4 ms·
My (very naive) thinking would be that lawyers are the worst demographic to con, since they have the skills and resources to try and make themselves whole again
by cowthulhu 3y ago
My (very naive) thinking would be that lawyers are the worst demographic to con, since they have the skills and resources to try and make themselves whole again (at the expense of the conman), maybe with a few NDAs throw in for good measure. Is this not the case?
- eschulz 3y agoMy take is that lawyers will have to compare the damages they suffered to the potential harm their reputation will sustain if they become well known for being victims. Did they pay $1,000 for a subpar product? If so, they might not act beyond issuing some threats. However, if they lost $100,000 to a thief then they probably will act. I have spoken with many lawyers who have threatened marketers with lawsuits, and in many cases the threat will help the lawyer. I have had a few lawyers tell me they WILL NOT file a lawsuit (why sue for $500 considering the time and court fees), but that it only costs about 60 cents to send a verbose letter using their firm's letterhead. They understand the old warning "if you sue for a cow, you may end up losing a cow". Just as with a successful con against esteemed scientists, any skilled conman will know his target well and understand how he can fly just below the radar and probably avoid getting called out and destroyed.
- kstrauser 3y agoMy naive thinking would be that a given lawyer would be either impossible to con, or ripe for the taking because they believe they’re impossible to con. I’d also guess that if you could manage to con a lawyer, they’d rather fall on a sword than admit they were swindled.