4 ms·

> I am not planning to get a lawyer involved as I have faith that UW leadership will make it right in the end. An officious word for lawyer is counsel, because

> I am not planning to get a lawyer involved as I have faith that UW leadership will make it right in the end. An officious word for lawyer is counsel, because that’s what they’re for: they offer legal counsel. You don’t technically “talk” to a lawyer , instead you ask them questions. They answer. That’s why client-attorney privilege exists at all: so you can feel free to seek counsel, ie ask questions, without fear of those questions ever being held against you. You’re right not to talk to a lawyer. Instead, you should ask them questions. Like “what’s the worst that can happen?” and “what are my options if it does?” and “ what documents / evidence would I need to defend myself?” and “what would you advise me not to do?”. As a silly rule of thumb: every message to a lawyer should have at least one question mark in it. That is the role of legal counsel in our society. Use that privilege. Seek counsel. Then, if you don’t want to do anything with their advice, that’s ok.

tiahura 2y ago
As a lawyer, your post is almost entirely incorrect. Privilege in no way depends on whether the communication involves questions. It cracks me up. As a lawyer, I would never post on HN to argue about pointer arithmetic or inference optimization, yet the law seems to be fair game for amateur hour.
- Bedon292 2y ago
  I don't think the post says privilege depends on whether the communication involves questions. I read it as saying that privilege exists so you can seek counsel. And, in their opinion, seeking counsel should always involve asking questions. Which seems reasonable to me. I am struggling to think of a situation where someone initiating contact with a lawyer wouldn't need, or at least want, to ask any questions. Are there situations where that is not the case?
- balfirevic 2y ago
  > Privilege in no way depends on whether the communication involves questions. I sure hope most lawyers don't often misread other people's writing as bad as you did here.
- Clubber 2y ago
  >I would never post on HN to argue about pointer arithmetic or inference optimization, yet the law seems to be fair game for amateur hour. In all fairness, You would probably be ok with criticizing software or a website that didn't work for you and offer improvements or features. There's certainly nothing wrong with that.
- dekhn 2y ago
  I'm a software engineer who has had to explain the law (HIPAA) to lawyers before. It's probably best to assume that in a population there are people who are both an expert/professional of X, who can say intelligent things about Y. I want to elaborate on what the GP said. The best way to use a lawyer in most circumstances is to ask them questions about actions you can take through the legal system and listen to their answers, treating them as a counsellor.

tiahura 2y ago

As a lawyer, your post is almost entirely incorrect. Privilege in no way depends on whether the communication involves questions. It cracks me up. As a lawyer, I would never post on HN to argue about pointer arithmetic or inference optimization, yet the law seems to be fair game for amateur hour.

Bedon292 2y ago
I don't think the post says privilege depends on whether the communication involves questions. I read it as saying that privilege exists so you can seek counsel. And, in their opinion, seeking counsel should always involve asking questions. Which seems reasonable to me. I am struggling to think of a situation where someone initiating contact with a lawyer wouldn't need, or at least want, to ask any questions. Are there situations where that is not the case?
balfirevic 2y ago
> Privilege in no way depends on whether the communication involves questions. I sure hope most lawyers don't often misread other people's writing as bad as you did here.
Clubber 2y ago
>I would never post on HN to argue about pointer arithmetic or inference optimization, yet the law seems to be fair game for amateur hour. In all fairness, You would probably be ok with criticizing software or a website that didn't work for you and offer improvements or features. There's certainly nothing wrong with that.
dekhn 2y ago
I'm a software engineer who has had to explain the law (HIPAA) to lawyers before. It's probably best to assume that in a population there are people who are both an expert/professional of X, who can say intelligent things about Y. I want to elaborate on what the GP said. The best way to use a lawyer in most circumstances is to ask them questions about actions you can take through the legal system and listen to their answers, treating them as a counsellor.