3 ms·

[Sorry, my original reply was so incoherent that I wanted to delete it before it caused any trouble, I couldn't even find a salvageable edit.] I'm not a lawyer

[Sorry, my original reply was so incoherent that I wanted to delete it before it caused any trouble, I couldn't even find a salvageable edit.] I'm not a lawyer either, but if I were in this guy's position, I would make sure I was as well informed as I could be and take advice wherever I could get it. If it was free, all the better. I would seek out a second opinion if it started to look like multi-year litigation or something scary. To address your opinions on what constitutes help, I am not really sure how it bears on the matter.

sachinag 17y ago
You miss my point: if he takes Arrington's free lawyer, there's no guarantee that those conversations are privileged as you have a third party picking up the tab. I'm aware of no caselaw where the press has paid for a source's legal fees. Look, I'm crazy-ass conservative when it comes to legal matters. It's a bias of mine. But I would not take a "free" lawyer knowing that there was a possibility that what I said to the lawyer might get out.
- smhinsey 17y ago
  You certainly raise a valid point. I found info on how the Minnesota state bar views the matter here: http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/05bbarts/bb0205.html http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/05bbarts/bb0205.html It's not that I miss the import of what you're saying, it's that I am suggesting that making a sound determination of the ethics of the situation is not an insurmountable obstacle. If it turns out that it's a bad idea, that's okay. Not every good act plays out as we intend. I think it is worth reiterating your point that Arrington is a lawyer, and that said it seems fair to presume he's acting in good faith with knowledge of these issues. [edited for clarity]
- reitzensteinm 17y ago
  Surely you could structure it in a way to avoid this, if the third party picking up the tab wanted to. A contract for reimbursal, so the ex employee pays the lawyer and gets money back from TC? There would be no implicit or explicit relationship between TC and the lawyer, just two two-way relationships.
- cperciva 17y ago
  there's no guarantee that those conversations are privileged as you have a third party picking up the tab It depends if the lawyer is representing you or not. If a lawyer isn't representing you but is simply engaging in a friendly conversation, sure, he can probably repeat whatever you tell him; but if he's representing you, privilege applies regardless of who is paying his fees. In other words, if someone else is responsible for paying your lawyer's fees, make sure you ask your lawyer the simple question "are you representing me?" (There's also another legal principle involved here, which is, roughly speaking, that privilege attaches to the expectation of privilege -- so a reputable lawyer will avoid repeating anything which he thinks you might have expected would be privileged, whether you were legally correct or not.) And of course, the above is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer, rules vary based on jurisdiction, etc.

sachinag 17y ago

You miss my point: if he takes Arrington's free lawyer, there's no guarantee that those conversations are privileged as you have a third party picking up the tab. I'm aware of no caselaw where the press has paid for a source's legal fees. Look, I'm crazy-ass conservative when it comes to legal matters. It's a bias of mine. But I would not take a "free" lawyer knowing that there was a possibility that what I said to the lawyer might get out.

smhinsey 17y ago
You certainly raise a valid point. I found info on how the Minnesota state bar views the matter here: http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/05bbarts/bb0205.html http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/05bbarts/bb0205.html It's not that I miss the import of what you're saying, it's that I am suggesting that making a sound determination of the ethics of the situation is not an insurmountable obstacle. If it turns out that it's a bad idea, that's okay. Not every good act plays out as we intend. I think it is worth reiterating your point that Arrington is a lawyer, and that said it seems fair to presume he's acting in good faith with knowledge of these issues. [edited for clarity]
reitzensteinm 17y ago
Surely you could structure it in a way to avoid this, if the third party picking up the tab wanted to. A contract for reimbursal, so the ex employee pays the lawyer and gets money back from TC? There would be no implicit or explicit relationship between TC and the lawyer, just two two-way relationships.
cperciva 17y ago
there's no guarantee that those conversations are privileged as you have a third party picking up the tab It depends if the lawyer is representing you or not. If a lawyer isn't representing you but is simply engaging in a friendly conversation, sure, he can probably repeat whatever you tell him; but if he's representing you, privilege applies regardless of who is paying his fees. In other words, if someone else is responsible for paying your lawyer's fees, make sure you ask your lawyer the simple question "are you representing me?" (There's also another legal principle involved here, which is, roughly speaking, that privilege attaches to the expectation of privilege -- so a reputable lawyer will avoid repeating anything which he thinks you might have expected would be privileged, whether you were legally correct or not.) And of course, the above is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer, rules vary based on jurisdiction, etc.