When Do You Really Need a Lawyer? 529
"Clearly, once I've been served with legal papers, a lawyer is necessary. But I'm guessing that there are situations where having a lawyer before it gets to that point would be helpful. I'm interested in some general guidelines for when I should pick up the phone and call a lawyer. I'm especially interested in tales of 'I waited to long and got burned' as well as 'I got a lawyer so early it was smooth sailing'. Like most people, I make a decent living, but I cannot afford high legal bills for very long.
For those who are interested, the CEO in question decided to simply report the incident to the FBI. My guess is that the Feds logged the complaint for their statistics and then dropped the matter. However, the brush with someone with enough money and power to drain me financially has left me distinctly shaken..."
If you have to ask... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:If you have to ask... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:If you have to ask...get a retainer agreement (Score:4, Informative)
Another type of retainer is the type where you pay a fee for the attorney to always be available for you, then you pay a reduced hourly fee for their services on top of the retainer.
I am sure there are other types of retainer and/or prepaid arrangements out there that could add piece of mind. Call your local bar association to find out, the larger bar associations usually pretty good educational and referral services.
Re:If you have to ask... (Score:5, Interesting)
Get a lawyer who understands the lack of merit in your opponents case.
Have him take you up on spec.
It will be VERY easy to conclusively demonstrate that you are not the author of the virus, and that Klez proliferates by spoofing sender addresses.
Take your sweet time in playing the trump card, make this expensive, long and time-consuming for him.
You can probably counter-sue for him pressing a nuisance suit. This is what will be salt on the meat for your lawyer to get involved. The minimum will be a suit to recover expenses.
Make sure that you have your lawyer agree in writing that if you are not successful in pressing suit, his fees are waived. Incentivises him, and removes your financial exposure. Hell, if you have a good laywer, he could spell this whole scenario out to the plaintiff lawyer, and you walk out of the room with a check and no appearance in court!
When you are done, you will have used this fellow's tools of abuse against him, and he might think twice before committing this sort of institutional violence again.
Re:If you have to ask... (Score:3, Insightful)
Get a lawyer when... (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, if it is a Klez virus, the documentation is around about the forged from fields. I would think that it is probably a good idea to keep a diary at this point, and if you want a legal consultation, and want to pay for it, go ahead, but it is probably more important to get the documentation together and document every encounter you have with him.
Also bear in mind that the perspective you get from a lawyer will revolve around a "play-it-safe" mentality, and so the extent that is what you are looking for, legal consultations could be helpful.
Re:If you have to ask... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not what I said. I said if you think you might need one, it's a Clue. If you are being accused of something that could cause conviction or damages to be levied against you, and you are unsure enough about the situation as to not be sure you would prevail, then you need advice.
One source of such advice is a lawyer.
What I would definitely say is, if you are in such a situation and you're unsure enough of your position to not know if you would prevail, get some advice. You may save a lot of money if you can get it from nolo instead of a lawyer, but it also depends on the situation. Nolo is great if you're wondering about patent or copyright infringement or you think you might be sued for libel or slander or your tree might fall on your neighbor's house. (Sometimes their advice is "get a lawyer," even though their logo is a shark with a briefcase.)
If you have been accused of a serious crime involving the possibility of major jail time, it's a no-brainer. Even if you think you do know how it will turn out get a lawyer ASAP. In the situation described by the poster, the lawyer's function might not be so much to avert the dingbat CEO's lawsuit as to engineer the countersuit seeking damages from the CEO for being such a dingbat.
no way, am I gonna answer that question! (Score:3, Funny)
For all I know you could trace me down and sue me!
Re:no way, am I gonna answer that question! - OT (Score:3, Funny)
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." --George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
(from Bushisms: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism
You probably don't need one yet... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd LOVE to know who this person is, by the way, so I can be sure not to ever do business with his or her company.
You cannot post correspondence (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You cannot post correspondence (Score:5, Insightful)
So I looked into this issue, and it's basically as you say*. But there are a couple of points you didn't mention. First, while you don't have a right to redistribute their creative works, you are allowed to use it in a "fair use" context, and they have no expectation that their message remain private. That is, you can quote the most relevant portions, and explain the whole situation in your own words.
Also, in the case of works with no real commercial value (most e-mail qualifies), you can be successfully sued, but it's very unlikely that you can be sued for monetary damages. The best they can do is force you to take the correspondence down. If your responses were libelous, it's a different story.
Having said that, I side with the posters who say that, in the case of the clueless CEO, the best plan is to back away slowly, document everything, and don't do anything to provoke him. And talk to a lawyer if it makes you feel more secure.
* IANAL, so CYA.
Re:You cannot post correspondence (Score:2)
> context, and they have no expectation that their
> message remain private. That is, you can quote
> the most relevant portions, and explain the whole
> situation in your own words.
You can quote the whole thing if that is what it takes to make your point. This is likely to be the case with these sorts of emails.
Statutory damages (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, in the case of works with no real commercial value (most e-mail qualifies), you can be successfully sued, but it's very unlikely that you can be sued for monetary damages.
Under United States copyright law, even if the actual damages are less than $20 (lower limit for a jury trial), the plaintiff can pursue statutory damages [cornell.edu], which can be as high as $150,000.
Re:Statutory damages (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You cannot post correspondence (Score:2)
Re:You cannot post correspondence (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a bad idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you disturbed a dragon. Leave the cave quietly and pray he doesn't wake up. He might never win in court but that doesn't mean you'll have to have six mortgages on your house before he's done with you.
Re:There's a bad idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
How are the costs of legal actions payed in the US? AFAIK, each side pays his/her own bills. This seems quite silly, because in a case such as this, the rich player can simply drown the poor player in legal fees. I see this as a major flaw of the US legal system.
At least here in Finland, generally the losing side pays both side's expenses (unless decided otherwise by the judge - so nobody has to pay ridiculous expenses). This way nobody can drown the other player out for a silly matter such as this. Of course, this adds risk to filing a suit, which could limit the small man's willingness to sue, but I'd say that on the whole it's a better system. What's your take on it?
Re:There's a bad idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
fine, I lose, and the court awards you damages.
but you want me to pay your expensive lawyer too!? that should come out of your winnings. Else we are basically giving the lawyer the right to assess damages me as well, but without any legal guidelines as to the ammount.
Seems fairer to me that the suit bringer always pays his lawyer, and also the defendant's, if the suit is overturned.
That way, people only sue if they are sure to win, and rich people or companies can't sue poorer people just to harass them into settling out of court.
And there's no risk in sticking your neck out if you know you are right.
Re:There's a bad idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
"but you want me to pay your expensive lawyer too!? that should come out of your winnings."
"That way, people only sue if they are sure to win, and rich people or companies can't sue poorer people just to harass them into settling out of court."
You got it backwards. By not allowing the plaintiff seek reimbursement for legal fees from the defendant, only those that could afford a lawyer on their own would bring cases to court, such as the "rich people (and) companies" you mention above.
If you make me go so far as to drag you in to court to prove that I'm right and owed money, you, not I, should be responsible for paying for the legal fees as well. It's not like the actual trial is Step 1 in trying to receive your damages. There's a codified process where there is at least one "or else" document delivered to the defendant.
Hypothetical: You key your name and address on the hood of my car. I contact you and demand that you pay for the new paint job. You refuse and give me a Nelson laugh. What you're suggesting would prevent me from dragging you into court to pay for my new paint job until you do it over and over and over again until I reach the point where all the new paint jobs finally costs more than a lawyer.
By the way, what you're suggesting would make all loan interest rates (credit cards, mortgages, etc.) double or even triple overnight. If lenders aren't able to recoup legal fees from beligerent debtors directly, they'll have to make that money back some other way...
"And there's no risk in sticking your neck out if you know you are right."
Unless you're the plaintiff, because under your system he has to pay for his lawyer no matter how right he is. If you read something other than Slashdot every once in a while you might understand that not all plaintiffs wear black hats and defendents white.
Re:There's a bad idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
Punitive damages are only employed where the party seeking them can convince a jury that the tortfeasor (and other potential tortfeasors who will be basing their future decisions on the outcome of this case) has acted so wrongfully that they need to be taught a lesson.
I mean, imagine going up against a well-funded toxic waste dumper. If you can only sue him for actual damages that may not be enough to discourage him from dumping _more_ waste. He can afford it, after all.
As for the McDonalds' case, I STRONGLY suggest you actually look into the details of it; you're clearly just acting on what you've heard from some guy -- not exactly an accurate source.
It cuts both ways . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You probably don't need one yet... (Score:2)
Re:You probably don't need one yet... (Score:2)
Check out the legal FAQ (Score:5, Informative)
John
Might be good.... (Score:2)
Re:Might be good.... (Score:2)
You need a lawyer when (Score:2, Informative)
Prepare to Countersue.... (Score:2, Interesting)
How much could he actually sue you for? (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL, but if I remember the legal process correctly, if he's suing you for $3000 or less (I could hardly imagine why a computer virus on his computer and only his computer would result in more than that in damages), then it goes to small claims court, which is jury-less and less formal that a full blown class-action lawsuit type dealy you always see in the movies. So I'd imagine that lawyers aren't _that_ extraordinarily helpful in a small claims court.
Re:How much could he actually sue you for? (Score:5, Insightful)
So the CEO has lost documents, lost time, and has to pay a computer guy to clean his computer.
Already the CEO is able to blow this out of proportion to well over $3,000.
I am not a lawyer, but I am the son of one. My advice? Send a nice note through snail mail. Certify the letter, and keep a copy yourself.
In the letter, explain the virus and why you are not at fault. Do some research, and include quotes and backing evidence that support your claim. That should not be too hard to do, a simple search of Symantec and Macafee should give you quite a bit right there.
Start the explanation "I did some research into what seems to have happened, and I see how you mistakenly believe I sent you the email. However..."
End the letter with something like "Before you decide to follow through on any legal action, I am sure you too will research the computer virus (Klez) you recieved and will come to the same conclusion I did - that I am in no way responsible for the harm that has come to your computer and your corporation."
For less than an hour of work and about a dollar to send the letter, you can cut off most chances of legal action. In addition, if the CEO decides to go after you, it will never get to the courts. Lawyers on both sides will quickly figure out that there is no case and never let it get that far. You playing nice and courteous goes a long way to show that you are not only innocent, but deserve some slack for your composure under wrongful attack.
Re:How much could he actually sue you for? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How much could he actually sue you for? (Score:2)
Re:How much could he actually sue you for? (Score:4, Interesting)
(Emphasis added by me.)
Let me first say that I'm just going to stick with traffic courts for this comment, just to make things clear. Now, you explicitly call out "if you can afford [a lawyer]". What most people don't realize is that they can afford a lawyer, especially for traffic tickets. Ignoring the cost of the fine itself (anywhere between $70 and $500, depending on what you were doing), you are almost guaranteed an insurance hike in the case of a ticket. If a traffic lawyer costs $350 (at least, that's what my lawyer [mucklestone.com] generally costs, with it being a bit higher for tickets out of her county), you've just saved close to $600 in insurance fees. It's very easy for a traffic lawyer to get your ticket dismissed or otherwise win the case. All they really have to do is drag out the process by asking for a discovery, which is usually not done in a traffic case but is allowed and must be honored by the court because a traffic ticket is considered a criminal offense and discovery is a right of the defendant in a criminal case. By doing that, the case will drag past the point where it's profitable for the court to continue trying it, and will likely just drop the charges (your lawyer will need to present some sort of plausible case for the charges to be dropped, so the judge can save face, but any good lawyer can do that in his or her sleep). Since traffic tickets are nothing but income for the issuing government, the simple act of fighting the ticket cuts into their profits. The governments prey on those that just blindly pay their tickets and go on their way. Don't you already pay enough in taxes?
The point, then, is that you can afford a lawyer, and should hire one. Sure, it's more expensive than representing yourself, but it's cheaper than paying the insurance increase, and there's a nearly-100% chance the lawyer will win your case (unless you picked a particularly inept lawyer).
Re:How much could he actually sue you for? (Score:2)
(unless you picked a particularly inept lawyer).
For some reason, this face [mad-troll.com] comes to mind.
Free consultation (Score:5, Informative)
Some smaller lawyers will just bill against the retainer, while larger firms will require payment in addition to the retainer, but will return the retainer in full at your request when you close an account with them.
Most lawyers charge between $150-$300 an hour unless it is a case where they believe you will win a settlement (in this case, it doesn't seem so; however, you might be able to get lawyer fees if you need to sue if the CEO sues).
IANAL, but I'm married to one and had to use some for my old business.
Just go look up a lawyer or get a referal (highly recommended) and see what they say. They'll know better than any of us on slashdot (unless they are lawyers).
Before you need him. (Score:4, Funny)
Or you can go to Jiffy Lube to save $20 bucks a year and then the mechanic doesn't know you from a hole in the wall. Doesn't think you'll be back after he's done.
And who want's a total stranger looking up their hooches to find that itch.
I know I'm crass but it does get the point accross.
Re:Before you need him. (Score:3, Funny)
Who needs a lawyer... (Score:5, Funny)
No klez, in fact, no internet
I'm afraid that.. (Score:3, Funny)
Soo, ummm were you fired? (Score:2)
Regarding when to call a lawyer. If you think you may possibly be charged with a crime, you call a lawyer period. No decent lawyer will not take 5 minutes and listen to your case. You will most likely be told to call back when and if the authorities are going to move against you. If and when that happens you pay a retainer and then go from there. If any lawyer asks for money up front, run away.
Regarding money, if you truly did nothing wrong you would most likely recoup your legal costs in a summary judgement before the case even got to court. Contrary to popular belief most cases do NOT go to court. They are settled either by an arbitrator or judge before hand.
As always IANAL but my father is, and I worked at his firm for several years.
Re:Soo, ummm were you fired? (Score:2)
I don't think it was the CEO of his company, just a random CEO off the street
Just be sensible (Score:5, Insightful)
If you DO ever end up in court, after sending the polite note and getting a lawyer, point out that you have no money for him to take, and that if he does sue you, he'll look like a fool. If the CEO continues to press the suit, carry through on your end and go public.
There are tons of ways for ordinary people to do this. One is your local TV station. My TV station has something called "Channel 3 Reports" which is basically a cosumer line where people can complain if they feel cheated by a business. Channel 3 will send a reporter to the business and make them answer a few questions on camera. This can be REALLY embarrassing, espcially if there is any chance that the business did make a mistake. Many people would rather settle than have a hostile interview on camera.
Newspapers are also your friend. Alternative ones like the "News and Review" will often do interviews with ordinary people who have run afoul of some large business or government agency. Larger papers too might be interested to run your story.
I think enough bad press, and hints of more, will end just about any unfair suit from a CEO who has a company and business to worry about.
Be smart. Be polite. Be truthful. And be persistant. That I think will get you out of any jam that truly isn't your fault.
Peace.
Re:Just be sensible (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind that Klez does not use your e-mail address found on the sending machine as the from: address in any subsequent e-mails. It gets addresses of other people from your outlook address book.
So if I'm stupid enough to use outlook and then stupid enough to let Klez loose on my machine and you're in my address book, then your address could appear on the from: field on the next victim's inbox. So even if you are using an ultra-secure unix box and read your mail with pine (which is a text-only client, so it is impossible to get any infection from an e-mail,) your friend who uses outlook can still cause you grief in this way.
This makes it hard to track down the source of the worm and that's why Klez is still fairly old but running rampant in the wild.
I've got an easy answer to your problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I've got an easy answer to your problem (Score:2)
Re:I've got an easy answer to your problem (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I've got an easy answer to your problem (Score:2, Informative)
Don't do that, but do something similar. (Score:5, Funny)
well I am one (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to take a deep breath and work out the pros and cons of using a lawyer. I think the best time to use one is where you are presented with a situation where:
(a) you are IN DANGER OF LOSING ESSENTIAL RIGHTS. Examples are signing contracts where you do not understand what people in your position normally can get (or lose);
(b) you are unfamiliar with the regulations and laws associated with doing certain things (like holding lotteries, running a business, being a landlord etc.); or
(c) you or your property are seriously injured and you NEED compensation to compensate for some significant loss
Using lawyers simply as a replacement for common sense is really dumb. Lawyers move SLOWLY and EXPENSIVELY. Why? Well, because (1) they have a lot of stupid work to do; (2) they are often sick of dealing with issues that should be resolved outside the legal system; (3) their profession is focused on looking at what they can get out of someone or how to hit back vs. constructively and quickly resolving disputes.
Often you will walk into a law office and have a consultation. Suddenly, the lawyer is putting together your case. What the lawyer is SUPPOSED to do is work with you on what you want to get out of this in the end, explain the costs, timelines (which are a lot longer than you think) and the typical results. Results means more than just getting some money. It means the effect of legal action on you and those around you.
Too often, the lawyer acts more like a plumber who plugs your story into his predefined precedents instead of being a professional who consults with you and educates you about all the factors you should know BEFORE proceeding.
Just ask Slashdot! (Score:5, Funny)
Could be time. (Score:2)
American or Gangster (Score:3, Funny)
In the civilized world, you only need a lawyer if you work in organized crime.
Special case:
If you are both american and criminal; you don't need a lawyer - Then you are a lawyer!
Lawyers (Score:2)
Now, as for how to pay for one, that's another matter. You can try to talk to Legal Aid in your neighborhood. Usually, lawyers participating in Legal Aid will give you pro bono (free) advice until it leads to a courtroom appearance, in which case they do usually require payment.
If your work offers a legal plan (like mine does), I recommend you sign up for it. I pay $16 a month, but in return, I have full legal coverage for everything except legal actions against my employer.
counter-suit (Score:2)
Re:counter-suit (Score:2)
It's funny 'cos it's true, Marge. (Score:5, Funny)
Q: When do you need a lawyer?
A: When you're talking to a lawyer.
Which is to say, if you ever need to deal with someone else's attorney in any offical capacity, no matter how trivial, you're best served by having your own on-call as well.
First, the CEO needs a lawyer (and a clue) (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like you just got somebody with a bee in their bonnet. (And, if you want another cliche,) My experience has been that such people's bark is worse than their bite.
So, if the CEO wants to sue you, first he has to find a lawyer willing to take on the case. In this case, that means that the lawyer would believe that A) there's a reasonable chance of winning in court and B) that if they did sue you, you have enough money to make it worth their while. Now, B is not as critical -- if the CEO in question is a real jerk, he may sue out of spite. But, A... If there isn't a reasonable chance that you'd win and a judge agrees, not only do you win, but the CEO and his attorney could be in trouble for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
The FBI, luckily is more than smart enough to understand forged headers and also knows more about computer viruses than this CEO evidently does. There may be some record in some computer somewhere, but it won't really mean anything.
The real questions are:
1) Is this CEO is the head of the place that *you* work?
and
2) Is he slandering you among other people?
If he is the CEO of your company and he decides to have you fired or something, then you may have a wrongful termination case. If he's going around telling other people about how you wrote this virus and sent it to him, then that's slander (assuming you didn't actually do it...), which is grounds under which you could sue him. In either case, consulting a lawyer may be a good idea.
Probably the best thing is to take the high road and ignore it.
Re:First, the CEO needs a lawyer (and a clue) (Score:2)
It may be worth having a lawyer draft a letter explaining the salient points, including some advice to the CEO not go spreading malicious rumours.
Note that you should never do that sort of thing yourself - its very easy to drift from (perfectly legitimately) expressing your concerns and knowledge of your right to protect your reputation into the territory of threats...
A good offense... (Score:3, Informative)
...is often the best defense.
Here's what I would do: write a letter to the CEO in question. Don't rant or rave, but explain the nature of the Klez virus in non-technical terms. Attach a description from one of the major anti-virus manufacturers as proof of your assertions.
Then drop the bomb. WITHOUT WHINING (that is VERY important), and without OVERDRAMATIZING IT (also VERY important), warn him that his actions may constitute libel and/or slander, and that any further attempts to harm your reputation will be delt with through legal means.
Try something like this: "Finally, I have tried to be patient. I hope that this explanation has convinced you that I have no role whatsoever in your virus infestation. I know that not everyone is technical, and things like this can be difficult to understand. However, it's a small industry and I will not allow my reputation to be damaged through libellous and/or slanderous accusations. Cease and desist immediately or I will be forced to take legal action."
You might also think about filing a complaint with the FBI that the guy knowingly filed a false accusation.
Re:A good offense... (Score:2)
I should also say that if you don't trust yourself to write the letter so that it sounds sufficiently threatening without being overdramatic or whiny, it's pretty cheap (relatively speaking) to get a lawyer to draft a letter for you. That also has the benefit of making it look more like your serious. I'm just always too cheap to use a lawyer, and I'm generally good at writing threating letters. :)
Re:A good offense... (Score:2)
Well, close, but not quite. Barratry is the actual instigation of frivolous lawsuits. Since we can fairly safely conclude that our hero has a strong case against the unnamed CEO, if he threatens legal action but does not follow through, then he is guilty of either a) generosity or b) laziness. Barratry doesn't enter into this situation. Frankly, it is rather unusual to sue someone because they failed to sue you (or file a countersuit against you.) I'd be intrigued if someone could present a situation where such a suit might be successful...
There's also another definition of barratry that applies to misappropriation of sea vessels, but I'm pretty sure that that isn't happening here.
Ignore it. (Score:2)
The IP the mail was posted from (or at least the mail server it came through) will be right there in the headers. If there's any logging going on then this can be traced back to the remote host used to post the mail. If there's no logging, there's no proof either way!
Maybe you could go ahead and sue for defamation of character after the case were thrown out?
One clue... (Score:2)
If you can at all avoid it, however, do not start paying a lawyer until your sure that things are getting beyond your ability to control.
END COMMUNICATION
The only way to know... (Score:2)
When you need a lawyer (Score:3, Funny)
When a policeman gives you a dime.
Re:When you need a lawyer (Score:2)
Tit for tat. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you have received a letter specifically and clearly accusing you of the things you mentioned, then congratulations, because you have a valid and clear-cut libel case on your hands.
Send him a cheerful letter in return that explains the nature of the virus, and attach pages upon pages of URLs and other documentation to/from leading anti-virus software makers on the subject. Inform him that if he pursues, you'll pursue.
But isn't there some responsibility here? (Score:3, Funny)
I mean, this CEO sounds like he's just gone a bit ballistic and needs tuned down a notch or two. At the same time, if you end up being a vector for Klez, this implies you got Klez, and this usually implies you weren't taking appropriate self-defense precautions.
So really, isn't the author of this piece at least partially responsible for the situation the CEO has found himself in? (Now, the same argument applies to the CEO - he too has taken insufficient steps to protect himself).
Uh no.. (Score:4, Informative)
Dr. Harm (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually...you DO need a lawyer... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Of course, he would have have made the statement in some form that would be viewable by other people, CC the message or use a mailing list, or posted it on a message board or so forth. But you might actually look into this.
slander Pronunciation Key (slndr) n.
1) Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2) A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
Seems like it fits to me.
- JoeShmoe
.
Wake up! (Score:2)
This twit is trying to bitch-slap you, wrongly. And to give it a fine coating of 'acceptability' he's using 'the law' as his weapon of choice.
I suggest that your weapon be somthing other than 'the law.' - If someone fights unfairly, you are under no obligation to be fight fair yourself, and just because he's in a suit doesen't meen he's fighting fair.
The gravest mistake in encating revenge is the urge to gloat. This give your opponent evidence and can cause him to escelate the battle because he knows who to target. Insead, cary out your revenge some time in the future, be anonymous and untraceable. Refraqin from checking to see if your act of revenge was a sucess. Do not tell *anybody* about the revenge, if you can't keep a scecret then you shouldent expect others to do so.
Good luck and happy trails.
Right Now (Score:3, Informative)
Robert K. Brumbelow
rkbrumbelow@go-ssi.com
Prepaid Legal (Score:2, Interesting)
Pre-Paid Legal anyone? (Score:2)
I pay about $20 a month and accrue hours that can be used toward a trial, in the event I'm sued or need to sue. I also get (as far as I can tell) unlimited phone access to attorneys for questions and concerns. Everytime I call, all of my issues are addressed and the lawyer on the other line gives advice on my options is the advice doesn't pan out.
You buy car insurance before your car is whacked in an accident. You get renter's/homeowner's insurance before your dwelling is burglarized. Why not get "legal insurance" before your sued. Check out Pre-Paid Legal -- I haven't regretted my purchase thus far. Besides, if you're querying non-legal websites for advice on what to do when you're legally harassed, you are way past the point of needing legal counsel.
Do your own due-dili. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm gonna say it -- I can't stand lawyers. I think that many of their practices are just plain bullsh*t, particularly when it comes to how many "hours" they work on preparing documents and doing research. So, do your own, and when you work with a firm, share with them, and stay on top of the firm so that you know exactly how much work their billing you for, what they're doing, etc.
You need a lawyer when you think that it might come to litigation. However, even before that day comes, you must do your own due diligence. That is most important because often, in cases like this, that deal with "high-tech" topics -- attorneys don't have the knowledge or experience to handle your case in the most effective manner. You can save time, a ton of money, and your ass (in terms of winning the case) at the end of the day.
Beg yer pardon... (Score:2)
If that CEO really wanted to sue you, they never would have confronted you in the first place. You would have had some other 'suit' serve you papers out of the blue, putting that CEO at the advantage... Now that he/she's confronted you they've already played their hand.
Obviously the CEO's display has got you scared enough to think twice about messing with him (which is what he accused you of...) and that's probably all he really wants. Cross him off your list of contacts and delete his email address from Outlook and sleep tight knowing there's one fellow you *do not* owe any favours to!
Is everyone oblivous? ... (Score:2)
A bit of perspective (Score:5, Informative)
Just because someone's a CEO doesn't mean they have more money, power, lawyers (or brains, apparently) than you.
All it takes to become a CEO of an S-Corp or an LLC is to send your $50-300 plus paperwork, depending on your state.
I'm actually the CEO of a small web development boutique (read: 3 partners, a few freelancers, no employees) and have been threatened with a couple of lawsuits and the like in the past. We have very little capital (particularly in the current economic climate) to defend ourselves legally -- so we take the talking route until either the issue goes away (almost all the time) or things get verifiably ugly (lawyers/legal documents appear).
The trick is to talk politely but formally (read: certified mail, business-style) directly to the other individual involved, and keep records of every single piece of correspondence -- at this point you're trying to keep the odds of actually getting in a lawsuit to a minimum.
You explain your complete lack of culpability in the incident (including whatever documentation from Symantec/CERN/etc.), and state (FIRMLY) that you take the *threat* of a lawsuit very, very seriously and if necessary you will pursue that route in kind to reclaim lost time, money and any slander/libel damages that may be due to you.
More often than not (in my experience), when people threaten this type of action, they're looking for easy money in an out-of-court settlement -- or they're looking to scare you into submission (completing a project for free, etc.) Being firm and standing up to these kind of idiots gives them pause.
Obviously, taking this route, you need follow-through. The moment a lawyer or legal paperwork rears their respective ugly heads, all bets are off. Get thee a lawyer and be merciless.
Just keep in mind:
1. Just because they talk big doesn't mean they are
2. If they've got money to bring a frivolous lawsuit against you for something that they could verify easily with a google search -- they've got the money to pay out counterdamages. Most lawyers would be willing to take the case with very little retainer.
</IANAL>
Despite Slashdot sentiment (Score:2)
the FBI are a lot more tech-saavy than your average CEO.
The answer as to when you need a lawyer depends on just how much money you have and how much legal knowledge you have. Don't forget, if you don't have much money, you're not a very good target for a lawsuit.
Wrong Question (Score:3)
In my experience there are way too many crooks in the legal profession. They will try to scare you into believing that you need expensive services, and then bill you for useless work.
One good resource I've found is the Martindale [martindale.com] site. This will help you to find a lawyer in the appropriate field, and may even tell you how highly they are regarded by their peers, both in terms of competence and ethics.
Whatever you do, make sure you file a reply (Score:4, Informative)
You have a fixed amount of time to file a formal 'Reply' to the complaint you were served with. If you fail to file a Reply within the time limit, a 'default judgment' can be filed against you, basically finding you liable for all the causes of action stated in the complaint. (While 'default judgments' can sometimes be set aside if you appear later and give a good excuse for not having filed a reply, you definitely don't want to have that happen.)
So, first thing, is definitely make sure that you file a Reply within the time limit. The only reason for not doing that would be if you can get the plaintiff to drop the case before then, but even then you're going to have to make sure that they file a dismissal of their case within the time period.
I'd get a lawyer, if I were you. But before doing that, I would give the CEO's lawyer a quick phone call. His or her name and number will be on the Complaint that you were served with. Explain that virus emails almost always have forged emails, and give him some reference to a site on the web or a book that documents that so he or she can look it up. The CEO's lawyer is likely to be more rational about this than the CEO, who may be emotionally upset by the virus attack and looking for someone to blame. If the only evidence thay have against you is the forged email address in the from: line -- and if you can convince the CEO's lawyer that those lines are always forged -- then the CEO's lawyer should recommend to the CEO that the case against you be dropped (probably "dismissed with prejudice" so that it can be refiled in the future if they discover more evidence against you).
In talking to the CEO's lawyer, I wouldn't be very forthcoming with information, if he or she starts asking you lots of questions. The main thing would be to just explain to them that virus emails typically have forged headers, and to point him to some authority to back that up. Also, don't lose your cool. Keep things on a calm and rational level. If the lawyer turns out to be an asshole, you may not make any progress with this step. But still avoid using your cool. You don't want people to get emotionally involved in this thing. Lawyers aren't supposed to get emotionally involved, but some will, so look out and don't let that happen. You don't want to make anybody on the other side mad; it could lead to them doing irrational things (prosecuting a crappy case) and causing you even more trouble.
If you do contact the CEO's lawyer and aren't successful in persuading him or her to get the case dismissed, then you should hire a lawyer to take over and file your Reply. You won't want to wait until the last minute for this; contact a lawyer at least two or three weeks before the Reply is due, if not sooner. Your lawyer could prepare and file your reply, and take over in trying to convince the other side to dismiss the case without going further, after you explain the virus-email-forging thing to him or her.
I should include the usual CYA stuff that lawyers have to do when they say stuff like this in a public forum: the above doesn't constitute legal advice. But it is what I would do if I'd been served with a complaint like that and I didn't know anything about maneuvering within the legal system.
Strike back (Score:4, Funny)
Rules of thumb (Score:4, Informative)
- Stop talking to him.
- Give him your mailing address and demand that all further communications (especially those of the "I'm going to sue you" variety) be done in writing (no, e-mail doesn't count). Certified mail is preferable in this case.
- If he DOES mail you something, make sure you put it somewhere safe. It may come in handy later.
- While you really don't need a lawyer until you see a piece of paper that says "I'm going to sue you" bearing his signature, they are handy to have around to make sure you don't write something you shouldn't in a letter to him. If you must write him a letter, at the very least make sure to read, re-read, and re-re-read what you wrote before you mail it. Avoid things like personal attacks, admitting any wrong-doing and phrases that can be read as "I'm going to sue you."
Generally speaking, as soon as he says "I'm going to sue you," say nothing to him other than giving him your mailing address. Whether or not you need a lawyer depends on his follow-through and if he actually puts "I'm going to sue you" on paper.Beyond that, if you end up needing a lawyer, I hear that talking to the local bar association is handy. You're supposed to tell them how you need a lawyer and they can reccomend those that specialize in that department.
Lawyers, CEO's and Psychopaths. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
Best solution:
Go talk to the fellow and clear up the misunderstanding. It'll save time, money and heartache. If your CEO is human, then I'm sure you can work it out without unpleasantness.
However, if the fellow happens to be one of those psychopathic CEOs which seem to be popping up everywhere these days, and whom through some sort of mental disorder and total lack of compassion decides he just wants to make you miserable, then it's okay to use a crow bar on his skull. (I certainly wouldn't tell).
If the crowbar solution is too un-nerving for you, (which I can understand), then it's best to get tactical; Let buddy know up front that he's made an error, show him the stats on how the virus works and that anybody with a software degree could prove it to a court. He'll understand. Subtly raise fears that when he is proven to be mistaken he'll look like a moron in front of everybody, the company will lose stock value, and he will probably lose his position due to a failure in confidence from shareholders and board members.
Psychopaths can be manipulated just like anybody else, it's just that their buttons are hidden in weird positions. Psychos can lie better than anybody, and they have no sense of shame, so if they are proven wrong, they don't feel stupid. This means that they can tell huge lies without sweating a bit because they fear nothing if it goes wrong. However, psychopaths DO have massive concerns about being walked away from. They are very, very posessive; to reject them when they have decided to control you is the worst torture you can inflict on a psycho. This is often the point where they will start using crowbars. And they don't get squeamish!
So then buddy, (if he really is a loonytoon), will smell the prospect of his company ditching him and he'll get very worried. Then all you do is offer him an out; tell him that it's very easy to be fooled by such a virus, that 'hackers' specifically design their viruses to get past the very greatest of minds, (who don't have time for all that nerdy software niggling which great minds like Buddy's don't have time to bother with), and that it is in fact, you who has been made a victim. He won't care about your welfare, of course, but if you can suggest ever so subtly that he can win points with you and everybody by hurling his anger at the real criminal, then you're in the clear.
That might be how I'd handle it, depending on the details, anyway.
-Fantastic Lad
Here's your rule of thumb (Score:3, Informative)
If you ever you wonder whether you might need a lawyer, you probably do.
I'm serious. For most people, this is a seldom-to-never occurance. But when you're in doubt, just spend the $50 for a half-hour consultation and find out.
ObAnecdote: I was recently fired for a really dumb reason. Was it legal? I didn't know. $50 and half an hour later I'd gotten a legal opinion that yes, it was a really dumb reason, but no, there was no legal recourse. Heck, it was worth the $50 just to keep from sitting up at night wondering, "Should I have sued those bastards?"
Re:now ! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:now ! (Score:3, Interesting)
NOT UNLESS YOU TELL THE LAWYER THE CONVERSATION IS WITHOUT Predjudice .
Otherwise anything you can and will be used against you.
However in a case of this type the lawyer is almost certain to be more resonable than his client. If you could provide the lawyer with a link to one of the Virus sites that describes this behavior of Klez the lawyer might even get the CEO to back off and appologise.
Incidentally what sort of CEO are we talking about? Like CEO of bogswater technology net revenue $300K per year can probably be blown off without as much worry as the CEO of an F500 company. The downside is that the CEO of bogswater Inc. is much more likely to be a complete and utter prick.
Re:now ! (Score:4, Insightful)
If Mr. CEO doesn't come to his senses, or if you receive notice of some action, you will need a lawyer who can speak the lingo to tell Mr. CEO's firm why it is a well documented fact that mail headers do not indicate actual message senders, and what sort of filings your side intends to pursue if they do not lay off.
You might even get a clever lawyer who can snooker them into pursuing some cause of action that, once the true facts are presented, will only piss a judge off. And lawyers avoid angering a judge at all costs. Once they're in that position, it's like they're Superman and you've got the Kryptonite. Such a situation might garner you a tidy settlement, out of court and confidential, of course. Yeah I don't favor use of the legal system for personal gain, although I do favor a little "Legal System Aikito (sp?)" when some jackass won't listen to reason.
Quite possibly a huge mistake (Score:3, Insightful)
No but you'll need one tomorrow after... (Score:3, Funny)
LARTed out of his office by a mob trying to win the new 3rd person Darwin Award,
or at least
go on who is it
How the Klez virus works... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If you don't mind me asking... (Score:2)
Basically I explained to the officer (who admitted she didn't even own a computer and didn't know why she got the case) how it was extremely easy to forge all of this, and from the header snippets in the printout (they knew nothing about full headers) that it probably came from a certain local ISP.
The officer understood and I never heard anything about it again.
If the CEO is stupid enough to go to law enforcement to try to have you put away and the law enforcement doesn't laugh it off, you can probably explain it to the officers and the CEO will get the results of the investigation and hopefully realise that s/he was pretty clueless to persue the whole endavour.
Done. (Score:2)
Re:Done. (Score:2)
Re:If you don't mind me asking... (Score:2)
There are pathes available for Outlook 2000, and the previous version as well that adds this functionality, or at least patches the holes. You are misinformed.
Re:If you don't mind me asking... (Score:2)
Among the issues Smith called critical is the ability for an e-mail that includes a special HTML tag, known as an IFRAME, to run an attached program. That weakness could be used by a virus to spread to computers through Outlook.
Klez uses IFRAME. Someone sent me Klez the other day. I recognized it as a Klez email right away, but just for yuks, decided to test Outlook. Opening the Klez email did nothing. Problem seems solved to me.
If you want to stick to Pine, that's your problem. I'll take a modern PIM/E-mail client, thanks.
Re:no win, no fee? (Score:2)
-Peter