6 ms·

words to the wise: don't invite lawsuits.

by devoply 10y ago

DiabloD3 10y ago
So, don't have a corporation inside of the US. Okay. Hey MediaFire, go reincorporate in Ireland, seems to work wonders for everyone else.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- devoply 10y ago
  not what i meant. i meant don't post your company's name claiming you always settle online.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  You jest, but after my company was put out of business by a legal threat from a Fortune 100, I really do wish I had taken advantage of the ability to run it anonymously (collecting payment via something like bitcoin). Doing it above board didn't really get me anything valuable, and it made it easy for my enemies to locate and shut me down. These threats are regularly frivolous and unfair, but big companies have a habit of bullying smaller players with legal force. There is no way to win; either you spend millions on something with no value (a legal defense), or you comply/settle and get the aggressor to agree to back off. If you try to fight, you end up doing both when you go bankrupt 5 years into the proceedings. I only caught snippets of Judge Gorsuch's confirmation hearing, but it was awesome to hear him decry the evils of law school and the "ethics rules" that lawyers have installed for themselves, which he explicitly calls out as a money-making scheme responsible for over $10B+ in excess legal spending each year (somewhere around the 2.5 hour mark on the second day).
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    Don't underestimate how valuable the right to be sued is. If other people have no recourse if dealing with you goes badly, they'll naturally be reluctant to trust you.
    - rfrey 10y ago
      That might be true if your market is other businesses. The courts are largely closed to normal consumers though, because of cost and the perception that justice is for sale. I doubt many mainstream consumers consider "can I sue this company if things go south" when making a purchase.
      - vertex-four 10y ago
        Personally, being in a UK, I consider "do I have enforceable consumer protection rights" when buying products online. That broadly amounts to "do they have a business address in the UK, contact info, are they active in promoting their business, perhaps do they have a physical shop", etc etc. I'd seriously avoid shopping where I couldn't contact the owners, unless I was doing something illegal (and therefore where I couldn't rely on my consumer rights) in the first place.
        cookiecaper 10y ago
        That's part of the tradeoff that you accept when you operate anonymously. Of course it will turn some people off, and as a consumer, that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. But as a business owner, until you have enough money sitting around to tolerate a lawsuit ($5M-$10M), if you're in a market that is willing to tolerate it, it could be a very reasonable tradeoff.
        vertex-four 10y ago
        I really doubt that many businesses would make it to $5M sitting in the bank without ever allowing anyone to know who they are - or slipping up and getting caught. I can't think of who would spend money with such a business if there were any alternative, in countries with well-developed consumer protection systems.
    - olau 10y ago
      Except that if it comes to a lawsuit, almost everyone loses one way or another. Sensible people and companies build up trust gradually.
  - twoodfin 10y ago
    "Decry the evils of law school"? I'm not sure what view you're ascribing to Judge Gorsuch. Surely he doesn't think law schools are evil.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      Heh, clearly not the best description, gotta stop HNing at 4am. ;) His main point was that legal costs are out of control. One of the mentioned factors was that in the U.S., law school is 3 years, unlike most international law schools which are 2, and how it's sad that most law school graduates are unable to afford their own services. He discusses how the attorneys' self-imposed ethical rules contribute to the expense and prevent things that would improve the accessibility of legal services. I'll post a transcript of his answer when I get back to my workstation. On phone now. EDIT: Video link from the hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWRzx3gZK7M&start=14409 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWRzx3gZK7M&start=14409 Here's the transcript of his entire response to the question posed by Senator Cornyn according to C-SPAN's closed captioning (which is the only place I could find it recorded; lines and capitalization quickly corrected, please excuse any errors): > I really appreciate this opportunity to be talking about > these things. Because I -- these I care about and can talk > about as a judge. I wrote that article in conjunction with > some input from a lot of wonderful people, so I can't take > total credit for it. And I thanked them. My point there was > three fold. Starting with the fact that too few people can > get to court with legitimate grievances today. That's a > fact. Too few people can get lawyers to help them with their > problem. I teach young folks law, who leave law school > unable to afford their own services. Think about that. > think about that. And hundreds of thousands of dollars in > debt. How do they go be "Main Street" lawyers? How do they > help people who need legal services? And I pointed to three > potential sources of problems where we lawyers maybe should > look internally rather than blame others for the problem. > there is plenty of blame to go around. I'm not a big blame > guy. I am a look inside guy. What do I see in my profession. > three thing I pointed to, first, our own ethical rules. It > is a very unusual profession where we're allowed to regulate > ourselves. It is quite an extraordinary privilegefvilege > privilege, usually the legislature. Lawyers regulate > themselves. And do all of our rules help clients or do some > of them help us more than they help our clients? And i > point to some that for instance in regarding the > unauthorized practice of law, why is it you have to be a > lawyer to help parents with disabled children and > administrative proceedings to seek relief under idea? Was it > an example I pointed to. Why is it that every time certain > companies that provide online legal services for basic > things get sued every time they move into a new state? Why > is it I can go to walmart and get my hair, teeth, eyes, > taken care of, but I can't get a landlord tenant contract > drawn up. Those are all results of our ethical rules. I'm > not sure whether they're worth the price that we pay for > them. It is estimated I heard I can't verify it that our > ethical rules result in $10 billion a year surplus to > lawyers and clients every year. That was one. Number two > was our own rules and procedure which yield cases like the > one we talked about, took 25 years to resolve. That's > wrong. That's wrong. Should be able to resolve cases in > less time than it takes from my law clerks to be born, > raised and get through law school. And the third thing i > pointed to was our legal educational system. Where we have > three years of post graduate education for everybody who > wants to -- who have anything to do with lawyering. The > best lawyer in the country in this history came from your > state, senator durbin, he didn't ever go to law school. And > he always said the best way to become a lawyer, read the > books. Still true. And other countries around the world > don't have three years of post graduate legal education. > this is where justice scalia and I -- a disagreement, he > thought three years was necessary for everybody. I'm not > convinced. In england where I studied, you could become a > lawyer through three years of an undergraduate degree or one > year as a post graduate degree followed by a lot of on the > job practical training. I wonder whether all that debt is > worth it. Whether it induces people to pick jobs they have > to pick to pay their debt ranger than serve the people they > like to serve. Those are the problems I talk about in that > article.

words to the wise: don't invite lawsuits.

by devoply 10y ago

words to the wise: don't invite lawsuits.

So, don't have a corporation inside of the US. Okay. Hey MediaFire, go reincorporate in Ireland, seems to work wonders for everyone else.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
devoply 10y ago
not what i meant. i meant don't post your company's name claiming you always settle online.
cookiecaper 10y ago
You jest, but after my company was put out of business by a legal threat from a Fortune 100, I really do wish I had taken advantage of the ability to run it anonymously (collecting payment via something like bitcoin). Doing it above board didn't really get me anything valuable, and it made it easy for my enemies to locate and shut me down. These threats are regularly frivolous and unfair, but big companies have a habit of bullying smaller players with legal force. There is no way to win; either you spend millions on something with no value (a legal defense), or you comply/settle and get the aggressor to agree to back off. If you try to fight, you end up doing both when you go bankrupt 5 years into the proceedings. I only caught snippets of Judge Gorsuch's confirmation hearing, but it was awesome to hear him decry the evils of law school and the "ethics rules" that lawyers have installed for themselves, which he explicitly calls out as a money-making scheme responsible for over $10B+ in excess legal spending each year (somewhere around the 2.5 hour mark on the second day).
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  Don't underestimate how valuable the right to be sued is. If other people have no recourse if dealing with you goes badly, they'll naturally be reluctant to trust you.
  - rfrey 10y ago
    That might be true if your market is other businesses. The courts are largely closed to normal consumers though, because of cost and the perception that justice is for sale. I doubt many mainstream consumers consider "can I sue this company if things go south" when making a purchase.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      Personally, being in a UK, I consider "do I have enforceable consumer protection rights" when buying products online. That broadly amounts to "do they have a business address in the UK, contact info, are they active in promoting their business, perhaps do they have a physical shop", etc etc. I'd seriously avoid shopping where I couldn't contact the owners, unless I was doing something illegal (and therefore where I couldn't rely on my consumer rights) in the first place.
      - cookiecaper 10y ago
        That's part of the tradeoff that you accept when you operate anonymously. Of course it will turn some people off, and as a consumer, that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. But as a business owner, until you have enough money sitting around to tolerate a lawsuit ($5M-$10M), if you're in a market that is willing to tolerate it, it could be a very reasonable tradeoff.
        vertex-four 10y ago
        I really doubt that many businesses would make it to $5M sitting in the bank without ever allowing anyone to know who they are - or slipping up and getting caught. I can't think of who would spend money with such a business if there were any alternative, in countries with well-developed consumer protection systems.
  - olau 10y ago
    Except that if it comes to a lawsuit, almost everyone loses one way or another. Sensible people and companies build up trust gradually.
- twoodfin 10y ago
  "Decry the evils of law school"? I'm not sure what view you're ascribing to Judge Gorsuch. Surely he doesn't think law schools are evil.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Heh, clearly not the best description, gotta stop HNing at 4am. ;) His main point was that legal costs are out of control. One of the mentioned factors was that in the U.S., law school is 3 years, unlike most international law schools which are 2, and how it's sad that most law school graduates are unable to afford their own services. He discusses how the attorneys' self-imposed ethical rules contribute to the expense and prevent things that would improve the accessibility of legal services. I'll post a transcript of his answer when I get back to my workstation. On phone now. EDIT: Video link from the hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWRzx3gZK7M&start=14409 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWRzx3gZK7M&start=14409 Here's the transcript of his entire response to the question posed by Senator Cornyn according to C-SPAN's closed captioning (which is the only place I could find it recorded; lines and capitalization quickly corrected, please excuse any errors): > I really appreciate this opportunity to be talking about > these things. Because I -- these I care about and can talk > about as a judge. I wrote that article in conjunction with > some input from a lot of wonderful people, so I can't take > total credit for it. And I thanked them. My point there was > three fold. Starting with the fact that too few people can > get to court with legitimate grievances today. That's a > fact. Too few people can get lawyers to help them with their > problem. I teach young folks law, who leave law school > unable to afford their own services. Think about that. > think about that. And hundreds of thousands of dollars in > debt. How do they go be "Main Street" lawyers? How do they > help people who need legal services? And I pointed to three > potential sources of problems where we lawyers maybe should > look internally rather than blame others for the problem. > there is plenty of blame to go around. I'm not a big blame > guy. I am a look inside guy. What do I see in my profession. > three thing I pointed to, first, our own ethical rules. It > is a very unusual profession where we're allowed to regulate > ourselves. It is quite an extraordinary privilegefvilege > privilege, usually the legislature. Lawyers regulate > themselves. And do all of our rules help clients or do some > of them help us more than they help our clients? And i > point to some that for instance in regarding the > unauthorized practice of law, why is it you have to be a > lawyer to help parents with disabled children and > administrative proceedings to seek relief under idea? Was it > an example I pointed to. Why is it that every time certain > companies that provide online legal services for basic > things get sued every time they move into a new state? Why > is it I can go to walmart and get my hair, teeth, eyes, > taken care of, but I can't get a landlord tenant contract > drawn up. Those are all results of our ethical rules. I'm > not sure whether they're worth the price that we pay for > them. It is estimated I heard I can't verify it that our > ethical rules result in $10 billion a year surplus to > lawyers and clients every year. That was one. Number two > was our own rules and procedure which yield cases like the > one we talked about, took 25 years to resolve. That's > wrong. That's wrong. Should be able to resolve cases in > less time than it takes from my law clerks to be born, > raised and get through law school. And the third thing i > pointed to was our legal educational system. Where we have > three years of post graduate education for everybody who > wants to -- who have anything to do with lawyering. The > best lawyer in the country in this history came from your > state, senator durbin, he didn't ever go to law school. And > he always said the best way to become a lawyer, read the > books. Still true. And other countries around the world > don't have three years of post graduate legal education. > this is where justice scalia and I -- a disagreement, he > thought three years was necessary for everybody. I'm not > convinced. In england where I studied, you could become a > lawyer through three years of an undergraduate degree or one > year as a post graduate degree followed by a lot of on the > job practical training. I wonder whether all that debt is > worth it. Whether it induces people to pick jobs they have > to pick to pay their debt ranger than serve the people they > like to serve. Those are the problems I talk about in that > article.