A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network • Hacker News Board

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#141

Post by jt2190 » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:28 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #127

ColinWright wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that only lawyers can know anything > about the law, and therefore nobody else can > suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly > elitist. My personal experience is that disclaimers such as you gave have very little legal standing, and that what you said can be regarded as legal advice, regardless of the "if"s, "but"s, "possibly"s, and "maybe"s that you so carefully sprinkled throughout. You certainly…

> you can be regarded by some as taking some of the responsibility for the advice you think you haven't given That sounds bogus to me, has anyone heard of any lawsuits of that type? That is, someone who is not a lawyer and is not presenting themselves as a lawyer being sued for giving bad legal advice?

If I understand correctly, no client-attorney relationship is established just by sharing your opinion of legal matters with someone.[1]

(edit: The rules are different if you are an attorney.)

(2nd edit: This debate seems to be about whether one can be held legally accountable if someone acts on your naive legal opinions and whether it's a good idea to share your legal opinions when--admit it--you really have no idea what you're talking about.[2] Then again, is it a good idea to follow free legal advice provided by a non-lawyer?)

[1] http://meta.answers.onstartups.com/questions/113/do-i- need-to-add-a-disclaimer-when-i-answer-a-question-on-this-site

[2]http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/293/A...

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#142

Post by smacktoward » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:32 PM UTC

swalsh wrote: post #64

jwarzech wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's a Kickstarter for legal fees" in 1...2..

People will eventually become cynical, and stop contributing after they realize there are two sides to each story. I find often that the sob stories you read on the internet exaggerate the tragedy of the situation.

That's why it's important to set up the Kickstarter now, so you can rake in your share of the bonanza before the world wises up :-D

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#143

Post by Klinky » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:33 PM UTC

law wrote: post #94

fijal wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you find some documents under which circumstances this is a crime? I find that you should not do that for money or in court on wikipedia, but I somehow fail to find that "giving advice" or even "drafting legal documents" can be a crime.

https://www.google.com/search?q=unauthorized+practice+of+law "[A]s the term is generally understood, the practice of the law is the doing and performing services in a court of justice in any matter depending therein through its various stages and in conformity with the adopted rules of procedure. But in a larger sense it includes legal advice and counsel and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which…

Doesn't someone have to advertise that they are practicing law and take a fee despite not having credentials to back it up for what you quoted to matter? But maybe you can't answer that because it would qualify as the unauthorized practice of law to do so. Maybe your quote alone is enough to put you in jail, it sure looks like you're offering advice/opinion regarding a law.

Someone on the Internet explaining how to file for divorce, bankruptcy, or commenting about legal issues related to a startup seems outside of the scope of "unauthorized practice of law".

Does this mean legal advice on the Internet is good advice? No. But I think it's far from illegal unless someone claims to be a lawyer & accepts fees for services.

But now I am probably going to jail thanks to expressing an opinion on how I viewed the law you quoted.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#144

Post by johnny22 » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:38 PM UTC

jsprinkles wrote: post #134

logjam wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are aware that there is legal liability for YOU being created as we speak, right? You keep asserting this repeatedly without citation (and are now doing so in a separate HN post you made on the issue). Kindly cite cases where damages have been successfully litigated around someone posting friendly advice in a web forum.

I have mentioned several times that I have firsthand involvement with unsolicited advice being given on the Internet resulting in consequences for people. I am simply not legally permitted to talk about it, nor will I say if I was the person found legally responsible. Remember, a liability does not require a law, and there are such things as torts.

then find a case you aren't involved in? can't quote one of those either?

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#145

Post by rprasad » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:40 PM UTC

ColinWright wrote: post #101

nirvana wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that only lawyers can know anything about the law, and therefore nobody else can suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly elitist. Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects. You're being down voted because you are lying about what I said and attacking me for the "crime" of trying to suggest areas of investigation for this guy.…

> The idea that only lawyers can know anything > about the law, and therefore nobody else can > suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly > elitist. My personal experience is that disclaimers such as you gave have very little legal standing, and that what you said can be regarded as legal advice, regardless of the "if"s, "but"s, "possibly"s, and "maybe"s that you so carefully sprinkled throughout. You certainly…

Disclaimers have legal effect. If you include a disclaimer that you are not providing legal advice, and that your discussion is limited solely to specific issues (and may not include all issues raised by the fact pattern at hand), you will not be liable.

That does not mean you cannot be sued; anyone can be sued. But it does mean that you would win any lawsuit against.

I am a lawyer. (In my particular field, the magical disclaimer is the Circular 230 Notice regarding tax advice.)

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#146

Post by CurtMonash » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:43 PM UTC

When I was threatened with libel by Sybase, I jumped on the phone with the general counsels from Oracle and Computer Associates, and based on their "I'm not acting as your lawyer" general comments, handling things myself. The big difference is that "Handling things myself" amounted to sending back a couple of letters, not dealing with legal paperwork.

I'd say that advice across the internet on whether to engage a lawyer, how to engage a lawyer, or what your negotiating strategy might be is fair game, and could be just as good or bad as any other internet advice. Talking about your case in public, for the other side to see, could be disadvantageous, but that's a reasonable risk to take.

For actual legal procedures -- yeah, you absolutely need a lawyer. But the best organized and most affordable one may not give the best strategic advice.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#147

Post by ferringham » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:50 PM UTC

cube13 wrote: post #115

nirvana wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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, copyrig…

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.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#148

Post by rprasad » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:52 PM UTC

jsprinkles wrote: post #63

nirvana wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found a missing "possibly" and a spot where I clarified that something was my perception, but to be honest nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a "may" or a "it appears" or some other similar language. Nowhere did I give a single bit of legal advice. I merely illuminated a variety of ways that he could do some research that might show that he has more of a case than the lawyers he originally talked to…

> nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a "may" or a "it appears" or some other similar language. That's called weasel wording. > Nowhere did I give a single bit of legal advice. Uh, your entire comment is how to respond to this legal threat, which is legal advice. The only advice anyone on Hacker News should ever give to someone in legal trouble is "consult an attorney", not how to consult an attorney, r…

Nirvana, the issue is that you are providing a specific application of laws and rules to the OP's facts and suggesting a specific course of legal action. That is, by definition, the practice of law in every state in America. (Though perhaps not necessarily rising to the level of unauthorized practice, which could result in fines or other penalties.)

If you wanted to be on the safe side, you would have said "Generally, [Law X] says" or "Generally, in a situation like this, many people do [Y]."

In your specific case, I would have said, "Prior to hiring to a lawyer, if you do the following research, you'll be well prepared to talk to whatever attorney you select to represent you in this matter." All of your comment is no longer legal advice, it's merely information about how to prepare to knowledgeably talk to a lawyer who will handle the actual representation. (This could be construed as legal advice. IAAL.)

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#149

Post by nickler » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:52 PM UTC

liber8 wrote: post #38

General advice for legal questions: it's fine to ask these sorts of questions, but please, for the love of god, don't listen to anyone who isn't a lawyer or who hasn't gone through something very similar to what you're going through. And, even in those cases, take their advice with a HUGE grain of salt. (If you disagree, please see below, where OP is variously advised to (1) commit unlicensed practice of law [serious…

One of my lawyers put her job description quite succinctly, and it fits particularly well here. 'Lawyers are better defined as Risk Assessment. Our expertise is required so that we can give a client our best assessment of the risk entailed in any course of action the client chooses'

Think about the myriad of actions you could take here...wouldn't it be wise to have an idea of where the risk lies?

Get a lawyer stat.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#150

Post by dandelany » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:54 PM UTC

daeken wrote: post #92

jsprinkles wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My valuable knowledge is that this discussion shouldn't be happening, because I've seen firsthand what an Internet comment can do legally, both to plaintiff and defendant. So yes, I would prefer it be shot down. I am not legally permitted to discuss the cases in question nor provide specifics of my knowledge, nor will I create liability for myself by refuting specific legal advice being given in this thread.

In that case, might I suggest you end this thread now? Comments on HN should be submitted when they add value; if you're not willing to actually participate in a conversation and attempt to add value, I'd say that the comments have little to no place on the site. Especially in the other parts of the thread where you and another commenter got into it and it ended with "Fuck you."

As mentioned above, jsprinkles is adding value to the discussion by explaining that this discussion should not happen here. Clearly he has experience in the matter. You act as if he is being malicious towards the OP by trying to shout down the advice of non-lawyers. He is, in fact, trying to help OP by doing the same.