
One Inviolable Rule - marketer
http://mattmaroon.com/?p=439
======
mechanical_fish
The problem with this "inviolable rule" is that it's circular:

 _if you have a legal question, you should ask a lawyer, and only a lawyer_

I agree, but what is a "legal question"? Only lawyers are qualified to answer
that!

Many of those who pose legal questions to the web, rather than to a lawyer, do
so because _they don't recognize_ that their question crosses the boundary
where they need a lawyer. It's not as if such edge cases are particularly
rare, nor are they easy to resolve. Every post that I make to news.YC is a
potential libel action; every quote that I cut and paste could be the subject
of a copyright suit. (Just ask the folks who post about Scientology... and
note that I just substantially increased my legal risk, and YCs, by using the
word 'Scientology' in this context. Perhaps my lawyer would have suggested a
different example...)

Everyone who writes software tiptoes around legal issues of patent and
copyright. Should I consult lawyers every time I use Pastie?

Everyone who downloads a piece of software risks a lawsuit. Click a link that
installs Firefox: legal. Click a link that installs a P2P client? Depends on
what you do with it. What about HD-DVD ripping software? If I install it, am I
committing a crime?

Yes, the ultimate arbiter of all of these issues should be a lawyer. I'm
certainly not qualified. But we can't afford to pay lawyers every single day.
In the end, we all have to develop our own sense of when we need professional
legal advice and when we don't -- and the web is helpful for that, even though
any individual anecdote (even the ones told by _bona fide_ lawyers!) may be
unreliable or inapplicable to your individual situation.

~~~
mattmaroon
"I agree, but what is a "legal question"? Only lawyers are qualified to answer
that!"

I don't think you need a lawyer to know what's a legal question. Should I
incorporate and if so, what type of entity is obviously one. What should be in
my terms and conditions? Etc.

~~~
river_styx
How can you be sure that any question related to your business doesn't have
legal implications before first talking to a lawyer? You just gave examples of
questions which obviously do require legal counsel, but what about examples of
those which obviously don't?

~~~
mattmaroon
You can't, and it's clearly a judgment call on your part. I was referring more
to the obvious legal questions, which are the ones I generally see here.

------
swombat
Can I take your word for it that I should ask a lawyer for legal advice? I
mean, you're not a lawyer? Why should I trust you?

~~~
mattmaroon
Don't trust me. Ask a lawyer. :)

~~~
volida
you can trust all lawyers the same way you can trust all programmers design
mission-critical software

you simply can't

------
Tichy
Problem: can lawyers be trusted? They can easily tell me that I need to spend
infinite amount of money on them. I might spend all my money on lawyers
without ever getting any product off the ground.

I see how much money is wasted on IT consultants, why should it be different
with lawyers? Except with IT consultants I can tell when shit is happening,
with lawyers I can't.

~~~
gaius
Lawyers are perfectly well aware that a) if they try to screw you, another
lawyer will happily screw them right back on your behalf and b) their social
position is precarious enough as it is; no jury would convict an anti-lawyer
lynch mob.

~~~
tstegart
Unfortunately, this is a legitimate concern. You can't really sue someone for
giving you subpar legal advice. It has to be really, really bad. And you would
be surprised at how rare it is for a lawyer to lose a malpractice case.
Doctors, sure, lawyers, not so much. It turns out that juries actually respect
the work lawyers do when you get them in a courtroom.

On the plus side, if you really do get screwed, a lot of states have funds set
up to compensate you. But if you pay for some legal work that might not have
been completely necessary, you're on your own.

------
rokhayakebe
The audience does not ask legal questions related to marriage or asset
management or mortgage. Their questions are startup related and they know a
few entrepreneurs have already been through a similar situation and it makes
sense to ask, but one should always consult a lawyer before making their final
decision.

If you go to parenting site they ask questions about the best schools and
those who answer are not teachers. Visit teenagers sites and you will see a
lot of questions from young girls who are very confused with their bodies and
want medical advices, those who answer are not doctors.

------
asif
Black and white statements such as this are almost always wrong. While I would
never trust a non-lawyer's legal advice over a lawyer's legal advice, there
could certainly exist a person in the world whom I trust more than any given
lawyer, that also has an experience pertinent to my situation. You'd be
foolish to bypass that person's opinion. Just take it with the knowledge that
that person isn't a lawyer.

~~~
raganwald
Fine, construct some hypothetical edge case "There *could exist..." and then
try to apply some reduction ad absurdum to conclude that Matt's advice is
wrong.

Only, Matt's advice is correct. You should not ask for legal advice on HN,
even if it is possible that in one of the many parallel universes there exists
an entity you trust more than a lawyer.

~~~
asif
I concede that HN is not the place to solicit legal advice. The level of trust
that I was referring to most likely does not exist between users of this site.

Nonetheless, I believe it is incorrect to state that one would be putting
one's self in harms way by discussing legal matters with a non-lawyer, as the
article implies.

Here's an example: My neighbor has a large tree bordering my yard, from which
a branch is hanging over the fence and interfering with my shit. Is it legal
for me to chop the branch? Maybe in some jurisdictions, but who knows? Should
I call a lawyer right away? Let me see what my wife thinks.

Me: "Hey honey, what should I do about this branch? Should I call a lawyer?"

Honey: "A lawyer?!?!? For God's sake why would you do that? That's just
Ethel's tree. Just cut the damn thing down."

\-- or --

"Umm, Johnny Cochrane, Jr. lives there. Call five lawyers."

~~~
raganwald
I agree that you are not putting yourself in harm's way by discussing legal
matters with non-lawyers, even HN non-lawyers.

I have often discussed legal matters with experienced businesspeople and
investors. Of course, when the conversation turns to "Ok, what is the next
action step?" the consensus is nearly always "Talk to a lawyer" :-)

~~~
mattmaroon
You don't put yourself in harm's way as long as you realize that what you are
giving or getting is not a substitute for legal advice. Unfortunately most
people tend to forget that very easily, as humans are often misled by
confident, and often confident that they know more than they do.

~~~
raganwald
Exactly. One should always differentiate "legal advice" from "advice about a
legal matter."

------
davidw
I don't think it's so bad to ask after other people's experiences and advice
as long as you keep in mind that 1) free advice is worth what you paid for it
2) who they are and what their credentials are. Someone who's started 5
successful companies probably _does_ have some insight into the legal part of
it, even though he's not a lawyer.

~~~
michael_dorfman
But part of the insight they are likely to have is that every case is
different and that the differences matter, and that the legal judgments are
best left to a lawyer.

Would you post a question here asking for medical advice?

~~~
davidw
This site isn't remotely about doctors or health, so obviously not.

I don't believe every case is _that_ different though, and there are some
common threads, as can be seen in the recent advice-wanted article (LLC's are
cheap and easy, definitely get a lawyer if there's more than one person).
Would anyone here recommend that people use Cobol or Forth to make a web site
with, unless the user has some really outlandish requirements?

In other words, advice here may be good for getting the 'gist' of how things
are or ought to be. Clearly, when you want to get serious, at that point you
should consult a lawyer. For example, I think pretty much anyone can tell you
that forming a partnership instead of an LLC or corporation is likely to be a
bad idea, or that people aiming for investments are likely better off with a C
corporation. Of course, there are lots of underlying details that need to be
looked after by a professional.

Furthermore, I like learning about this stuff, and it's not rocket science.
Complex, in some cases, certainly, but this isn't a group of people that shys
away from tough or complex things. The important thing is to keep in mind that
we aren't experts in it, simply learners.

~~~
michael_dorfman
I hear what you're saying, and I understand the desire to tackle complex and
tough things-- but some things are best left to professionals, believe me.

I can think of a few times where a lack of proper legal advice cost me more
than a million dollars.

Once burned, twice shy.

~~~
davidw
Look at it as a way to learn about what you're about to buy. Informed buyers
are likely to get a better product for less money.

------
noonespecial
Excellent advice.

The law is not logical and the outcomes are not reasonable. This is a hard
thing for the engineering mind to come to terms with given how much these
seemingly random outcomes can affect peoples' lives.

The law is a system that's nearly completely hacked at this point. Think of it
as a RedHat linux 5.0 system with wuftp enabled that's been running on the net
since '97. Do you really think that _ls_ is still _ls_?

~~~
rrf
Whilst I agree with Matt's advice, I disagree that the law is not logical. It
is fundamentally logical and shares many of the ideas found in logic:
evidence, probability, relevance, reasonableness, precedent, presumption,
proof, explanation, plausability, etc. That legal outcomes are not always
considered reasonable may be due more to the fallibility of a judge, jury,
expert or process. Further, drafting a legal document and programming are not
that disimilar.

~~~
raganwald
You know the expression "security theatre"? My cynical experience is that the
part of the legal system that concerns evidence, probability, relevance,
reasonableness, precedent, presumption, proof, explanation, plausability, etc
is _reason theatre_.

Although the decision may not always go to the side with the deepest pockets
and the most theatrically convincing lawyers, that's the way to bet.

~~~
Eliezer
Hello, Raganwald, and welcome to my quotes file.

------
michael_nielsen
Summarizing many of the comments and the linked post, it seems the only good
legal question to ask on HN is "how can I find a lawyer I can trust?"

~~~
kylec
The only 100% way is to become your own lawyer. Barring that, the best thing
to do is educate yourself and research the area in which you need legal
advice. Once you can get a feel for the intricacies of the situation the less
you'll have to blindly trust the advice of your lawyer.

~~~
uuilly
This is very impractical advice. A good lawyer, like a good VC, is not out to
"screw" you. They want to see your company get really big and give them steady
M&A business for the next 30 years.

Only choosing a non-sharky Lawyer is much easier than a non-sharky VC. Go to
some reputable law firms, tell them about your company, listen to them, and go
with the one you like. If you haven't figured this out yet then it probably
means that you have very little to be "screwed" out of anyways so you won't
have to worry about them doing that.

Mentally masturbating over legal issues you'll never understand in a
bootstrapped startup is just as impractical as not trusting landlords and
insisting on building your own office.

If done right you will get a rough feel for legal issues as you go. And it
will come from your lawyers.

------
rob_rasmussen
Well said.

Jack Sheridan's talk at startup school
(<http://omnisio.com/startupschool08/jack-sheridan>, a good talk that's not a
sales pitch) was an eye-opener for me -- I've become much more disciplined
about simply documenting agreements.

------
yters
Heh, I like the first absolute rule. It's obviously in response to the
ID/'evolution' debate, and consequently says absolutely nothing since neither
side argues evolution (broadly defined as change of species over time) doesn't
happen.

The only argument is about what mechanisms can be considered scientific
explanations. If you don't believe me, read what the key ID thinkers actually
say, instead of what the media says they say. The ID people explicitly make
this point in Expelled.

So, even though Matt picks out this position to show his clear thinking skills
in a controversial matter, it doesn't really pick out a controversial
position. Matt's position on evolution is just empty rhetoric for those who
don't know the debate. Alternatively, Matt doesn't get it either.

------
dhimes
It's really experience that matters here.

 _Lawyers go through a lot of schooling to learn how to examine your situation
and come up with the right answer_

I guess that's relative. As far as graduate programs go, the law degree isn't
really that long. They have probably haven't had many specialized courses;
their expertise will come from experience.

Often, the work that's done in their office is done by someone without much
training at all. You learn about business entities and how to form them in a
sophomore undergraduate class.

But while the law can be hacked, it is rather complicated. Whether or not the
person you asked had an understanding of _precedents_ in your particular area
would be a key factor in getting a quality response.

~~~
linhir
This is a classic underestimation of the expertise afforded by non-PhD
graduate programs. Three years is a fair length when compares to quite a few
graduate programs. Expertise does come through experience, like in almost
anything else, but I am hesitant to accept the ease with which you wipe away
legal education's value.

Many of the comments here are underestimating the technical (although perhaps
not technological) training a lawyer receives, at least a good one. If you
look at the first year of law school, it is often about learning how to think
like a lawyer. That, to respond to the comment below, is logical thinking, but
within the legal system. Legal research, even the use of LexisNexis or Westlaw
is an ability not easily mastered by the novice, no matter how brilliant their
startup idea or programming acumen.

The truth is that almost everyone underestimates the difficulty of other's
expertise. I could point to (hundreds of) thousands of blog posts about
individuals who think it is easy to whip up a good website, program, etc and
how stupid those people are. The parallel to that is programmers who think the
law is easy.

Matt's key point, to address other comments, at least in my view, is not
necessarily that you have to go to a lawyer when you have no money, but 1)
when you have some money, go to a good lawyer and 2) know that you're
ignorant. Know that you, your friends, the people you often talk to, likely
have no idea what they are talking about where the law is concerned, and do
not under any circumstance forget 1) because you did not realize 2).

~~~
dhimes
Ummm... The length of the JD, a doctorate, is 3 years; Ph.D.s tend to be 4 or
5 (or 6 or ...), and an MD, 4.

Short of someone who's done all three degrees, my estimate is probably pretty
good. I had room-mates and friends in graduate school (Ph.D.) who were law
students, and a friend of mine went on to get a JD after his Ph.D. My wife is
an MD. You could say I have a bit of knowledge about this.

Perhaps you didn't mean to reply to my post, but rather to someone else's. I
am not saying the law is easy, I'm saying that being a lawyer is not enough of
a qualification for getting your hard questions answered. _Experience
matters._

Consider accounting: you can do the numbers yourself, but an experienced
accountant can bring more to the table than just how to classify expenses.

(You could, of course, make the same arguments for the other degrees in
various situations.)

~~~
donw
A newly-minted MD is just as useless as a newly minted JD, only more
dangerous. Which is why MDs have to go through rotations and interning,
because the medical system recognizes that a doctor with zero experience
should _not_ be dealing with patients without a few years' worth of
supervision.

Law firms often work the same way, with junior lawyers spending a few years
'learning the ropes' before they get put in charge of anything truly
important.

I think I'm supporting your post, but I'm not sure. :)

~~~
dhimes
Agreed.

------
edw519
Like anyone else, when I read the title of this post, I guessed what the rule
was before I reached it.

My guess for the one inviolable rule was, "Have enough cash to pay your bills
each month or die."

Could there possibly be two inviolable rules?

~~~
mattmaroon
I know some people who have lived for many years without even once having
enough cash to pay their bills.

~~~
MaysonL
I personally went for almost a year once, this century, without spending a
penny.

------
gills
Your rule is a good one, mattmaroon. I agree with it.

Unfortunately, you've tripped on Paul Buchheit's rule. You are
overgeneralizing from your own risk profile. There may be some real cowboys on
HN who are optimizing for different values and may be willing to accept
significantly more legal risk in their lives in the process of launching their
businesses.

(I'm not one of them.)

------
Locke
"...if you have a legal question, you should ask a lawyer, and _only a lawyer_
" [emphasis mine]

Because lawyers are magic people who never make mistakes? Who are completely
trustworthy? Because the act of simply discussing a legal matter with friends
will somehow cause irreparable harm?

I'm leery whenever someone tells me what I can and can't discuss with whom.

Let's say I'm having car trouble. I'm not stupid, I know I'm going to have to
take it to a mechanic. But, first I discuss the problem with some friends and
family. I get a couple uninformed opinions on what it _might_ be, what it
_might_ cost to fix, etc.

When I take the car into a mechanic am I worse off for getting a few
uninformed opinions?

~~~
mattmaroon
There's a tremendous difference in likely possible outcomes between getting
bad advice about a car and bad advice about the law.

It's more akin to feeling a sharp pain in your chest and asking a friend
rather than a doctor.

~~~
Locke
You mean to say that every legal issue is life and death?

There's no variability? There are no minor legal issues? I should consult a
lawyer about, say, a parking ticket?

~~~
Locke
It occurs to me that I've strayed from the point I wanted to make. I'm not
arguing that advice from non-lawyers can or should be used as a replacement
for a lawyer's advice. I'm arguing against the idea that advice from non-
lawyers is worthless and should be avoided at all costs.

~~~
mattmaroon
The only reason I think it should be avoided at all costs is that it's near
impossible to pick the good advice from the bad. If you knew enough to do
that, you wouldn't be asking the question in the first place. How does getting
a bunch of advice whose quality you have no way of judging help you at all?
The best case scenario is that you ignore it and go get qualified advice, and
the worst case is disaster.

~~~
Locke
How do you know what questions to ask your lawyer? How do you know what info
might be pertinent to helping your lawyer to give sound advice?

Let's say I were to ask for advice about X. Someone posts, "Oh, when I went
through X, my lawyer advised me to do Y and I think it really helped." So,
then when I talk to a lawyer I can ask about Y. I don't see how opening a
dialog hurt anything?

How does a little extra knowledge lead to disaster? Note: I'm _not_ talking
about forgoing a lawyer's advice in favor of listening to an internet nutjob.

You seem to be advocating ignorance and/or blind faith lawyers. How do you
recognize a bad lawyer if you don't make any effort to educate yourself?

~~~
mattmaroon
Ask your lawyer the question you posted here. They aren't machines, they don't
simply answer the question you asked and then stop. They'll dig around and ask
you for any pertinent info. You don't need people on Hacker News to help with
that.

Weeding out bad lawyers is not something that posting here will help you with
(unless maybe you ask for recommendations, which I would encourage). Every
legal advice post here gets 100 differing opinions. If you assume any lawyer
who tells you something other than what you heard here is a bad one, then all
of them will be.

The best route might be to do what you do with a doctor or any other
professional: get a few opinions. Do a few consultations. They're generally
free, and at least will give you some idea.

The problem with "extra knowledge" is that you're getting some amount of
information and some amount of misinformation, and you likely have no good way
to choose between them.

I don't advocate blind faith in anyone, but legal advice from a lawyer is
orders of magnitude more likely to be correct than legal advice from a non-
lawyer.

------
DanielBMarkham
Somewhere there is a lawyer board where right now posters are asking "So If I
wanted to form a startup for legal advice, is there some kind of web thingy I
might need for that?"

------
maxklein
Sometimes one just needs to know in general how the law looks like, and cannot
be bothered to ask a lawyer. For example, let's say you want to know if it's
legal to sleep with a 17 year old girl. You ask your friend who has experience
with such things. You don't go calling up a lawyer straight away.. it makes
you look suspicious.

~~~
imgabe
If you were going to ask shady questions and worried about looking suspicious,
a lawyer would at least be professionally bound to keep your inquiries
confidential, your friend isn't.

------
volida
youtube founders managed to exploit a law for their growth and they werent
lawyers.

almost certainly they must have asked for professional opinion, but equally
certainly if they weren't sufficiently aware of the legal knowledge required
they probably wouldn't have exploit it.

~~~
icey
When I see arguments like this, I can't help but think that the thought
process is akin to: "I don't get into car accidents, so I shouldn't have to
wear a seat belt."

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
I see this a bit more like the motorcycle helmet laws in some states: they're
not required, but a very very good idea.

------
michael_dorfman
Amen, brother.

(I hate to post something that is essentially "+1", but in this case I think
it really needs to be said.)

