6 ms·

(Background: I'm a computer security researcher and lawyer at Stanford.) When a security researcher gets threatened, there's a tendency to lambast the lawyers.

(Background: I'm a computer security researcher and lawyer at Stanford.) When a security researcher gets threatened, there's a tendency to lambast the lawyers. I think that's unfortunate. It is, very often, the client that demands an aggressive response. A lawyer should counsel against, since nastygrams to researchers tend to summon negative attention. Not being a jerk is also a plus. That said, if a client insists--and they often do--the lawyers have little choice. Professional ethics generally require following the client's direction, and there isn't sufficient time to withdraw as counsel. So, for the most part: Don't blame the lawyers, blame the DMCA. It's the law that's broken.

click170 11y ago
That's a fair argument for not blaming the lawyers. But I don't think that line of reasoning deflects blame away from the company demanding they pursue legal action.
shaunol 11y ago
Is it generally a lawyer's job to advise a client when a case may attract negative publicity? Do they even care?
- socceroos 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure that 'cha-ching' is mostly what matters. Hate to be cynical but..
  - imglorp 11y ago
    It's a motivator. Counsel gets paid much more to bring a suit than to smack sense into in its client.
    - 0xdeadbeefbabe 11y ago
      At some point, does counsel have enough money to choose smacking instead of more pay?
- eli 11y ago
  Yes, of course. Advising clients to take actions that make them look bad doesn't sound like a way to expand your practice.
madez 11y ago
You have responsability for your actions even if you're legaly forced to them. This sane principle was officialized in the Nuremberg trials [1]. Edit0: In fact, the principles were more specific to international law vs national law and orders. However, the idea behind is still sane even if you don't violate international law. Edit1: It's about recognizing personal responsibility. Edit2: Those who disagree, why? [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles
- Rangi42 11y ago
  There is value in doing your legal duty, even if some people think your duty is to do a bad thing. "I was just doing my job" is not considered a sufficient defense of Nazi actions because their actions were so terrible that being legally required to do them does not mitigate that. Threatening legal action, on the other hand, is an ordinary event that can be easily excused as "just what lawyers have to do for their clients."
- karlmdavis 11y ago
  I don't know this for sure, but I seem to recall that lawyer's professional rules of conduct require them to not leave clients in the lurch, without providing them ample warning to find new counsel. I believe this is what the GP poster is mentioning when he says that there often isn't "sufficient time to withdraw."
- MichaelCrawford 11y ago
  There are plenty of times that one has a duty to violate the law. Consider that the US Supreme Court does not render advisory opinions; to overturn an unconstitutional law, one must violate it first, then defend oneself all the way to the Supremes. This is a very risky proposition as it happens all the time that the Supreme Court will deny certiori over some petty issue. If you wonder why I use my real name here and elsewhere online, it's because I regard it as my duty to - someday - defend myself before the Supreme Court.
  - kemitchell 11y ago
    > Consider that the US Supreme Court does not render advisory opinions; to overturn an unconstitutional law, one must violate it first, then defend oneself all the way to the Supremes. Please don't take this the wrong way: Research this topic further!
higherpurpose 11y ago
What about when EFF tries to kill bogus patents and trial lawyers lobby against it because they make too much money from bogus patents? Can we blame then lawyers then? What I'm trying to say is that perhaps the sometimes it's not just the law's fault - but the lawyers also like having said law and abusing it. Also, this is going to get even worse if Obama has his way with the new "enhanced" CFAA law that can jail people even for breaking a company's ToS.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
Hmmm... compare http://www.loweringthebar.net/2015/03/obligation-to-make-sense-may-not-be-delegated.html http://www.loweringthebar.net/2015/03/obligation-to-make-sen... . According to that one, it is not acceptable for a lawyer to file the petition his client wants him to file, if that petition doesn't meet the court's standards. If judges can censure lawyers for acceding to their clients' demands, so can the rest of us. How much time does it take to withdraw as counsel?
- mkopinsky 11y ago
  There's a big difference between a court filing and lawyerly nastygram. By sending inappropriate nastygrams you're not wasting the court's time.
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    I can see why the judge would see this as an important difference, but I don't see that it actually is one. Why do I care which option wastes the court's time?

click170 11y ago

That's a fair argument for not blaming the lawyers. But I don't think that line of reasoning deflects blame away from the company demanding they pursue legal action.

shaunol 11y ago

Is it generally a lawyer's job to advise a client when a case may attract negative publicity? Do they even care?

socceroos 11y ago
I'm pretty sure that 'cha-ching' is mostly what matters. Hate to be cynical but..
- imglorp 11y ago
  It's a motivator. Counsel gets paid much more to bring a suit than to smack sense into in its client.
  - 0xdeadbeefbabe 11y ago
    At some point, does counsel have enough money to choose smacking instead of more pay?
eli 11y ago
Yes, of course. Advising clients to take actions that make them look bad doesn't sound like a way to expand your practice.

madez 11y ago

You have responsability for your actions even if you're legaly forced to them. This sane principle was officialized in the Nuremberg trials [1]. Edit0: In fact, the principles were more specific to international law vs national law and orders. However, the idea behind is still sane even if you don't violate international law. Edit1: It's about recognizing personal responsibility. Edit2: Those who disagree, why? [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles

Rangi42 11y ago
There is value in doing your legal duty, even if some people think your duty is to do a bad thing. "I was just doing my job" is not considered a sufficient defense of Nazi actions because their actions were so terrible that being legally required to do them does not mitigate that. Threatening legal action, on the other hand, is an ordinary event that can be easily excused as "just what lawyers have to do for their clients."
karlmdavis 11y ago
I don't know this for sure, but I seem to recall that lawyer's professional rules of conduct require them to not leave clients in the lurch, without providing them ample warning to find new counsel. I believe this is what the GP poster is mentioning when he says that there often isn't "sufficient time to withdraw."
MichaelCrawford 11y ago
There are plenty of times that one has a duty to violate the law. Consider that the US Supreme Court does not render advisory opinions; to overturn an unconstitutional law, one must violate it first, then defend oneself all the way to the Supremes. This is a very risky proposition as it happens all the time that the Supreme Court will deny certiori over some petty issue. If you wonder why I use my real name here and elsewhere online, it's because I regard it as my duty to - someday - defend myself before the Supreme Court.
- kemitchell 11y ago
  > Consider that the US Supreme Court does not render advisory opinions; to overturn an unconstitutional law, one must violate it first, then defend oneself all the way to the Supremes. Please don't take this the wrong way: Research this topic further!

higherpurpose 11y ago

What about when EFF tries to kill bogus patents and trial lawyers lobby against it because they make too much money from bogus patents? Can we blame then lawyers then? What I'm trying to say is that perhaps the sometimes it's not just the law's fault - but the lawyers also like having said law and abusing it. Also, this is going to get even worse if Obama has his way with the new "enhanced" CFAA law that can jail people even for breaking a company's ToS.

thaumasiotes 11y ago

Hmmm... compare http://www.loweringthebar.net/2015/03/obligation-to-make-sense-may-not-be-delegated.html http://www.loweringthebar.net/2015/03/obligation-to-make-sen... . According to that one, it is not acceptable for a lawyer to file the petition his client wants him to file, if that petition doesn't meet the court's standards. If judges can censure lawyers for acceding to their clients' demands, so can the rest of us. How much time does it take to withdraw as counsel?

mkopinsky 11y ago
There's a big difference between a court filing and lawyerly nastygram. By sending inappropriate nastygrams you're not wasting the court's time.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  I can see why the judge would see this as an important difference, but I don't see that it actually is one. Why do I care which option wastes the court's time?