6 ms·

One Inviolable Rule

94 points by marketer 18y ago

michael_dorfman 18y ago
Amen, brother. (I hate to post something that is essentially "+1", but in this case I think it really needs to be said.)
noonespecial 18y ago
Excellent advice. The law is not logical and the outcomes are not reasonable. This is a hard thing for the engineering mind to come to terms with given how much these seemingly random outcomes can affect peoples' lives. The law is a system that's nearly completely hacked at this point. Think of it as a RedHat linux 5.0 system with wuftp enabled that's been running on the net since '97. Do you really think that ls is still ls?
- rrf 18y ago
  Whilst I agree with Matt's advice, I disagree that the law is not logical. It is fundamentally logical and shares many of the ideas found in logic: evidence, probability, relevance, reasonableness, precedent, presumption, proof, explanation, plausability, etc. That legal outcomes are not always considered reasonable may be due more to the fallibility of a judge, jury, expert or process. Further, drafting a legal document and programming are not that disimilar.
  - raganwald 18y ago
    You know the expression "security theatre"? My cynical experience is that the part of the legal system that concerns evidence, probability, relevance, reasonableness, precedent, presumption, proof, explanation, plausability, etc is reason theatre. Although the decision may not always go to the side with the deepest pockets and the most theatrically convincing lawyers, that's the way to bet.
    - Eliezer 18y ago
      Hello, Raganwald, and welcome to my quotes file.
  - noonespecial 18y ago
    When you execute a program twice in a row, the same results are expected each time. When you execute a legal document twice, the same results both times would be fall-out-of-your-chair unexpected. Even simple, clear-cut legal documents like wills are at best, probability functions.
swombat 18y ago
Can I take your word for it that I should ask a lawyer for legal advice? I mean, you're not a lawyer? Why should I trust you?
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Don't trust me. Ask a lawyer. :)
  - volida 18y ago
    you can trust all lawyers the same way you can trust all programmers design mission-critical software you simply can't
maxklein 18y ago
Sometimes one just needs to know in general how the law looks like, and cannot be bothered to ask a lawyer. For example, let's say you want to know if it's legal to sleep with a 17 year old girl. You ask your friend who has experience with such things. You don't go calling up a lawyer straight away.. it makes you look suspicious.
- imgabe 18y ago
  If you were going to ask shady questions and worried about looking suspicious, a lawyer would at least be professionally bound to keep your inquiries confidential, your friend isn't.
- Eliezer 18y ago
  And your friend says "Sure" but he doesn't realize that the "age of consent" varies from state to state, because it seems to him like that logically ought to be a fixed number - in fact it's never occurred to him that it might vary - in fact he doesn't distinguish between federal and state law, just lives with "the law".
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Calling a lawyer only makes you look suspicious to the lawyer you called, who is legally prevented from doing anything about it. Also, he's probably seen worse. Let's say you ask your friend, he says it's ok (which he is absolutely certain is true) and you go ahead with the deed. I mean, she was totally hot, and looked like she was at least 20, so I understand. Then you find out the hard way that your friend was wrong. Now you're a registered sex offender (which I think is B.S., but that's beside the point). You spend the rest of your life paying dearly. Even if you were to assume going in that your friend is most lilkely right, the small possibility that he is wrong multiplied by the truly disastrous outcome makes it well-worth having just spoken to a lawyer. I don't know about you, but I'd gladly drop a couple hundred to prevent even a 1% chance of becoming a registered sex offender.
davidw 18y ago
I don't think it's so bad to ask after other people's experiences and advice as long as you keep in mind that 1) free advice is worth what you paid for it 2) who they are and what their credentials are. Someone who's started 5 successful companies probably does have some insight into the legal part of it, even though he's not a lawyer.
- michael_dorfman 18y ago
  But part of the insight they are likely to have is that every case is different and that the differences matter, and that the legal judgments are best left to a lawyer. Would you post a question here asking for medical advice?
  - davidw 18y ago
    This site isn't remotely about doctors or health, so obviously not. I don't believe every case is that different though, and there are some common threads, as can be seen in the recent advice-wanted article (LLC's are cheap and easy, definitely get a lawyer if there's more than one person). Would anyone here recommend that people use Cobol or Forth to make a web site with, unless the user has some really outlandish requirements? In other words, advice here may be good for getting the 'gist' of how things are or ought to be. Clearly, when you want to get serious, at that point you should consult a lawyer. For example, I think pretty much anyone can tell you that forming a partnership instead of an LLC or corporation is likely to be a bad idea, or that people aiming for investments are likely better off with a C corporation. Of course, there are lots of underlying details that need to be looked after by a professional. Furthermore, I like learning about this stuff, and it's not rocket science. Complex, in some cases, certainly, but this isn't a group of people that shys away from tough or complex things. The important thing is to keep in mind that we aren't experts in it, simply learners.
    - michael_dorfman 18y ago
      I hear what you're saying, and I understand the desire to tackle complex and tough things-- but some things are best left to professionals, believe me. I can think of a few times where a lack of proper legal advice cost me more than a million dollars. Once burned, twice shy.
rob_rasmussen 18y ago
Well said. Jack Sheridan's talk at startup school (http://omnisio.com/startupschool08/jack-sheridan http://omnisio.com/startupschool08/jack-sheridan, a good talk that's not a sales pitch) was an eye-opener for me -- I've become much more disciplined about simply documenting agreements.
asif 18y ago
Black and white statements such as this are almost always wrong. While I would never trust a non-lawyer's legal advice over a lawyer's legal advice, there could certainly exist a person in the world whom I trust more than any given lawyer, that also has an experience pertinent to my situation. You'd be foolish to bypass that person's opinion. Just take it with the knowledge that that person isn't a lawyer.
- ph0rque 18y ago
  > Black and white statements such as this are almost always wrong. Good thing you included the word "almost"... :~)
  - asif 18y ago
    I can, without hesitation, proclaim that eating children is categorically wrong.
    - PStamatiou 18y ago
      in our culture. in others not..
      - ph0rque 18y ago
        and our species... I eat (potential) baby chickens for breakfast almost every day.
        Tichy 18y ago
        murderer!
        ph0rque 18y ago
        Well, in my culture, this is acceptable; I'm considered a consumer in that regard.
      - 18y ago
Tichy 18y ago
Problem: can lawyers be trusted? They can easily tell me that I need to spend infinite amount of money on them. I might spend all my money on lawyers without ever getting any product off the ground. I see how much money is wasted on IT consultants, why should it be different with lawyers? Except with IT consultants I can tell when shit is happening, with lawyers I can't.
- gaius 18y ago
  Lawyers are perfectly well aware that a) if they try to screw you, another lawyer will happily screw them right back on your behalf and b) their social position is precarious enough as it is; no jury would convict an anti-lawyer lynch mob.
  - Tichy 18y ago
    I don't think they would screw me as in doing illegal stuff to me. Just waste my time and money.
  - tstegart 18y ago
    Unfortunately, this is a legitimate concern. You can't really sue someone for giving you subpar legal advice. It has to be really, really bad. And you would be surprised at how rare it is for a lawyer to lose a malpractice case. Doctors, sure, lawyers, not so much. It turns out that juries actually respect the work lawyers do when you get them in a courtroom. On the plus side, if you really do get screwed, a lot of states have funds set up to compensate you. But if you pay for some legal work that might not have been completely necessary, you're on your own.
  - sethg 18y ago
    I don't think lawyers are inclined to go after their bretheren this way, but I do think lawyers get a lot of business through referrals, and clients who don't feel like they've been screwed will refer friends and colleagues. This would be particularly important in corporate law for small businesses, where the lawyers have ongoing relationships with clients (as opposed to, say, personal injury law, where some guy hit by a truck picks an attorney out of the Yellow Pages and may never deal with the lawyer after that case is resolved). Of course, I'm making suppositions based on my knowledge of economics. Maybe I should consult an economist.
volida 18y ago
youtube founders managed to exploit a law for their growth and they werent lawyers. almost certainly they must have asked for professional opinion, but equally certainly if they weren't sufficiently aware of the legal knowledge required they probably wouldn't have exploit it.
- icey 18y ago
  When I see arguments like this, I can't help but think that the thought process is akin to: "I don't get into car accidents, so I shouldn't have to wear a seat belt."
  - volida 18y ago
    my point was exactly the opposite. That although you may be aware of the law and aid your thinking is good to take professional legal advice..
  - LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
    I see this a bit more like the motorcycle helmet laws in some states: they're not required, but a very very good idea.
edw519 18y ago
Like anyone else, when I read the title of this post, I guessed what the rule was before I reached it. My guess for the one inviolable rule was, "Have enough cash to pay your bills each month or die." Could there possibly be two inviolable rules?
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  I know some people who have lived for many years without even once having enough cash to pay their bills.
  - MaysonL 18y ago
    I personally went for almost a year once, this century, without spending a penny.
michael_nielsen 18y ago
Summarizing many of the comments and the linked post, it seems the only good legal question to ask on HN is "how can I find a lawyer I can trust?"
- kylec 18y ago
  The only 100% way is to become your own lawyer. Barring that, the best thing to do is educate yourself and research the area in which you need legal advice. Once you can get a feel for the intricacies of the situation the less you'll have to blindly trust the advice of your lawyer.
  - uuilly 18y ago
    This is very impractical advice. A good lawyer, like a good VC, is not out to "screw" you. They want to see your company get really big and give them steady M&A business for the next 30 years. Only choosing a non-sharky Lawyer is much easier than a non-sharky VC. Go to some reputable law firms, tell them about your company, listen to them, and go with the one you like. If you haven't figured this out yet then it probably means that you have very little to be "screwed" out of anyways so you won't have to worry about them doing that. Mentally masturbating over legal issues you'll never understand in a bootstrapped startup is just as impractical as not trusting landlords and insisting on building your own office. If done right you will get a rough feel for legal issues as you go. And it will come from your lawyers.
dhimes 18y ago
It's really experience that matters here. Lawyers go through a lot of schooling to learn how to examine your situation and come up with the right answer I guess that's relative. As far as graduate programs go, the law degree isn't really that long. They have probably haven't had many specialized courses; their expertise will come from experience. Often, the work that's done in their office is done by someone without much training at all. You learn about business entities and how to form them in a sophomore undergraduate class. But while the law can be hacked, it is rather complicated. Whether or not the person you asked had an understanding of precedents in your particular area would be a key factor in getting a quality response.
- linhir 18y ago
  This is a classic underestimation of the expertise afforded by non-PhD graduate programs. Three years is a fair length when compares to quite a few graduate programs. Expertise does come through experience, like in almost anything else, but I am hesitant to accept the ease with which you wipe away legal education's value. Many of the comments here are underestimating the technical (although perhaps not technological) training a lawyer receives, at least a good one. If you look at the first year of law school, it is often about learning how to think like a lawyer. That, to respond to the comment below, is logical thinking, but within the legal system. Legal research, even the use of LexisNexis or Westlaw is an ability not easily mastered by the novice, no matter how brilliant their startup idea or programming acumen. The truth is that almost everyone underestimates the difficulty of other's expertise. I could point to (hundreds of) thousands of blog posts about individuals who think it is easy to whip up a good website, program, etc and how stupid those people are. The parallel to that is programmers who think the law is easy. Matt's key point, to address other comments, at least in my view, is not necessarily that you have to go to a lawyer when you have no money, but 1) when you have some money, go to a good lawyer and 2) know that you're ignorant. Know that you, your friends, the people you often talk to, likely have no idea what they are talking about where the law is concerned, and do not under any circumstance forget 1) because you did not realize 2).
  - dhimes 18y ago
    Ummm... The length of the JD, a doctorate, is 3 years; Ph.D.s tend to be 4 or 5 (or 6 or ...), and an MD, 4. Short of someone who's done all three degrees, my estimate is probably pretty good. I had room-mates and friends in graduate school (Ph.D.) who were law students, and a friend of mine went on to get a JD after his Ph.D. My wife is an MD. You could say I have a bit of knowledge about this. Perhaps you didn't mean to reply to my post, but rather to someone else's. I am not saying the law is easy, I'm saying that being a lawyer is not enough of a qualification for getting your hard questions answered. Experience matters. Consider accounting: you can do the numbers yourself, but an experienced accountant can bring more to the table than just how to classify expenses. (You could, of course, make the same arguments for the other degrees in various situations.)
rokhayakebe 18y ago
The audience does not ask legal questions related to marriage or asset management or mortgage. Their questions are startup related and they know a few entrepreneurs have already been through a similar situation and it makes sense to ask, but one should always consult a lawyer before making their final decision. If you go to parenting site they ask questions about the best schools and those who answer are not teachers. Visit teenagers sites and you will see a lot of questions from young girls who are very confused with their bodies and want medical advices, those who answer are not doctors.
mechanical_fish 18y ago
The problem with this "inviolable rule" is that it's circular: if you have a legal question, you should ask a lawyer, and only a lawyer I agree, but what is a "legal question"? Only lawyers are qualified to answer that! Many of those who pose legal questions to the web, rather than to a lawyer, do so because they don't recognize that their question crosses the boundary where they need a lawyer. It's not as if such edge cases are particularly rare, nor are they easy to resolve. Every post that I make to news.YC is a potential libel action; every quote that I cut and paste could be the subject of a copyright suit. (Just ask the folks who post about Scientology... and note that I just substantially increased my legal risk, and YCs, by using the word 'Scientology' in this context. Perhaps my lawyer would have suggested a different example...) Everyone who writes software tiptoes around legal issues of patent and copyright. Should I consult lawyers every time I use Pastie? Everyone who downloads a piece of software risks a lawsuit. Click a link that installs Firefox: legal. Click a link that installs a P2P client? Depends on what you do with it. What about HD-DVD ripping software? If I install it, am I committing a crime? Yes, the ultimate arbiter of all of these issues should be a lawyer. I'm certainly not qualified. But we can't afford to pay lawyers every single day. In the end, we all have to develop our own sense of when we need professional legal advice and when we don't -- and the web is helpful for that, even though any individual anecdote (even the ones told by bona fide lawyers!) may be unreliable or inapplicable to your individual situation.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  "I agree, but what is a "legal question"? Only lawyers are qualified to answer that!" I don't think you need a lawyer to know what's a legal question. Should I incorporate and if so, what type of entity is obviously one. What should be in my terms and conditions? Etc.
  - river_styx 18y ago
    How can you be sure that any question related to your business doesn't have legal implications before first talking to a lawyer? You just gave examples of questions which obviously do require legal counsel, but what about examples of those which obviously don't?
Locke 18y ago
"...if you have a legal question, you should ask a lawyer, and only a lawyer" [emphasis mine] Because lawyers are magic people who never make mistakes? Who are completely trustworthy? Because the act of simply discussing a legal matter with friends will somehow cause irreparable harm? I'm leery whenever someone tells me what I can and can't discuss with whom. Let's say I'm having car trouble. I'm not stupid, I know I'm going to have to take it to a mechanic. But, first I discuss the problem with some friends and family. I get a couple uninformed opinions on what it might be, what it might cost to fix, etc. When I take the car into a mechanic am I worse off for getting a few uninformed opinions?
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  There's a tremendous difference in likely possible outcomes between getting bad advice about a car and bad advice about the law. It's more akin to feeling a sharp pain in your chest and asking a friend rather than a doctor.
  - Locke 18y ago
    You mean to say that every legal issue is life and death? There's no variability? There are no minor legal issues? I should consult a lawyer about, say, a parking ticket?
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      All chest pains are not a matter of life and death. Some are, others are simply indigestion. The only way to find out with any degree of certainty if yours is would be to call a doctor.
    - Locke 18y ago
      It occurs to me that I've strayed from the point I wanted to make. I'm not arguing that advice from non-lawyers can or should be used as a replacement for a lawyer's advice. I'm arguing against the idea that advice from non-lawyers is worthless and should be avoided at all costs.
gills 18y ago
Your rule is a good one, mattmaroon. I agree with it. Unfortunately, you've tripped on Paul Buchheit's rule. You are overgeneralizing from your own risk profile. There may be some real cowboys on HN who are optimizing for different values and may be willing to accept significantly more legal risk in their lives in the process of launching their businesses. (I'm not one of them.)
yters 18y ago
Heh, I like the first absolute rule. It's obviously in response to the ID/'evolution' debate, and consequently says absolutely nothing since neither side argues evolution (broadly defined as change of species over time) doesn't happen. The only argument is about what mechanisms can be considered scientific explanations. If you don't believe me, read what the key ID thinkers actually say, instead of what the media says they say. The ID people explicitly make this point in Expelled. So, even though Matt picks out this position to show his clear thinking skills in a controversial matter, it doesn't really pick out a controversial position. Matt's position on evolution is just empty rhetoric for those who don't know the debate. Alternatively, Matt doesn't get it either.
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Somewhere there is a lawyer board where right now posters are asking "So If I wanted to form a startup for legal advice, is there some kind of web thingy I might need for that?"

94 points by marketer 18y ago

Amen, brother. (I hate to post something that is essentially "+1", but in this case I think it really needs to be said.)

noonespecial 18y ago

Excellent advice. The law is not logical and the outcomes are not reasonable. This is a hard thing for the engineering mind to come to terms with given how much these seemingly random outcomes can affect peoples' lives. The law is a system that's nearly completely hacked at this point. Think of it as a RedHat linux 5.0 system with wuftp enabled that's been running on the net since '97. Do you really think that ls is still ls?

rrf 18y ago
Whilst I agree with Matt's advice, I disagree that the law is not logical. It is fundamentally logical and shares many of the ideas found in logic: evidence, probability, relevance, reasonableness, precedent, presumption, proof, explanation, plausability, etc. That legal outcomes are not always considered reasonable may be due more to the fallibility of a judge, jury, expert or process. Further, drafting a legal document and programming are not that disimilar.
- raganwald 18y ago
  You know the expression "security theatre"? My cynical experience is that the part of the legal system that concerns evidence, probability, relevance, reasonableness, precedent, presumption, proof, explanation, plausability, etc is reason theatre. Although the decision may not always go to the side with the deepest pockets and the most theatrically convincing lawyers, that's the way to bet.
  - Eliezer 18y ago
    Hello, Raganwald, and welcome to my quotes file.
- noonespecial 18y ago
  When you execute a program twice in a row, the same results are expected each time. When you execute a legal document twice, the same results both times would be fall-out-of-your-chair unexpected. Even simple, clear-cut legal documents like wills are at best, probability functions.

swombat 18y ago

Can I take your word for it that I should ask a lawyer for legal advice? I mean, you're not a lawyer? Why should I trust you?

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
mattmaroon 18y ago
Don't trust me. Ask a lawyer. :)
- volida 18y ago
  you can trust all lawyers the same way you can trust all programmers design mission-critical software you simply can't

maxklein 18y ago

Sometimes one just needs to know in general how the law looks like, and cannot be bothered to ask a lawyer. For example, let's say you want to know if it's legal to sleep with a 17 year old girl. You ask your friend who has experience with such things. You don't go calling up a lawyer straight away.. it makes you look suspicious.

imgabe 18y ago
If you were going to ask shady questions and worried about looking suspicious, a lawyer would at least be professionally bound to keep your inquiries confidential, your friend isn't.
Eliezer 18y ago
And your friend says "Sure" but he doesn't realize that the "age of consent" varies from state to state, because it seems to him like that logically ought to be a fixed number - in fact it's never occurred to him that it might vary - in fact he doesn't distinguish between federal and state law, just lives with "the law".
mattmaroon 18y ago
Calling a lawyer only makes you look suspicious to the lawyer you called, who is legally prevented from doing anything about it. Also, he's probably seen worse. Let's say you ask your friend, he says it's ok (which he is absolutely certain is true) and you go ahead with the deed. I mean, she was totally hot, and looked like she was at least 20, so I understand. Then you find out the hard way that your friend was wrong. Now you're a registered sex offender (which I think is B.S., but that's beside the point). You spend the rest of your life paying dearly. Even if you were to assume going in that your friend is most lilkely right, the small possibility that he is wrong multiplied by the truly disastrous outcome makes it well-worth having just spoken to a lawyer. I don't know about you, but I'd gladly drop a couple hundred to prevent even a 1% chance of becoming a registered sex offender.

davidw 18y ago

I don't think it's so bad to ask after other people's experiences and advice as long as you keep in mind that 1) free advice is worth what you paid for it 2) who they are and what their credentials are. Someone who's started 5 successful companies probably does have some insight into the legal part of it, even though he's not a lawyer.

michael_dorfman 18y ago
But part of the insight they are likely to have is that every case is different and that the differences matter, and that the legal judgments are best left to a lawyer. Would you post a question here asking for medical advice?
- davidw 18y ago
  This site isn't remotely about doctors or health, so obviously not. I don't believe every case is that different though, and there are some common threads, as can be seen in the recent advice-wanted article (LLC's are cheap and easy, definitely get a lawyer if there's more than one person). Would anyone here recommend that people use Cobol or Forth to make a web site with, unless the user has some really outlandish requirements? In other words, advice here may be good for getting the 'gist' of how things are or ought to be. Clearly, when you want to get serious, at that point you should consult a lawyer. For example, I think pretty much anyone can tell you that forming a partnership instead of an LLC or corporation is likely to be a bad idea, or that people aiming for investments are likely better off with a C corporation. Of course, there are lots of underlying details that need to be looked after by a professional. Furthermore, I like learning about this stuff, and it's not rocket science. Complex, in some cases, certainly, but this isn't a group of people that shys away from tough or complex things. The important thing is to keep in mind that we aren't experts in it, simply learners.
  - michael_dorfman 18y ago
    I hear what you're saying, and I understand the desire to tackle complex and tough things-- but some things are best left to professionals, believe me. I can think of a few times where a lack of proper legal advice cost me more than a million dollars. Once burned, twice shy.

rob_rasmussen 18y ago

Well said. Jack Sheridan's talk at startup school (http://omnisio.com/startupschool08/jack-sheridan http://omnisio.com/startupschool08/jack-sheridan, a good talk that's not a sales pitch) was an eye-opener for me -- I've become much more disciplined about simply documenting agreements.

asif 18y ago

Black and white statements such as this are almost always wrong. While I would never trust a non-lawyer's legal advice over a lawyer's legal advice, there could certainly exist a person in the world whom I trust more than any given lawyer, that also has an experience pertinent to my situation. You'd be foolish to bypass that person's opinion. Just take it with the knowledge that that person isn't a lawyer.

ph0rque 18y ago
> Black and white statements such as this are almost always wrong. Good thing you included the word "almost"... :~)
- asif 18y ago
  I can, without hesitation, proclaim that eating children is categorically wrong.
  - PStamatiou 18y ago
    in our culture. in others not..
    - ph0rque 18y ago
      and our species... I eat (potential) baby chickens for breakfast almost every day.
      - Tichy 18y ago
        murderer!
        ph0rque 18y ago
        Well, in my culture, this is acceptable; I'm considered a consumer in that regard.
    - 18y ago

Tichy 18y ago

Problem: can lawyers be trusted? They can easily tell me that I need to spend infinite amount of money on them. I might spend all my money on lawyers without ever getting any product off the ground. I see how much money is wasted on IT consultants, why should it be different with lawyers? Except with IT consultants I can tell when shit is happening, with lawyers I can't.

gaius 18y ago
Lawyers are perfectly well aware that a) if they try to screw you, another lawyer will happily screw them right back on your behalf and b) their social position is precarious enough as it is; no jury would convict an anti-lawyer lynch mob.
- Tichy 18y ago
  I don't think they would screw me as in doing illegal stuff to me. Just waste my time and money.
- tstegart 18y ago
  Unfortunately, this is a legitimate concern. You can't really sue someone for giving you subpar legal advice. It has to be really, really bad. And you would be surprised at how rare it is for a lawyer to lose a malpractice case. Doctors, sure, lawyers, not so much. It turns out that juries actually respect the work lawyers do when you get them in a courtroom. On the plus side, if you really do get screwed, a lot of states have funds set up to compensate you. But if you pay for some legal work that might not have been completely necessary, you're on your own.
- sethg 18y ago
  I don't think lawyers are inclined to go after their bretheren this way, but I do think lawyers get a lot of business through referrals, and clients who don't feel like they've been screwed will refer friends and colleagues. This would be particularly important in corporate law for small businesses, where the lawyers have ongoing relationships with clients (as opposed to, say, personal injury law, where some guy hit by a truck picks an attorney out of the Yellow Pages and may never deal with the lawyer after that case is resolved). Of course, I'm making suppositions based on my knowledge of economics. Maybe I should consult an economist.

volida 18y ago

youtube founders managed to exploit a law for their growth and they werent lawyers. almost certainly they must have asked for professional opinion, but equally certainly if they weren't sufficiently aware of the legal knowledge required they probably wouldn't have exploit it.

icey 18y ago
When I see arguments like this, I can't help but think that the thought process is akin to: "I don't get into car accidents, so I shouldn't have to wear a seat belt."
- volida 18y ago
  my point was exactly the opposite. That although you may be aware of the law and aid your thinking is good to take professional legal advice..
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
  I see this a bit more like the motorcycle helmet laws in some states: they're not required, but a very very good idea.

edw519 18y ago

Like anyone else, when I read the title of this post, I guessed what the rule was before I reached it. My guess for the one inviolable rule was, "Have enough cash to pay your bills each month or die." Could there possibly be two inviolable rules?

mattmaroon 18y ago
I know some people who have lived for many years without even once having enough cash to pay their bills.
- MaysonL 18y ago
  I personally went for almost a year once, this century, without spending a penny.

michael_nielsen 18y ago

Summarizing many of the comments and the linked post, it seems the only good legal question to ask on HN is "how can I find a lawyer I can trust?"

kylec 18y ago
The only 100% way is to become your own lawyer. Barring that, the best thing to do is educate yourself and research the area in which you need legal advice. Once you can get a feel for the intricacies of the situation the less you'll have to blindly trust the advice of your lawyer.
- uuilly 18y ago
  This is very impractical advice. A good lawyer, like a good VC, is not out to "screw" you. They want to see your company get really big and give them steady M&A business for the next 30 years. Only choosing a non-sharky Lawyer is much easier than a non-sharky VC. Go to some reputable law firms, tell them about your company, listen to them, and go with the one you like. If you haven't figured this out yet then it probably means that you have very little to be "screwed" out of anyways so you won't have to worry about them doing that. Mentally masturbating over legal issues you'll never understand in a bootstrapped startup is just as impractical as not trusting landlords and insisting on building your own office. If done right you will get a rough feel for legal issues as you go. And it will come from your lawyers.

dhimes 18y ago

It's really experience that matters here. Lawyers go through a lot of schooling to learn how to examine your situation and come up with the right answer I guess that's relative. As far as graduate programs go, the law degree isn't really that long. They have probably haven't had many specialized courses; their expertise will come from experience. Often, the work that's done in their office is done by someone without much training at all. You learn about business entities and how to form them in a sophomore undergraduate class. But while the law can be hacked, it is rather complicated. Whether or not the person you asked had an understanding of precedents in your particular area would be a key factor in getting a quality response.

linhir 18y ago
This is a classic underestimation of the expertise afforded by non-PhD graduate programs. Three years is a fair length when compares to quite a few graduate programs. Expertise does come through experience, like in almost anything else, but I am hesitant to accept the ease with which you wipe away legal education's value. Many of the comments here are underestimating the technical (although perhaps not technological) training a lawyer receives, at least a good one. If you look at the first year of law school, it is often about learning how to think like a lawyer. That, to respond to the comment below, is logical thinking, but within the legal system. Legal research, even the use of LexisNexis or Westlaw is an ability not easily mastered by the novice, no matter how brilliant their startup idea or programming acumen. The truth is that almost everyone underestimates the difficulty of other's expertise. I could point to (hundreds of) thousands of blog posts about individuals who think it is easy to whip up a good website, program, etc and how stupid those people are. The parallel to that is programmers who think the law is easy. Matt's key point, to address other comments, at least in my view, is not necessarily that you have to go to a lawyer when you have no money, but 1) when you have some money, go to a good lawyer and 2) know that you're ignorant. Know that you, your friends, the people you often talk to, likely have no idea what they are talking about where the law is concerned, and do not under any circumstance forget 1) because you did not realize 2).
- dhimes 18y ago
  Ummm... The length of the JD, a doctorate, is 3 years; Ph.D.s tend to be 4 or 5 (or 6 or ...), and an MD, 4. Short of someone who's done all three degrees, my estimate is probably pretty good. I had room-mates and friends in graduate school (Ph.D.) who were law students, and a friend of mine went on to get a JD after his Ph.D. My wife is an MD. You could say I have a bit of knowledge about this. Perhaps you didn't mean to reply to my post, but rather to someone else's. I am not saying the law is easy, I'm saying that being a lawyer is not enough of a qualification for getting your hard questions answered. Experience matters. Consider accounting: you can do the numbers yourself, but an experienced accountant can bring more to the table than just how to classify expenses. (You could, of course, make the same arguments for the other degrees in various situations.)

rokhayakebe 18y ago

The audience does not ask legal questions related to marriage or asset management or mortgage. Their questions are startup related and they know a few entrepreneurs have already been through a similar situation and it makes sense to ask, but one should always consult a lawyer before making their final decision. If you go to parenting site they ask questions about the best schools and those who answer are not teachers. Visit teenagers sites and you will see a lot of questions from young girls who are very confused with their bodies and want medical advices, those who answer are not doctors.

mechanical_fish 18y ago

The problem with this "inviolable rule" is that it's circular: if you have a legal question, you should ask a lawyer, and only a lawyer I agree, but what is a "legal question"? Only lawyers are qualified to answer that! Many of those who pose legal questions to the web, rather than to a lawyer, do so because they don't recognize that their question crosses the boundary where they need a lawyer. It's not as if such edge cases are particularly rare, nor are they easy to resolve. Every post that I make to news.YC is a potential libel action; every quote that I cut and paste could be the subject of a copyright suit. (Just ask the folks who post about Scientology... and note that I just substantially increased my legal risk, and YCs, by using the word 'Scientology' in this context. Perhaps my lawyer would have suggested a different example...) Everyone who writes software tiptoes around legal issues of patent and copyright. Should I consult lawyers every time I use Pastie? Everyone who downloads a piece of software risks a lawsuit. Click a link that installs Firefox: legal. Click a link that installs a P2P client? Depends on what you do with it. What about HD-DVD ripping software? If I install it, am I committing a crime? Yes, the ultimate arbiter of all of these issues should be a lawyer. I'm certainly not qualified. But we can't afford to pay lawyers every single day. In the end, we all have to develop our own sense of when we need professional legal advice and when we don't -- and the web is helpful for that, even though any individual anecdote (even the ones told by bona fide lawyers!) may be unreliable or inapplicable to your individual situation.

mattmaroon 18y ago
"I agree, but what is a "legal question"? Only lawyers are qualified to answer that!" I don't think you need a lawyer to know what's a legal question. Should I incorporate and if so, what type of entity is obviously one. What should be in my terms and conditions? Etc.
- river_styx 18y ago
  How can you be sure that any question related to your business doesn't have legal implications before first talking to a lawyer? You just gave examples of questions which obviously do require legal counsel, but what about examples of those which obviously don't?

Locke 18y ago

"...if you have a legal question, you should ask a lawyer, and only a lawyer" [emphasis mine] Because lawyers are magic people who never make mistakes? Who are completely trustworthy? Because the act of simply discussing a legal matter with friends will somehow cause irreparable harm? I'm leery whenever someone tells me what I can and can't discuss with whom. Let's say I'm having car trouble. I'm not stupid, I know I'm going to have to take it to a mechanic. But, first I discuss the problem with some friends and family. I get a couple uninformed opinions on what it might be, what it might cost to fix, etc. When I take the car into a mechanic am I worse off for getting a few uninformed opinions?

mattmaroon 18y ago
There's a tremendous difference in likely possible outcomes between getting bad advice about a car and bad advice about the law. It's more akin to feeling a sharp pain in your chest and asking a friend rather than a doctor.
- Locke 18y ago
  You mean to say that every legal issue is life and death? There's no variability? There are no minor legal issues? I should consult a lawyer about, say, a parking ticket?
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    All chest pains are not a matter of life and death. Some are, others are simply indigestion. The only way to find out with any degree of certainty if yours is would be to call a doctor.
  - Locke 18y ago
    It occurs to me that I've strayed from the point I wanted to make. I'm not arguing that advice from non-lawyers can or should be used as a replacement for a lawyer's advice. I'm arguing against the idea that advice from non-lawyers is worthless and should be avoided at all costs.

gills 18y ago

Your rule is a good one, mattmaroon. I agree with it. Unfortunately, you've tripped on Paul Buchheit's rule. You are overgeneralizing from your own risk profile. There may be some real cowboys on HN who are optimizing for different values and may be willing to accept significantly more legal risk in their lives in the process of launching their businesses. (I'm not one of them.)

yters 18y ago

Heh, I like the first absolute rule. It's obviously in response to the ID/'evolution' debate, and consequently says absolutely nothing since neither side argues evolution (broadly defined as change of species over time) doesn't happen. The only argument is about what mechanisms can be considered scientific explanations. If you don't believe me, read what the key ID thinkers actually say, instead of what the media says they say. The ID people explicitly make this point in Expelled. So, even though Matt picks out this position to show his clear thinking skills in a controversial matter, it doesn't really pick out a controversial position. Matt's position on evolution is just empty rhetoric for those who don't know the debate. Alternatively, Matt doesn't get it either.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

Somewhere there is a lawyer board where right now posters are asking "So If I wanted to form a startup for legal advice, is there some kind of web thingy I might need for that?"