4 ms·

I'm also a lawyer. The things that caught my attention were the embarrassing misspelling of the word "damning" as "damming," and the fact that this was drafted

I'm also a lawyer. The things that caught my attention were the embarrassing misspelling of the word "damning" as "damming," and the fact that this was drafted and filed by a specialty boutique law firm (Clare Locke LLP) - I'd have expected a company with Ubiquiti's resources to bring out the big guns with a white-shoe Washington-area firm. Makes me wonder if the company is on the skids.

at-fates-hands 5y ago
I guess they filed in VA because they have no anti-SLAPP laws there so they didn't necessarily have their pick of firms: Via Twitter, T. Greg Doucette, a criminal defense attorney and former computer scientist, opined that Ubiquiti's lawsuit would be considered an attempt to suppress lawful speech – a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP – in states that have anti-SLAPP laws. "It's a SLAPP: the coverage by Brian Krebs was substantially true and/or First-Amendment-protected opinion, and the lawsuit basically admits it in the text itself," Doucette wrote. "But Ubiquiti intentionally filed in Virginia, because there's no anti-SLAPP statute there." ® https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/30/ubiquiti_brian_krebs/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/30/ubiquiti_brian_krebs/
- otterley 5y ago
  VA is right next to DC; there is no shortage of white-shoe counsel in the state.
  - DannyBee 5y ago
    To be fair, Clare Locke specializes in defamation. They are counsel for dominion in the suit against sidney powell. They are counsel for shotspotter against Vice Media. etc They actually appear to have sued a lot of media companies at a glance. But it's hard to tell. I think it would be more accurate to say "if you want to sue someone for defamation, they'll do it as long as it's not a conflict" :) (IE they don't seem to be particularly pro or against anything). It seems like a reasonable firm to hire for defamation if your goal is something like "get people to retract claim/apologize or go at them legally until they do". But to your point, it's definitely not the "bury them/grind them to dust with a million lawyers" they would get at a large law firm.
- DannyBee 5y ago
  This is not quite correct, AFAIK. https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-guide/virginia/ https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-guide/virginia/ It's true it's not the "motion gets ruled on within 15 days, before discovery" type of anti-slapp you see elsewhere, but it's not "no anti-SLAPP"
  - DannyBee 5y ago
    In fact, my guess is all the commentators thinking VA is about anti-SLAPP are wrong. My guess is VA is about some state-specific cases or interpretations of defamation law around corporations they thought were more favorable to them (i'm barred in DC and MD, but my recollection is that VA has some) They were going to face a relatively fast motion to dismiss in any state. What really will matter is how favorable the state views the defamation-against-corporation claim, whether it has an anti-SLAPP law or not. If the state views it as strong, anti-SLAPP wouldn't matter because it would survive. If the state views it as weak, anti-SLAPP may kill it a little earlier but it will still go badly for them quickly. The only practical advantage to the anti-SLAPP for defendants like this is that A. you often can get a faster hearing B. you often have guarantees around damages for bad-faith claims. anti-SLAPP is much more useful when it's david vs goliath, and the small guy either needs a hearing in a week or two or ends up bankrupt from lawyer fees.
fleshdaddy 5y ago
I don’t know much about how law firms operate but could it be that the big fancy firms wouldn’t want this case if they think it’s a losing one? If they possibly considered it a “free speech” type case that wouldn’t fly in most states like the other commenter mentioned could they be concerned about their reputation?
- bombcar 5y ago
  That's what I think - the big firms are perfectly capable of filing lawsuits that are just on this side of frivolous, but they will charge quite well for that. The smaller firms are more likely to be willing to say "eh, it's your funeral".
- inopinatus 5y ago
  Maybe someone high up in Ubiquiti got their ego bruised and the action is internal bully appeasement, not actually intended to succeed.
  - physhster 5y ago
    That's what it sounds like, not that you say it...

at-fates-hands 5y ago

I guess they filed in VA because they have no anti-SLAPP laws there so they didn't necessarily have their pick of firms: Via Twitter, T. Greg Doucette, a criminal defense attorney and former computer scientist, opined that Ubiquiti's lawsuit would be considered an attempt to suppress lawful speech – a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP – in states that have anti-SLAPP laws. "It's a SLAPP: the coverage by Brian Krebs was substantially true and/or First-Amendment-protected opinion, and the lawsuit basically admits it in the text itself," Doucette wrote. "But Ubiquiti intentionally filed in Virginia, because there's no anti-SLAPP statute there." ® https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/30/ubiquiti_brian_krebs/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/30/ubiquiti_brian_krebs/

otterley 5y ago
VA is right next to DC; there is no shortage of white-shoe counsel in the state.
- DannyBee 5y ago
  To be fair, Clare Locke specializes in defamation. They are counsel for dominion in the suit against sidney powell. They are counsel for shotspotter against Vice Media. etc They actually appear to have sued a lot of media companies at a glance. But it's hard to tell. I think it would be more accurate to say "if you want to sue someone for defamation, they'll do it as long as it's not a conflict" :) (IE they don't seem to be particularly pro or against anything). It seems like a reasonable firm to hire for defamation if your goal is something like "get people to retract claim/apologize or go at them legally until they do". But to your point, it's definitely not the "bury them/grind them to dust with a million lawyers" they would get at a large law firm.
DannyBee 5y ago
This is not quite correct, AFAIK. https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-guide/virginia/ https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-guide/virginia/ It's true it's not the "motion gets ruled on within 15 days, before discovery" type of anti-slapp you see elsewhere, but it's not "no anti-SLAPP"
- DannyBee 5y ago
  In fact, my guess is all the commentators thinking VA is about anti-SLAPP are wrong. My guess is VA is about some state-specific cases or interpretations of defamation law around corporations they thought were more favorable to them (i'm barred in DC and MD, but my recollection is that VA has some) They were going to face a relatively fast motion to dismiss in any state. What really will matter is how favorable the state views the defamation-against-corporation claim, whether it has an anti-SLAPP law or not. If the state views it as strong, anti-SLAPP wouldn't matter because it would survive. If the state views it as weak, anti-SLAPP may kill it a little earlier but it will still go badly for them quickly. The only practical advantage to the anti-SLAPP for defendants like this is that A. you often can get a faster hearing B. you often have guarantees around damages for bad-faith claims. anti-SLAPP is much more useful when it's david vs goliath, and the small guy either needs a hearing in a week or two or ends up bankrupt from lawyer fees.

fleshdaddy 5y ago

I don’t know much about how law firms operate but could it be that the big fancy firms wouldn’t want this case if they think it’s a losing one? If they possibly considered it a “free speech” type case that wouldn’t fly in most states like the other commenter mentioned could they be concerned about their reputation?

bombcar 5y ago
That's what I think - the big firms are perfectly capable of filing lawsuits that are just on this side of frivolous, but they will charge quite well for that. The smaller firms are more likely to be willing to say "eh, it's your funeral".
inopinatus 5y ago
Maybe someone high up in Ubiquiti got their ego bruised and the action is internal bully appeasement, not actually intended to succeed.
- physhster 5y ago
  That's what it sounds like, not that you say it...