique" viewpoint

[poindextrose]

To be even more explicit, the plaintiff is asserting the legal firm called him after finding his details on the internet. That ought to raise all sort of warning flags and brings the legal firms credibility in to further disrepute (it is possible that's a lie, but it would be a ridiculous thing to lie about as it's going to be reasonably easy to prove or disprove either way from call logs from the operator).

In all fairness, given the relative age of the product, where else would they find consumer feedback on this product other than the Internet? More importantly, where would they find opinions about high-tech toys so wordily vocalized, often with somewhat-knowlegable voices behind them other than the blogosphere?

If I wanted to start a class action lawsuit on a product months old, I certainly wouldn't be waiting for the next Consumer Reports to start. Then again, I'm not one of those litigious bastards.

Privacy?

[donarb]

In his letter, the guy states he wants his privacy, and yet two paragraphs before he states "...Nano-related blog posts I'd written on my own website, on The Unofficial Apple Weblog and on The MacCast".

Hey dude, the internets ain't private. You want privacy, write your thoughts in your diary and keep it under your pillow.

What I think is really happening here

[darrenmorman]

As has been mentioned, it is important to remember that he is suing them.

"Given the gravity of the situation I was facing, I had to hire a law firm to protect myself, clear my name and set the record straight"

It sounds like this is what is really happening.

1. Jason rants on some blog about his scratched ipod nano.

2. Law firm sees opportunity for class action suit against Apple.
(This will mean big bucks but only if they can become lead council. Filing first will mean increased chance of becoming lead council.)

3. Law firm files using Jason's name without his permission, presumably thinking this will not be a problem due to his vocal criticism of Ipod Nano.
(http://www.ifoapplestore.com/blog/nano_lawsuit.pd f)

4. Jason refuses to sign up for class action law suit.

5. Law firm changes lead plaintiff six days later.
(http://www.hbsslaw.com/files/1ST_Amd_Complaint%20 ( v2)1130368932535.pdf)

6. Jason contacts his lawyers.

7. Lawyers think they can make Jason money by suing Class Action lawyers. However, they must prove some kind of quanifiable impact on Jason's life. Presumably they were responsible for at least this part of the open letter, if not the entire thing.

"I had to take my website down and remove legitimate references to my name on numerous web services. My fiancee and I were afraid to go outside in our own home town for fear of recognition and reprisal"

I think the Class Action lawyers made a mistake and Jason is trying to profit from this.

Only in America

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they sue judge if the verdict isnt profitable enough?

The Best Thing

[umbrellasd]

Would be if Apple came along and provided legal council for this poor guy and then not only will the suit be chucked out the window but Apple can make some money off the sorry bastards in consulting fees when the firm realizes it should settle out of court and quietly.

Well, assuming the facts are as they appear to be and they falsified his name as plaintiff in the suit, etc.

dont worry i've taken care of it

[nihaopaul]

dont worry i've sorted it all out:

to: info@hbsslaw.com
to: mark@firmani.com
to: info@dmlaws.com

subject: the plaintiff

To whom it may concern,

you suck.

from
Nihaopaul

i think that will fix it

Reading comprehension?

[binford2k]

Sometimes people's lack of reading comprehension astounds me. It seems to be the modus operandi here on Slashdot though.

HE is suing THEM and they are countersuing for damages in that case, not the Apple class action case. That's standard fucking practice, people!

Go back and take some kindergarten level reading classes.

Re:Reading comprehension?

[Sj0]

Ok, we MAY have kindergarten-level reading skills, but we have Ph.D level psychic skills!

(Or do you think anyone actually READ that thing before posting about how much anger and hatred and rage they're filled with?)

Call/email them as reporter and ask for interview

[Anonymous Coward]

I would suggest for you to act as reporter making a story about this issue and ask for comments. They almost have to respond to clear their name - otherwise media might just eat them alive by publishing the sad "evil law firms against individual" story. Maybe they learn a lesson when responding to hundreds of calls and emails.

(And anyway - you are not even lying: just remember to consider writing a story to your blog about the interview :))

Do they have his signature on an agreement?

[Swift2001]

I've only been involved in one lawsuit in my life -- but it was a good one, folks -- but it seems to me I spoke with the lawyer, his investigator talked to me at work, we went out to the place where I had the accident, he took pictures, and then I got a phone call and a contract to sign specifying our agreement, and who had what obligation. Then, when I got a settlement two years later, it was all split up according to the contract.

If he doesn't have a contract, I think a class action suit works the same way. You have to sign something agreeing to be the prime plaintiff or whatever it's called. If they have a signature, he's caught. If they don't, he's scot-free.

In Soviet California...

[2e]

In Soviet California, Attorney sues YOU!

IANAL, but I play one on tv.
Steven

From thier website...

[rizole]

Now IANAL but......from the website's disclaimer
..."The attorney-client relationship does not begin until a written agreement has been agreed upon and signed between the client and his or her law firm..."

So...

[Anonymous Writer]

Anyone have any good lawyer jokes?

Re:So...

[Sj0]

Two lawyers walk into a bar. They quietly have a few drinks, pay their bill, tip generously, and go home to their loving and supportive families.

Can ScuttleMonkey post an article...

[Zaatxe]

without a question mark in the title?

Hmmmm

[goldcd]

"My fiancee and I were afraid to go outside in our own home town for fear of recognition and reprisal."

Now this seems to be complete and utter bollocks. I mean seriously, unless this guy is completely and utterly paranoid and delusional - this would appear to be language designed to indicate a rather ridiculous level of emotional discomfort. Now why would you include this - well I assume in an attempt to screw some money out of the lawyers...

Re:Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? With all the Apple fanatics out there its not hard to imagine some of the more extreme ones wanting to harass him in public.

Plus, we haven't seen the emails he received, but some of them probably said things like "If I ever see you in a a dark alley . . ."

this isnt about legal fees..

[frost22]

this isnt about legal fees - if the lawyers suceed with their plan they (and they alone) will make a multi million dollar killing from the settlement with Apple.

He wants his name out of this.

D & D ?

[frost22]

I have yet to see a single lawyer plying D & D .

Your troll is a bit lacking.

Re:D & D ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's trolling?

Lawyers (especially bad ones) are huge D&D players.
The term Fanatic comes to mind.

If you have yet to see one, my guess is that you don't know many lawyers. That means that your experience is lacking, not my post.

Re:D & D ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very good point. I myself have yet to see a lawyer with either the imagination or empathy required to function in a D&D group.

They're beginning to feed...

[jskline]

They're beginning to feed off of each other now. They've squeezed out all the cash they can from "Joe Consumer", and now they're beginning to use law to force someone to not step away from something he had nothing to do with in the first place.

If this is true, and the way the opening para's read like it is, then this is now dangerously close to the justice system collapsing in on itself very soon here in this country.

Re:Contact info for David P. Meyer & Associate

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck do you know that?

Because that's the only source right now... the "victim's" web page.

Maybe the poster is the guy's brother, his lawyer, or the guy himself?

If that were the case, it would only make him more of a moron.

Maybe he painstakingly researched the accuracy of the original poster?

On slashdot that is about as likely as pigs flying.

You sir, are the fucking moron....

No. You've made it clear who the moron is.

Editors are morons

[EmagGeek]

He's not their plaintiff, you idiots. That's the whole point of teh article... Learn to read, already!

This is one reason...

[WgT2]

This, the seemingly non-plaintive, is one reason we need tort reformation: since these people are claiming verbal contract, just about anyone is vulnerable to crazy, non-sensical lawsuits.

Besides, let's say this lawfirm is completely correct in its claim. It's a major screw-up on their part to have nothing in writting concerning the inclusion of this person into their dealings. They need to stop whinning and waisting the public courts money and time with, at this point, frivolous lawsuit because it's obvious they don't know who to do proper business. No wonder they're desperate.

They have already lost... unless the judge thinks like the Plainfield School District. If so, then they might have a case. (good grief!)

Somehow missing from this post....

[Zemplar]

In Soviet Russia, Lawyers sue You!

Re:Contact info for David P. Meyer & Associate

[Sabriel]

If you wait outside their offices, you might even be able to say "Hi" to them and have a conversation about the case.

Sorry, confronting lawyers I've never met about a case that puts them on the stand is right down there with wiggling my fingers in a bowl full of sharks. Pass.

Terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds to me like these lawyers fall under the "terrorist" definition in the Anti-Patriot act. 'Bout time the lawyers got what they give.

Counting whiners

[Anonymous Coward]

" ... I don't know what the minimum number of whiners have to be to start a class action lawsuit, but I'd guess it's several, ..."

Believe it of not, the minumum number of whiners to form a 'class' is only three!

Michael Fumento???

[shrubya]

You mean the wingnut who claims that heterosexual transmission of AIDS is a myth? What a fucking joke. (hint: Africa? Asia? etc?) You may as well cite NewsMax or National Enquirer for expert science advice.

The lawyers did not create the hatemail, mind.

[Medievalist]

Having been the target of mac fan-boy hatemail myself (I had the unmitigated temerity to say that I choose not to use iTunes because of the EULA; what was I thinking!) I'm sure that the lawyers only gave the hatemail a target. They didn't have to do anything to create it.

There are apparently an obscene number of people who have nothing better to do with their time than to attack anyone who does not worship at the altar of Jobs. If you mention Apple in a critical way in public, you can expect the email equivalent of molotov cocktails and flaming crosses on your lawn.

Mac zealots make the linux and OpenBSD zealots seem relatively sane.

Conspiracy Theorist Alert

[gordguide]

I read the posts, and didn't see it mentioned yet, so an FYI for interested parties and conspiracy theorists everywhere:

Hagens Berman LLP was Microsoft's counsel during the DOJ Antitrust Case. They also represented Microsoft in other cases, such as the Florida Antitrust Case. They are suing Apple over the "iPod hearing damage" issue as well. The firm is now called Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, but that just represents the new partners.

They are also hiring junior lawyers who worked on Microsoft's behalf on Antitrust actions, such as Associate Jeffrey A Lang. Mr Berman is something of an AntiTrust specialist, and the main office and office of the founding partners is in Seattle, so it's hardly a surprise Microsoft used them. But, I'm sure Mr Berman's firm is, umm, grateful, for Redmond's hefty payments for legal fees, and let's not forget that even though there was a settlement, these things are not really over until they're over, and that hasn't happened just yet. In other words, It's difficult to believe he's not still getting fees from Microsoft.

" ...
More recently, Microsoft recognized Mr. Berman's experience and expertise when the company retained him to be part of the core national team representing the company in antitrust class actions arising from Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact in the Department of Justice antitrust case against the company. ..." From: Steve W Berman Biography at his firm's site

The suit under discussion:
"Tomczak v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:05-cv-04244-RS," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge Richard Seeborg.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are: Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 1301 Fifth Ave., Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 206-623-0594, E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com and Elaine T. Byszewski or Lee M. Gordon of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 700 South Flower St., Suite 2940, Los Angeles, CA 90017-4101, Phone: 213-330-7150, Fax: 213-330-7152, E-mail: elaine@hagens-berman.com or lee@hbsslaw.com.

You also won't be surprised to learn that Berman is suing Apple on behalf of Nano owners in the UK and Mexico; also filed in USDC for Northern District of California.

As for those who doubt the likelihood of a blog being the reason Jason Tomczak was first contacted by a representative of Mr Berman's firm, The Apple Observer, a Mac-centric news site, interviews Patrick Warner, an attorney with David P. Meyer & Associates; the firm was hired by Berman's to assist in the Nano suit. In the article, under "A closer look at the filing", they note that " ... Last week's filing included quotes from many online message boards, blogs and other sources where the problem was discussed, including Wall Street Journal technology columnist Walt Mossberg. ..."

As William Shakespeare would say...

[booch]

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Re:Full text of Open Letter

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a question, how does one WAIVE the protections under this law? It states that the lawyer cannot contact you verbally or in writing, in order to say "Hey, sounds like you have a problem, lemme fix it for you *wink wink*". Quite simply, it is meant to curb ambulence-chasing, which if the guy's account is true, is what this firm did.

You cannot waive protections under the law, ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT PROTECTION COVERS HOW THEY CONTACT YOU INITIALLY. AFAIK, you cannot retro-actively waive protections, even if you could waive them in the first place. In WA law, I as an employee am protected from my employer forcing me into certain types of contracts. If they worded the contract to have me waive these protections, those parts of the contract are /void/.

Mark Parent Down

[taff^2]

These guys *may* be worth slapping, but harassing them by email will only help their cause

OJ's innocence

[booch]

How many of you think OJ killed his wife? But he was never proven guilty, thus he must be innocent under "innocent until proven guilty".

Innocent under the law does not imply innocent of the crime.

I think the problem with the OJ case and other similar cases is that it's pretty obvious to most people that the crime was committed. But a rich person is often able to hire high-paid lawyers to confuse the situation enough to obscure the facts that would otherwise have been obvious. Thus, there's a real problem in that justice is not blind to the wealth and power of the defendent.

There are also many (more) cases where the poor are wrongly convicted of crimes because they can't afford a good lawyer. But those cases get much less media attention.

I think many (most?) people can stand for a system that will let 10 criminals go in order to save 1 innocent man from being sentenced to a long jail term, or the death penalty. But I think people are less likely to stand for a system in which justice can be bought.

Re:Anyone else asked the lawyers for clarification

[webster]

Have you considered how difficult it is to respond to an email from "anonymous coward"? The billions of emails they would have to send would get them labeled as giga-spammers.

Re:Full text of Open Letter

[tacarat]

I'm ordering more sarcasm for my postings. If the 2 firms are going to try an uphold a non-existant "verbal contract" to sue over (which the article didn't state), then a joke about the client verbally waiving protected rights might fit in as well. If you make one claim that can't be proved, may as well make two, yah?

As far as waiving protections, can anybody chime in on how agreements that include text like "to be settled in XXX State courts" would affect that? If you're like AC and in Washington, would the move to California courts affect your defense options?

Re:Contact info for David P. Meyer & Associate

[Anonymous Coward]

Your logic is childish and idiotic. It's completely obvious you're encouraging people to call and harass them. Why else would you be posting there phone numbers and personal information to such a forum?