6 ms·

I don’t question your motives in this instance, but I always pay extra attention when someone’s advice is to hire them or someone like them. Obviously, “hire a

I don’t question your motives in this instance, but I always pay extra attention when someone’s advice is to hire them or someone like them. Obviously, “hire a lawyer,” is sometimes right. But if I hired a lawyer every time I was told to, I would be out hundreds of hours of billing fees. Anecdotally, I’ve never fucked anything up royally. That doesn’t mean that I made the right decision, but is something I strive for. Spending $300-1000 on a consult every time I might need one is like taking an antibiotic every time I might have encountered a bacteria. It’s important to qualify and spend money when I actually need to rather than every time. It’s like those people who say “don’t criticize my book until you read it” (since that usually means that it makes them some money to have me buy their book). If I had to read every book to figure out if I should like it or not, that’s impossible. I need to develop effective evaluations and filters to prevent me from wasting my time and money.

user3939382 5y ago
> Spending $300-1000 on a consult every time I might need one Actually I’ve been surprised to find that many times even high priced attorneys are usually willing to spend 20-30 minutes+ giving you some general advice before even retaining them. I’ve gotten very valuable advice this way several times at no cost.
- uberman 5y ago
  This is my personal experience as well.
  - devoutsalsa 5y ago
    They need to due a little due diligence before taking you in as a client, such as assessing if your needs fall within their expertise and whether you will be a potentially profitable client. If you work as hard as you can to summarize your case to respect their time, as opposed to rambling like an incoherent crazy person, you can often get a free pointer on how to handle the case & maybe a referral to someone who is better prepared to assist you.
otterley 5y ago
I have no skin in this game. I just have experience. The outcome here could be that OP loses their domain name. If they just want to give it up, they don't have to hire an attorney. Easy answer. But if they do want to keep the domain name, when paid opposing counsel comes knocking at the door, they need to lawyer up, plain and simple.
- gitfan86 5y ago
  It isn't that simple. The burden of proof and the cost of filing suit is entirely on the people who own the .net domain. You can't lose a domain based off of a threatening email. I have received threaten letters before and have responded with "I dispute these claims. Please do not contact me again in any manner" and I never heard from them again. I don't know enough about the company sending the threatening letter here, so I can't say if that would work or not here, but it is very possible you don't need a lawyer.
  - otterley 5y ago
    > You can't lose a domain based off of a threatening email. Indeed, but if you take no action at all, the opposing counsel does take action, and you don't contest the action, then the default outcome could be a forced transfer of the domain.
    - gitfan86 5y ago
      So you agree that he doesn't need a lawyer at this junction. But if a lawsuit is filled, he will need to respond and request that the case be dismissed. Using a lawyer for that step isn't a bad idea. They are going to have a hard time finding a case that set a precedent that you can take over another company's website because you registered a similar company 5 years later. Lookup nissan.com
      - otterley 5y ago
        This is not legal advice, but I don't recommend waiting until a suit is filed. Hiring counsel early and figuring out how to respond to the initial notice can be important: it might keep the courts out of the dispute altogether (especially if the other side is on very weak grounds) and might increase the settlement amount (if any) should OP choose to settle and transfer the domain. There's more to this issue than just the naked law and legal procedure. Context matters, and experienced lawyers help you navigate situations. They're called "counsel" for a reason. :-)
nicbou 5y ago
In my experience, a lawyer will also nudge you towards whichever course involves keeping a lawyer involved. They'll never tell you "if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't keep going".
- nrook 5y ago
  My experience differs. I once had a legal dispute in which I was asked to sign away some additional rights in order to receive some money that I was owed anyway. My lawyer said, essentially, "you are in the right, but you aren't planning on using those rights anyway, so just sign the paper and get this over with." There are scrupulous and unscrupulous lawyers, much as in any profession.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > My lawyer said, essentially, "you are in the right, but you aren't planning on using those rights anyway, so just sign the paper and get this over with." There are situations where this is very good legal advice. Collecting things you are owed from people who don't want to give them up takes time and money (and involves risk), and even when it nominally works the systems intended to make you whole for the additional costs don't always, and especially often don't value time (both delay and the consumption of your personal time) as much as you do. A lawyer's job isn't just to advise you on what the law says you are entitled to, but more critically to do so on the course of action that will best achieve your interests given the pragmatics of the legal system.
- otterley 5y ago
  I'm sorry you had such an experience. Ethical lawyers will give you the best advice they can, which often includes "you are going to end up paying me way more than what's at stake here." (This literally just happened to me as a client over a land-sale-deposit dispute.) Or, "This is a turkey of a case and you should roll over. You owe me nothing."
  - datavirtue 5y ago
    I have gotten that advice from lawyers. I just kept hitting up new lawyers until I found one that saw things my way. Resulted in a windfall for me.
y4mi 5y ago
> Anecdotally, I’ve never fucked anything up royally. You're not necessarily wrong, but that's definitely a survivalship bias. You only need to lose once for a game over, so everyone still playing underestimates the stakes at play, as there is close to no interaction to people that have lost. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
- prepend 5y ago
  I agree. And it balances out the survivorship bias of “I always get a lawyer.” I’m not sure of a good way to balance out and correct for my bias other than just trying to think critically for when I need and don’t need a lawyer.
  - otterley 5y ago
    Which type of error do you feel more comfortable making? One type of error is paying a lawyer when you didn't need one, in which case, you're out $X. The other type of error is not paying a lawyer when you did need one, in which case, you're out $Y. In my experience, the values here are frequently $Y >>> $X. In the end, the choice is yours; you rolls your dice and takes your chances.
spockz 5y ago
Usually you have something like insurance for this. In Dutch it is called “rechtsbijstand” for private persons and pretty affordable. These are not necessarily the best lawyers obviously but they are backed by huge law firms. Probably the same exists for businesses but way more expensive. So it doesn’t need to be expensive to request the support of a lawyer.
- mosselman 5y ago
  "Rechtsbijstand" is dependent on certain conditions. Amongst which a minimum amount of financial damage. The "juridisch loket" is an organisation that provides free legal advice and is financed by the Dutch government. This is probably a better option in most cases.
mfrye0 5y ago
This. While I respect lawyers immensely, I think half the battle is deciding when to use a lawyer vs handling it yourself. With that said, this guy definitely needs to consult with a lawyer.
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
> Spending $300-1000 on a consult bruh consults are free, you're getting worked
- prepend 5y ago
  There are free consults, but then you aren’t their client. Paying for an hours time gets a more detailed consult and makes you a client that gives me more meaningful iformation and also some “work.”

user3939382 5y ago

> Spending $300-1000 on a consult every time I might need one Actually I’ve been surprised to find that many times even high priced attorneys are usually willing to spend 20-30 minutes+ giving you some general advice before even retaining them. I’ve gotten very valuable advice this way several times at no cost.

uberman 5y ago
This is my personal experience as well.
- devoutsalsa 5y ago
  They need to due a little due diligence before taking you in as a client, such as assessing if your needs fall within their expertise and whether you will be a potentially profitable client. If you work as hard as you can to summarize your case to respect their time, as opposed to rambling like an incoherent crazy person, you can often get a free pointer on how to handle the case & maybe a referral to someone who is better prepared to assist you.

otterley 5y ago

I have no skin in this game. I just have experience. The outcome here could be that OP loses their domain name. If they just want to give it up, they don't have to hire an attorney. Easy answer. But if they do want to keep the domain name, when paid opposing counsel comes knocking at the door, they need to lawyer up, plain and simple.

gitfan86 5y ago
It isn't that simple. The burden of proof and the cost of filing suit is entirely on the people who own the .net domain. You can't lose a domain based off of a threatening email. I have received threaten letters before and have responded with "I dispute these claims. Please do not contact me again in any manner" and I never heard from them again. I don't know enough about the company sending the threatening letter here, so I can't say if that would work or not here, but it is very possible you don't need a lawyer.
- otterley 5y ago
  > You can't lose a domain based off of a threatening email. Indeed, but if you take no action at all, the opposing counsel does take action, and you don't contest the action, then the default outcome could be a forced transfer of the domain.
  - gitfan86 5y ago
    So you agree that he doesn't need a lawyer at this junction. But if a lawsuit is filled, he will need to respond and request that the case be dismissed. Using a lawyer for that step isn't a bad idea. They are going to have a hard time finding a case that set a precedent that you can take over another company's website because you registered a similar company 5 years later. Lookup nissan.com
    - otterley 5y ago
      This is not legal advice, but I don't recommend waiting until a suit is filed. Hiring counsel early and figuring out how to respond to the initial notice can be important: it might keep the courts out of the dispute altogether (especially if the other side is on very weak grounds) and might increase the settlement amount (if any) should OP choose to settle and transfer the domain. There's more to this issue than just the naked law and legal procedure. Context matters, and experienced lawyers help you navigate situations. They're called "counsel" for a reason. :-)

nicbou 5y ago

In my experience, a lawyer will also nudge you towards whichever course involves keeping a lawyer involved. They'll never tell you "if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't keep going".

nrook 5y ago
My experience differs. I once had a legal dispute in which I was asked to sign away some additional rights in order to receive some money that I was owed anyway. My lawyer said, essentially, "you are in the right, but you aren't planning on using those rights anyway, so just sign the paper and get this over with." There are scrupulous and unscrupulous lawyers, much as in any profession.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > My lawyer said, essentially, "you are in the right, but you aren't planning on using those rights anyway, so just sign the paper and get this over with." There are situations where this is very good legal advice. Collecting things you are owed from people who don't want to give them up takes time and money (and involves risk), and even when it nominally works the systems intended to make you whole for the additional costs don't always, and especially often don't value time (both delay and the consumption of your personal time) as much as you do. A lawyer's job isn't just to advise you on what the law says you are entitled to, but more critically to do so on the course of action that will best achieve your interests given the pragmatics of the legal system.
otterley 5y ago
I'm sorry you had such an experience. Ethical lawyers will give you the best advice they can, which often includes "you are going to end up paying me way more than what's at stake here." (This literally just happened to me as a client over a land-sale-deposit dispute.) Or, "This is a turkey of a case and you should roll over. You owe me nothing."
- datavirtue 5y ago
  I have gotten that advice from lawyers. I just kept hitting up new lawyers until I found one that saw things my way. Resulted in a windfall for me.

y4mi 5y ago

> Anecdotally, I’ve never fucked anything up royally. You're not necessarily wrong, but that's definitely a survivalship bias. You only need to lose once for a game over, so everyone still playing underestimates the stakes at play, as there is close to no interaction to people that have lost. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

prepend 5y ago
I agree. And it balances out the survivorship bias of “I always get a lawyer.” I’m not sure of a good way to balance out and correct for my bias other than just trying to think critically for when I need and don’t need a lawyer.
- otterley 5y ago
  Which type of error do you feel more comfortable making? One type of error is paying a lawyer when you didn't need one, in which case, you're out $X. The other type of error is not paying a lawyer when you did need one, in which case, you're out $Y. In my experience, the values here are frequently $Y >>> $X. In the end, the choice is yours; you rolls your dice and takes your chances.

spockz 5y ago

Usually you have something like insurance for this. In Dutch it is called “rechtsbijstand” for private persons and pretty affordable. These are not necessarily the best lawyers obviously but they are backed by huge law firms. Probably the same exists for businesses but way more expensive. So it doesn’t need to be expensive to request the support of a lawyer.

mosselman 5y ago
"Rechtsbijstand" is dependent on certain conditions. Amongst which a minimum amount of financial damage. The "juridisch loket" is an organisation that provides free legal advice and is financed by the Dutch government. This is probably a better option in most cases.

mfrye0 5y ago

This. While I respect lawyers immensely, I think half the battle is deciding when to use a lawyer vs handling it yourself. With that said, this guy definitely needs to consult with a lawyer.

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

> Spending $300-1000 on a consult bruh consults are free, you're getting worked

prepend 5y ago
There are free consults, but then you aren’t their client. Paying for an hours time gets a more detailed consult and makes you a client that gives me more meaningful iformation and also some “work.”