5 ms·

> The idea that only lawyers can know anything about the law, and therefore nobody else can suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly elitist. It is eliti

> The idea that only lawyers can know anything about the law, and therefore nobody else can suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly elitist. It is elitist and shitty, but also true. It's not because lawyers are smarter than the rest of us. It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines.

larrys 14y ago
"It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines." Dealing with these situations does not just involve legal knowledge. It also involves strategy as well as some practical examples of what others have done in the same situation. Lawyers (with obvious exceptions) tend to be pretty weak on common sense strategies and tend to frame things totally based upon their legal knowledge and training. This can be a trap that prevents them from seeing a very obvious solution to a problem that a non-lawyer can come up with.
- nostromo 14y ago
  Right. One example strategy a lawyer probably wouldn't come up with: shame the company on HN.
  - larrys 14y ago
    Lawyers being officers of the court have to act in ethical ways. And most importantly they have something to loose which is their law license. That's a powerful motivator to not take any chances. A layman on the other hand can engage in different types of manipulation that an attorney can't do even if they had the same idea.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  Lawyers (with obvious exceptions) tend to be pretty weak on common sense strategies and tend to frame things totally based upon their legal knowledge and training. OK, one data point is just an anecdote, but I saw a good example of a lawyer using some basic strategy a while back. I had a legal situation of my own, hired a lawyer and went to court with the lawyer. The situation wasn't settled the first day, so my lawyer looked at the court schedule, figured out that if we asked for a continuance we'd come back to court when a different judge was presiding, who he believed - based on his knowledge of the judge's personal life - would be more favorable to our position. We came back two weeks later, sat in front of the new judge, and the judge came down pretty clearly on our side, and the situation was resolved amicably. Had we tested our luck with a different judge, things might not have turned out so well (then again, maybe they would). But, anyway, is struck me as a fairly subtle, but effective technique. That said, I understand that - in general - the courts don't like it when lawyers try to "pick their judge" to YMMV.
nirvana 14y ago
You're absolutely correct when it comes to legal advice, as such would need to avoid such land mines. But that's not the issue here. The issue here is whether one can suggest possible legal avenues of investigation that could be used to get a lawyer interested in the case. There is zero risk in reading the law and then talking to a lawyer about what you find there.
- cube13 14y ago
  >But that's not the issue here. The issue here is whether one can suggest possible legal avenues of investigation that could be used to get a lawyer interested in the case. Here's how you get a lawyer interested in the case: 1. Find the phone number of a lawyer. Contact the EFF, or the local bar association for a lawyer that's listed as knowledgeable with the part of law that you're dealing with(in this case, copyright and trademark law). 2. Call the lawyer, arrange a meeting. Gather up everything they ask for when you call them. 3. Meet with the lawyer. If it doesn't go well, go back to step 1. Repeat until done. 4. There is no step 4. This should be the only piece of advice in this thread.
  - ferringham 14y ago
    oh Mr. Very Important and his "this should be the only piece of advice in this thread." A few days ago there was this post #1 on YC News about a guys whose kid had this super-rare genetic disorder. Now, what, this guy should only listen to the Doctors and forget about turning on his own brain? I think that a good lawyer will listen to his Client and appreciate the Client who is interested enough in his case to propose solutions based on this readings/understanding of the Law. Or even discuss the stuff he saw here. Why on Earth everybody such a pain about legal advise and when it comes to much more important thing in life - health, life threatning disease - nobody's complaining when questions are asked and resolutions proposed. HN as I understand it is to exchange and share information. Not to censor it. Go to Cuba with your attitude dude. Or just relax.
    - jsprinkles 14y ago
      That child's doctors personally examined the child, have expertise to deal with the situation, and are aware of any details which are important. A HN commenter has not personally met either party, in most cases is not a lawyer so he does not have expertise to deal with the situation, and most importantly, are only aware of what one party has told them. There is a significant difference.

larrys 14y ago

"It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines." Dealing with these situations does not just involve legal knowledge. It also involves strategy as well as some practical examples of what others have done in the same situation. Lawyers (with obvious exceptions) tend to be pretty weak on common sense strategies and tend to frame things totally based upon their legal knowledge and training. This can be a trap that prevents them from seeing a very obvious solution to a problem that a non-lawyer can come up with.

nostromo 14y ago
Right. One example strategy a lawyer probably wouldn't come up with: shame the company on HN.
- larrys 14y ago
  Lawyers being officers of the court have to act in ethical ways. And most importantly they have something to loose which is their law license. That's a powerful motivator to not take any chances. A layman on the other hand can engage in different types of manipulation that an attorney can't do even if they had the same idea.
mindcrime 14y ago
Lawyers (with obvious exceptions) tend to be pretty weak on common sense strategies and tend to frame things totally based upon their legal knowledge and training. OK, one data point is just an anecdote, but I saw a good example of a lawyer using some basic strategy a while back. I had a legal situation of my own, hired a lawyer and went to court with the lawyer. The situation wasn't settled the first day, so my lawyer looked at the court schedule, figured out that if we asked for a continuance we'd come back to court when a different judge was presiding, who he believed - based on his knowledge of the judge's personal life - would be more favorable to our position. We came back two weeks later, sat in front of the new judge, and the judge came down pretty clearly on our side, and the situation was resolved amicably. Had we tested our luck with a different judge, things might not have turned out so well (then again, maybe they would). But, anyway, is struck me as a fairly subtle, but effective technique. That said, I understand that - in general - the courts don't like it when lawyers try to "pick their judge" to YMMV.

nirvana 14y ago

You're absolutely correct when it comes to legal advice, as such would need to avoid such land mines. But that's not the issue here. The issue here is whether one can suggest possible legal avenues of investigation that could be used to get a lawyer interested in the case. There is zero risk in reading the law and then talking to a lawyer about what you find there.

cube13 14y ago
>But that's not the issue here. The issue here is whether one can suggest possible legal avenues of investigation that could be used to get a lawyer interested in the case. Here's how you get a lawyer interested in the case: 1. Find the phone number of a lawyer. Contact the EFF, or the local bar association for a lawyer that's listed as knowledgeable with the part of law that you're dealing with(in this case, copyright and trademark law). 2. Call the lawyer, arrange a meeting. Gather up everything they ask for when you call them. 3. Meet with the lawyer. If it doesn't go well, go back to step 1. Repeat until done. 4. There is no step 4. This should be the only piece of advice in this thread.
- ferringham 14y ago
  oh Mr. Very Important and his "this should be the only piece of advice in this thread." A few days ago there was this post #1 on YC News about a guys whose kid had this super-rare genetic disorder. Now, what, this guy should only listen to the Doctors and forget about turning on his own brain? I think that a good lawyer will listen to his Client and appreciate the Client who is interested enough in his case to propose solutions based on this readings/understanding of the Law. Or even discuss the stuff he saw here. Why on Earth everybody such a pain about legal advise and when it comes to much more important thing in life - health, life threatning disease - nobody's complaining when questions are asked and resolutions proposed. HN as I understand it is to exchange and share information. Not to censor it. Go to Cuba with your attitude dude. Or just relax.
  - jsprinkles 14y ago
    That child's doctors personally examined the child, have expertise to deal with the situation, and are aware of any details which are important. A HN commenter has not personally met either party, in most cases is not a lawyer so he does not have expertise to deal with the situation, and most importantly, are only aware of what one party has told them. There is a significant difference.