9 ms·

I appreciate what you're doing, but you just wrote an essay full of legal advice, including conclusions on how the proceedings will go -- something you really s

I appreciate what you're doing, but you just wrote an essay full of legal advice, including conclusions on how the proceedings will go -- something you really shouldn't predict. By putting the words "this isn't legal advice" before your comment, you aren't magically making it okay to give your opinion in the guise of advice. Just be aware of that.

MiguelHudnandez 14y ago
How messed up is it that someone can't share what they know (or think they know) because they don't have a credential? Edit: I'm convinced. Don't give or accept legal advice over the Internet. Establish a relationship with an attorney and only discuss it with them. If you don't like the answers they give you, you can find another attorney.
- jsprinkles 14y ago
  In this case, there are legal repercussions and serious consequences to doing most of things on this page. This is stuff to talk about with a lawyer, not the fucking Internet, and the person I replied to is already giving frighteningly bad advice. You know how in criminal proceedings, they say "anything you say can and will be used against you?" It's the exact same for civil actions like this, which is why Public Relations 101 (which should be of interest to most in this audience who want to do their own startup) says "being sued or otherwise challenged legally? STFU. No comment." This isn't about credentials, it's about being smart when it comes to threats that can genuinely hose your business, and not listening to a bunch of armchair lawyers on HN who think they have the best course of action without any sort of context.
  - daeken 14y ago
    Let me start by saying: OP should get a lawyer -- like yesterday -- if he cares about the future of his company. Now, moving on... > In this case, there are legal repercussions and serious consequences to doing most of things on this page. This is stuff to talk about with a lawyer, not the fucking Internet, and the person I replied to is already giving frighteningly bad advice. There are legal repercussions and serious consequences to many choices we make in life; while this is a particularly tricky terrain to navigate, that doesn't mean he should go in completely blind. If you think that the advice is "frighteningly bad", point out specifics. > This isn't about credentials, it's about being smart when it comes to threats that can genuinely hose your business, and not listening to a bunch of armchair lawyers on HN who think they have the best course of action without any sort of context. This isn't a conversation you're engaging in; you're simply shouting down the parent(s). That's not what HN is all about. Please rethink your approach and come back to this from a constructive angle; it sounds like you have valuable knowledge that could come in handy for OP and others, but you can't see past "holy crap, legal advice on the internet!"
    - jsprinkles 14y ago
      My valuable knowledge is that this discussion shouldn't be happening, because I've seen firsthand what an Internet comment can do legally, both to plaintiff and defendant. So yes, I would prefer it be shot down. I am not legally permitted to discuss the cases in question nor provide specifics of my knowledge, nor will I create liability for myself by refuting specific legal advice being given in this thread.
      - daeken 14y ago
        In that case, might I suggest you end this thread now? Comments on HN should be submitted when they add value; if you're not willing to actually participate in a conversation and attempt to add value, I'd say that the comments have little to no place on the site. Especially in the other parts of the thread where you and another commenter got into it and it ended with "Fuck you."
        dandelany 14y ago
        As mentioned above, jsprinkles is adding value to the discussion by explaining that this discussion should not happen here. Clearly he has experience in the matter. You act as if he is being malicious towards the OP by trying to shout down the advice of non-lawyers. He is, in fact, trying to help OP by doing the same.
        duck 14y ago
        I would say if he really wanted just to help, he could of stopped after the first comment he left. That was him helping, the rest I'm not so sure about.
- law 14y ago
  jsprinkles is 100% correct. Federal courts generally aren't courts of equity (with bankruptcy courts being the sole exception); they're courts of law. They have a strictly enforced set of procedural rules the nonobservance of which can result in a claim being dismissed with prejudice or a judgment in your opponent's favor. You could learn anything that a lawyer knows--the material isn't difficult at all. What a lawyer provides, however, is insulation from procedural errors. When a lawyer misses a filing deadline, you might have a cause of action against the lawyer in malpractice. If you, a pro se litigant, miss a filing deadline, you're generally SOL. That's why you shouldn't share what you think you know: the consequences are serious and the nuances are subtle.
- nirvana 14y ago
  An ounce of reason and facts should hold more sway than a pound of opinions from the chorus.
jarrett 14y ago
I agree with jsprinkles for the most part. There is a great deal of legal advice packed in there. The OP needs a lawyer. But on the other hand, I have to agree with nirvana about one thing. A certain amount of work must necessarily fall on the OP to find the right lawyer for the case. As nirvana says, there will be plenty of lawyers who aren't really interested and just say "roll over," while there will be others who would want to aggressively pursue the case. I'm not saying the former type is wrong and the latter right. But it's worth considering that different lawyers will have fundamentally different attitudes about the case and different styles. The OP should be cognizant of that when picking a lawyer.
- law 14y ago
  You don't have to do any work to find a lawyer beyond calling your county bar association's lawyer referral service (or the ABA lawyer referral service). Lawyers are obligated to turn down cases on which they would be unable to provide competent representation. They will ask you for information, you will provide it, and they will determine whether they can competently provide representation. Trust them.
  - jarrett 14y ago
    But surely you're not suggesting that all lawyers are equally effective, have the same style (level of aggressiveness, etc.), or would have the same opinion about a given case? I can say with certainty, from firsthand experience, that none of these three things is true. I've also seen lawyers replaced because their performance was inadequate. Given that, how could one possibly avoid having to carefully and deliberately choose a lawyer?
    - law 14y ago
      I'm not sure what you're asking that isn't already addressed by the model rules of professional conduct. Read http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibilit... -- it'll answer many of your questions. Consider finding a lawyer like dating: if the first date (initial consultation, which is generally free) leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth, move on.
nirvana 14y ago
I found a missing "possibly" and a spot where I clarified that something was my perception, but to be honest nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a "may" or a "it appears" or some other similar language. Nowhere did I give a single bit of legal advice. I merely illuminated a variety of ways that he could do some research that might show that he has more of a case than the lawyers he originally talked to concluded, towards the goal of getting a lawyer interested in the case. ---- Edit to add: The opposition continues to dishonestly claim that I am giving legal advice. I have not. I have merely suggested avenues of the law that could be researched and then discussed with a lawyer. There is zero risk in someone reading the law and then talking it over with a lawyer. There is zero liability in me suggesting someone get a lawyer and offering suggestions for how they might get one. I find it astounding that this comment has been down voted by %75 because persistently dishonest people have continued to claim that I'm "giving legal advice" when I am not, and have convinced people to punish me for trying to help this guy. I mean, I actually went to the USPTO and pulled up the relevant mark and read the examiners comments! Yet on HN, lying about me and attacking me carries 3 times the weight, apparently. That's a shame.
- jsprinkles 14y ago
  > nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a "may" or a "it appears" or some other similar language. That's called weasel wording. > Nowhere did I give a single bit of legal advice. Uh, your entire comment is how to respond to this legal threat, which is legal advice. The only advice anyone on Hacker News should ever give to someone in legal trouble is "consult an attorney", not how to consult an attorney, research to do ahead of time, bupkis.
  - nirvana 14y ago
    I do not apologize for responding on the topic and attempting to help this guy. I brought up a lot of possible avenues that could be useful for him building a case. You have merely engaged in ad hominem and quite successfully derailed the discussion. Thanks for the down vote brigade, by the way. I must conclude that actually trying to help people on HN is not tolerated if the person attempting to help has offended someone who feels comfortable in the level of dishonesty you are.
debacle 14y ago
When you aren't a lawyer, it's a lot easier to tell someone you're not providing legal advice. When you are a lawyer, it's generally best to just not give legal advice. It's a strange system, but there are different rules for different people.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ard0r 14y ago
Ipse dixit. Also, this is a state-by-state issue, and in Texas, at least, you are quite wrong. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/76R/billtext/html/HB01507F.htm http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/76R/billtext/html/HB015...
wisty 14y ago
Note: IANAL Is there any problem with giving legal advice? I thought that anyone can give legal advice, as long as they don't practice law (without authorization). I guess the real question is, does legal advise always constitute the practice of law? I can go to an accountant, real estate agent, government department, police station, bank, or school and get something which technically constitutes legal advice. I think it's a gray area, and I think the laws are a little vague (and vary with state law). I'm pretty sure an offer "Ask me legal questions, even though I'm not a lawyer" would put you in hot water. I doubt you could create a forum specifically for non-lawyers to offer people advice. I think there is a line somewhere between coincidental legal advice, and practicing law, and while I don't think anyone (even a lawyer) knows where that line is, I've never heard of a poster on an internet forum getting charged.

MiguelHudnandez 14y ago

How messed up is it that someone can't share what they know (or think they know) because they don't have a credential? Edit: I'm convinced. Don't give or accept legal advice over the Internet. Establish a relationship with an attorney and only discuss it with them. If you don't like the answers they give you, you can find another attorney.

jsprinkles 14y ago
In this case, there are legal repercussions and serious consequences to doing most of things on this page. This is stuff to talk about with a lawyer, not the fucking Internet, and the person I replied to is already giving frighteningly bad advice. You know how in criminal proceedings, they say "anything you say can and will be used against you?" It's the exact same for civil actions like this, which is why Public Relations 101 (which should be of interest to most in this audience who want to do their own startup) says "being sued or otherwise challenged legally? STFU. No comment." This isn't about credentials, it's about being smart when it comes to threats that can genuinely hose your business, and not listening to a bunch of armchair lawyers on HN who think they have the best course of action without any sort of context.
- daeken 14y ago
  Let me start by saying: OP should get a lawyer -- like yesterday -- if he cares about the future of his company. Now, moving on... > In this case, there are legal repercussions and serious consequences to doing most of things on this page. This is stuff to talk about with a lawyer, not the fucking Internet, and the person I replied to is already giving frighteningly bad advice. There are legal repercussions and serious consequences to many choices we make in life; while this is a particularly tricky terrain to navigate, that doesn't mean he should go in completely blind. If you think that the advice is "frighteningly bad", point out specifics. > This isn't about credentials, it's about being smart when it comes to threats that can genuinely hose your business, and not listening to a bunch of armchair lawyers on HN who think they have the best course of action without any sort of context. This isn't a conversation you're engaging in; you're simply shouting down the parent(s). That's not what HN is all about. Please rethink your approach and come back to this from a constructive angle; it sounds like you have valuable knowledge that could come in handy for OP and others, but you can't see past "holy crap, legal advice on the internet!"
  - jsprinkles 14y ago
    My valuable knowledge is that this discussion shouldn't be happening, because I've seen firsthand what an Internet comment can do legally, both to plaintiff and defendant. So yes, I would prefer it be shot down. I am not legally permitted to discuss the cases in question nor provide specifics of my knowledge, nor will I create liability for myself by refuting specific legal advice being given in this thread.
    - daeken 14y ago
      In that case, might I suggest you end this thread now? Comments on HN should be submitted when they add value; if you're not willing to actually participate in a conversation and attempt to add value, I'd say that the comments have little to no place on the site. Especially in the other parts of the thread where you and another commenter got into it and it ended with "Fuck you."
      - dandelany 14y ago
        As mentioned above, jsprinkles is adding value to the discussion by explaining that this discussion should not happen here. Clearly he has experience in the matter. You act as if he is being malicious towards the OP by trying to shout down the advice of non-lawyers. He is, in fact, trying to help OP by doing the same.
        duck 14y ago
        I would say if he really wanted just to help, he could of stopped after the first comment he left. That was him helping, the rest I'm not so sure about.
law 14y ago
jsprinkles is 100% correct. Federal courts generally aren't courts of equity (with bankruptcy courts being the sole exception); they're courts of law. They have a strictly enforced set of procedural rules the nonobservance of which can result in a claim being dismissed with prejudice or a judgment in your opponent's favor. You could learn anything that a lawyer knows--the material isn't difficult at all. What a lawyer provides, however, is insulation from procedural errors. When a lawyer misses a filing deadline, you might have a cause of action against the lawyer in malpractice. If you, a pro se litigant, miss a filing deadline, you're generally SOL. That's why you shouldn't share what you think you know: the consequences are serious and the nuances are subtle.
nirvana 14y ago
An ounce of reason and facts should hold more sway than a pound of opinions from the chorus.

jarrett 14y ago

I agree with jsprinkles for the most part. There is a great deal of legal advice packed in there. The OP needs a lawyer. But on the other hand, I have to agree with nirvana about one thing. A certain amount of work must necessarily fall on the OP to find the right lawyer for the case. As nirvana says, there will be plenty of lawyers who aren't really interested and just say "roll over," while there will be others who would want to aggressively pursue the case. I'm not saying the former type is wrong and the latter right. But it's worth considering that different lawyers will have fundamentally different attitudes about the case and different styles. The OP should be cognizant of that when picking a lawyer.

law 14y ago
You don't have to do any work to find a lawyer beyond calling your county bar association's lawyer referral service (or the ABA lawyer referral service). Lawyers are obligated to turn down cases on which they would be unable to provide competent representation. They will ask you for information, you will provide it, and they will determine whether they can competently provide representation. Trust them.
- jarrett 14y ago
  But surely you're not suggesting that all lawyers are equally effective, have the same style (level of aggressiveness, etc.), or would have the same opinion about a given case? I can say with certainty, from firsthand experience, that none of these three things is true. I've also seen lawyers replaced because their performance was inadequate. Given that, how could one possibly avoid having to carefully and deliberately choose a lawyer?
  - law 14y ago
    I'm not sure what you're asking that isn't already addressed by the model rules of professional conduct. Read http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibilit... -- it'll answer many of your questions. Consider finding a lawyer like dating: if the first date (initial consultation, which is generally free) leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth, move on.

nirvana 14y ago

I found a missing "possibly" and a spot where I clarified that something was my perception, but to be honest nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a "may" or a "it appears" or some other similar language. Nowhere did I give a single bit of legal advice. I merely illuminated a variety of ways that he could do some research that might show that he has more of a case than the lawyers he originally talked to concluded, towards the goal of getting a lawyer interested in the case. ---- Edit to add: The opposition continues to dishonestly claim that I am giving legal advice. I have not. I have merely suggested avenues of the law that could be researched and then discussed with a lawyer. There is zero risk in someone reading the law and then talking it over with a lawyer. There is zero liability in me suggesting someone get a lawyer and offering suggestions for how they might get one. I find it astounding that this comment has been down voted by %75 because persistently dishonest people have continued to claim that I'm "giving legal advice" when I am not, and have convinced people to punish me for trying to help this guy. I mean, I actually went to the USPTO and pulled up the relevant mark and read the examiners comments! Yet on HN, lying about me and attacking me carries 3 times the weight, apparently. That's a shame.

jsprinkles 14y ago
> nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a "may" or a "it appears" or some other similar language. That's called weasel wording. > Nowhere did I give a single bit of legal advice. Uh, your entire comment is how to respond to this legal threat, which is legal advice. The only advice anyone on Hacker News should ever give to someone in legal trouble is "consult an attorney", not how to consult an attorney, research to do ahead of time, bupkis.
- nirvana 14y ago
  I do not apologize for responding on the topic and attempting to help this guy. I brought up a lot of possible avenues that could be useful for him building a case. You have merely engaged in ad hominem and quite successfully derailed the discussion. Thanks for the down vote brigade, by the way. I must conclude that actually trying to help people on HN is not tolerated if the person attempting to help has offended someone who feels comfortable in the level of dishonesty you are.

debacle 14y ago

When you aren't a lawyer, it's a lot easier to tell someone you're not providing legal advice. When you are a lawyer, it's generally best to just not give legal advice. It's a strange system, but there are different rules for different people.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ard0r 14y ago

Ipse dixit. Also, this is a state-by-state issue, and in Texas, at least, you are quite wrong. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/76R/billtext/html/HB01507F.htm http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/76R/billtext/html/HB015...

wisty 14y ago

Note: IANAL Is there any problem with giving legal advice? I thought that anyone can give legal advice, as long as they don't practice law (without authorization). I guess the real question is, does legal advise always constitute the practice of law? I can go to an accountant, real estate agent, government department, police station, bank, or school and get something which technically constitutes legal advice. I think it's a gray area, and I think the laws are a little vague (and vary with state law). I'm pretty sure an offer "Ask me legal questions, even though I'm not a lawyer" would put you in hot water. I doubt you could create a forum specifically for non-lawyers to offer people advice. I think there is a line somewhere between coincidental legal advice, and practicing law, and while I don't think anyone (even a lawyer) knows where that line is, I've never heard of a poster on an internet forum getting charged.