
Ask HN: Should I testify? - goingtogetsued
I&#x27;ve been contacted by a major law firm to testify against a former employer about how they&#x27;ve broken California and federal law. I have proof and witnessed it from a bunch of people inside so I&#x27;m not worried about that part.<p>But what will this do to my career? Now when people google me, they find good stuff like projects and presentations and blogs posts. They won&#x27;t let me be anonymous and the employer is prominent and popular here so people will find out. What happens if they find this instead? Would it be a deal killer if I applied at your company?<p>I&#x27;m looking for career advice here, not legal advice. I have enough of that.
======
mattvanhorn
Tell them to subpoena you - then the choice to testify is not yours any more.
You'll have to. But you can tell future employers that you were forced, if
you'd like to.

~~~
fixxer
This is smart. Guilty as sin or not, testifying against an employer seems
risky for one's career. You want to be able to explain to future employers
what happened in a manner that takes personal character assessment out of the
equation: somebody broke the law and you got a subpoena.

EDIT: I've worked at some shops that were "cultish" and would look at
testifying without a subpoena as not being part of the team. Fucked up, but
organizations are often so. You need to do the right thing in the smartest way
possible.

~~~
evan_
> Fucked up, but organizations are often so.

You can choose not to be a part of these organizations.

~~~
fixxer
You can certainly aspire to that. Some companies are really good at hiding
their true colors.

Mortgage, kids... Sometimes you need a paycheck.

~~~
sauronlord
This is what they mean by 'your house is not an asset'

Mortgages are not inherently bad. It's what you take the mortgage for is the
bad decision.

Example:

Good:

Having a mortgage for a legal duplex (2 dwellings) and renting the other half
out, while you live in one.

Bad:

Getting a house that's one big sink hole of cash and having more
bedrooms/lawn/what have you.

You can be employed to build someone else's dreams. However there are other
options available to you that don't involve being a rat.

~~~
kragen
My reading of “your house is not an asset” is “Robert Kiyosaki apparently
failed Introduction to Accounting because he still doesn’t know the
definitions of basic accounting terms.” (Except in very rare cases, like when
the verdict against you for the neighbor kid drowning in your pool is more
than your house will sell for.)

------
humanarity
I'd say there's something even more important operating here for you than
career, and that's who do you choose to be? This is really a question it works
for you to answer yourself. Consult your own values, search your feelings, is
this something that really inspires you? Are you being you authentically if
you do testify or not? Whatever you discover, take the risk and act on that,
whichever it is. The choice that is you, even if it's risky. This is an
identity inflexion point. Get your game face on :)

~~~
Confusion
crypt1d's response on this level is invisible for being flagged, but I think
he does raise a serious point: wouldn't OP be admitting that he has broken the
law or allowed the law to be broken for a longer period of time? What would be
the consequences for him because of that?

~~~
pron
It's a civil suit, not a criminal suit, and he's not the one being sued. I
think only company officers may be personally sued for company behavior.

~~~
humanarity
Great point. I'm no law expert tho I've heard there's different types of
companies ( Delaware c ? ), as a matter of curiosity I wonder if the
indemnification changes depending on the type of company.

------
jvdh
I'm going to answer from my own experience, which may or may not fit your
situation at all (you're kind of vague about it, so there's no way to judge).
This is also in part inspired by the comment of humanarity
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9360218](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9360218))

Several years ago in The Netherlands we had a website blockade of The
PirateBay. Most ISPs had to block it, it was stupid, and it did not work at
all. The ISPs were challenging it legally. The question got asked: "How
effective is this blockade anyway? Can we measure it?".

I did not realise it at the time, but this was somewhat an identity inflexion
point for me, and very much changed my career.

As a scientist in computer networking, with some knowledge of Bittorrent, I
thought to myself, how hard can it be? I could take some torrents off TPB,
record IP addresses passing by and checking which ISP they come from. I
finished the bittorrent measurements, wrote a report, and tried to publish it.
Only the dean and the faculty lawyer got wind of it, and they were not amused,
and saw a risk of getting sued by the entertainment industry.

I challenged them on this, and noted that I would publish this, even without
their support. Fortunately I also got full support of my professor, and we did
get to publish it. It was used in the court case, and it helped show the
ineffectiveness of the website blockade, so it got lifted.

This little weekend project changed my research interests, has made me focus
on ethics in computer science research, and especially security research. This
has changed much of how I initially planned my career, and it has gotten me to
where I am now. I have enjoyed every minute of it, and months later also
realised I was not happy with the way my career was going.

I took some risk in doing this, but it was something I believed in. The change
was possible because I was a researcher at a university, so that made it
somewhat easier.

~~~
jacquesm
And now downloads have been made illegal. So you were right in the short term
but the longer term effects were actually worse than the blockade was!

Still, kudos for standing up for what you felt was right and not giving in in
the face of such pressure, that was pretty brave.

~~~
jvdh
I have less of a problem with downloading being illegal in general. I strongly
object to censorship in a democratic society, especially without a good
checking mechanism or rules about ending a blockade.

------
declan
A few thoughts based on my experience, which included being subpoenaed by the
U.S. Department of Justice while I was at Wired. We filed a motion to quash,
which was unsuccessful, so I was forced to take the stand. I posted the docs
here: [http://mccullagh.org/subpoena/](http://mccullagh.org/subpoena/)

So, the thoughts:

* I would refuse to testify against my former employer unless I were subpoenaed. Even then, I may move to quash the subpoena (this may be different in your case, of course).

* Being subpoenaed could include depositions and travel and courtroom testimony and rescheduled evidentiary hearings because the judge has a murder trial that's running long -- it could take weeks of your life. This is not an hourlong process. Also, everyone else involved in this process is going to be paid for their time; who pays for yours? Do you even _want_ , ethically speaking, to be paid for your time? Remember the "major law firm" does not work for you and does not have your best interests at heart; their interests may be opposed to yours. To protect yourself you could hire your own attorney, who isn't going to work for free.

* If your former employer has an active fanbase and strongly and convincingly denies your allegations, you could be attacked by name, and your family members dragged into this, online and via social media.

* There are innumerable laws and regulations, some of them rather nuts, and at least one employee at every large company may have innocently violated one of them at some point. Do the laws you believe your ex-employer violated punish behavior that _you_ personally believe should be illegal ( _malum in se_ vs. _malum prohibitum_ )? And did management know about and approve these illegal actions, or was it a rogue employee at fault? If the answer to either question is "no," you may want to drop this.

* Now that you've been contacted by a law firm, you could be subpoenaed even if you do not respond and try to drop this.

* If you believe your former employer has institutionally engaged in actions that are illegal and unethical, you have other options beyond testifying. You could write up your experiences and post them publicly, anonymously if necessary.

~~~
carrotleads
This..

When the rubber hits the road this is what happens and worse

------
lisa_henderson
Let's be realistic: there are many companies that won't hire you after this.
The question is, are those the companies that you want to work for? It's a
tough choice, of course.

You mention that the company you worked at is popular here on Hacker News. So
let's assume we are talking about Apple or Google or perhaps AirBnB. So from
now on, when people look up your name, they will see something like "Testified
against Apple".

A lot of companies will quietly remove you from consideration, if they see
that you have testified. And, sad to say, this might exclude you from a lot of
the better paying jobs in the industry.

All the same, you have to ask yourself, how will you feel about yourself if
you don't testify? What kind of world do you want to live in? What sort of
tech industry do you want to live in?

~~~
javert
There's got to be lots of companies that, as a policy, don't do illegal
things. Especially smaller businesses that can't afford to break the law. But
larger ones too.

Presumably, those kinds of places just wouldn't care if you testified against
a former employer who broke the law. Because it just wouldn't matter.

~~~
poikniok
This to me is a silly idea, as I am confident that if you let me follow any
person, or work in any company for a day, I could find laws that they are
breaking. Everybody breaks laws, and nobody wants to have the passenger in
their car report them for speeding 5mph over the limit.

~~~
Squarel
The OP does not seem to be testifying against a company for under declaring
the amount of stationary they have though, unless that involves major law
firms, and breaks state and federal law.

------
x0x0
There's a lot of naive bullshit in here, with people running their mouths
about integrity or other nonsense. Remember that the only person prosecuted
for waterboarding is the whisteblower John Kiriakou, and he got two and a half
years for his trouble.

My point is, you need to look out for number one and not let some law firm
looking for (their own) payday get you entangled in their profits, because
none of them give a fuck less about you.

So without more clarity on which laws were broken and your role in this (are
you the primary witness? Sole witness? One of a dozen?) it's hard to give
specific advice.

But just don't let yourself get screwed because some lawyers see a payday they
damn well aren't going to share with you.

ps -- if you get a subpoena, get your own lawyer. Maybe even get one now; a
lawyer's job is risk management and that's what you need.

ps2 -- Depending on what happened, when people ask, "What kind of person do
you want to be" the response might be, "The sort who has a career and can
afford indoor living." Here's another whisteblower about mortgage fraud who
has destroyed her career [1]

[1] [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-
witn...](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-
witness-20141106)

~~~
marrington
"integrity or other nonsense"

------
Qworg
Testify. It demonstrates integrity. Any firm that doesn't want to hire you,
especially if the case is clear cut, is not worth working for.

~~~
mavdi
This is bad advice. This is living life on hard mode. I wouldn't testify. You
don't have anything to gain other than morality points, but you'll have
everything real to lose.

~~~
BurritoAlPastor
Confucius once wrote that 'seeing the right thing and not doing it is
cowardly'. This is still true today. But you are right that the life of a
coward is easier.

Living a virtuous life is always 'hard mode'; if it were not, would we ever
have bothered to identify virtue?

~~~
mavdi
Why stop here then? Why not donate 90% of your income to charity and live in a
shanty town?

~~~
SnacksOnAPlane
Sometimes doing the wrong thing (or at least "not the right thing") allows you
to do a much bigger right thing in the end.

For example, Bill Gates. We all hated on Microsoft in the 90s. But Gates has
become an amazingly generous humanitarian, which he couldn't have done if he
donated all his money to charity in the beginning and didn't focus on
ruthlessly building his company.

------
tptacek
Data point (as requested): I can't imagine factoring trial testimony into a
hiring decision, nor can I imagine wasting years of my career I'll never get
back at the kind of company that would do that.

------
porter
I don't think any company here will tell you it'd be a deal breaker. Certainly
it will have an impact though. You could testify but still have a plan for
controlling what comes up when people search your name. For example, by doing
SEO on yourself.

Also, if the law that was broken was actually a major thing then I'd be hard
pressed not to testify. It might affect your career, but only with companies
that themselves have questionable ethics. You probably don't want to work for
them anyway.

~~~
flurp
I agree with the advice above, and adding on to it, as a founder... If the
case is morally and ethically sound then I wouldn't hold it against you,
probably applaud you. On the contrary if it's a shakedown of sorts I would be
questionable.

As an exercise I would look into the recent lawsuit against VC firm Kleiner
Perkins. Search the web for "kpbc lawsuit" and read how people have reacted to
that case.

~~~
smitherfield
I'd agree with this; if it's something along the lines of "executives were
embezzling from the company," I'd consider it a sign of integrity. If it's
"Uber isn't complying with taxi regulations!" then I wouldn't want to work
with you.

~~~
tinco
"Uber isn't complying with taxi regulations!"

->

"XXX isn't complying with YYY regulations!"

->

"Apple isn't complying with workforce competition regulations!"

So what you're saying is there's a certain level of integrity, and if someone
goes over that level of integrity then they are too integer, and you don't
want to work with them?

~~~
Andrew_Quentin
No. What he is saying is that there are some common sense good laws he agrees
with and there are some outdated laws that no reasonable person would want to
continue to uphold and need to be changed but our grandpas in congress have
not gotten around to it yet.

------
throwaway78821
My name is associated with a lawsuit where I testified against a former
employee. It's all in the public record, but it's almost impossible to find
using Google unless you know a few of the details. Like you, I've been
creating a lot of my own content for a while and that's still what dominates
the results for my name in Google. From a practical standpoint, unless you get
mentioned by name in all the resulting press, you're probably safe.

------
kichuku
If you do want to testify, definitely do it. If you are worried about people
able to Google you and find that you testified, there is a lot of ways to
solve that problem.

You don't even need to go for extensive SEO, as Search Engines may change
their algorithms every now and then.

What you can do is, you can create a website for your professional profile
where you write blog posts. In one of the blog posts, you can clearly explain
your standpoint in your own words. Just link this website to your Linkedin and
other social networks. This is important because you have to say in your own
words what you want others to see about you, so as to nullify any false idea
others may get on googling you.

The recruiter who is going to hire you will surely see the link to the website
that YOU have listed and if he really cares about you, that person will read
the blog posts. So you definitely have control.

Celebrities all across the world have to deal with stuff which might malign
their image, every single day. And you can notice that many celebrities just
give a clear statement in their own words and it works out well.

Finally, it comes down to the decision whether you would like to testify or
not.

~~~
josinalvo
not sure if you should testify. If you do, remember that there are services to
clean up your image on google ...

~~~
josinalvo
btw, did you try carrers.stackexchange ?

we here seem to be using a lot of opinion and not much fact ...

------
alain94040
It really depends on what the lawsuit and testimony are about. If it's a
frivolous kind of lawsuit that you disagree with, don't volunteer. If the
lawsuit is about something that you support, your ethics should compell you to
testify.

Either way, be aware that you can be forced to testify. As long as your
testimony is based purely on facts, then I don't see future employers as
having issues with it.

------
kelukelugames
As someone who blogs about interviews and legal issues, I am very paranoid
about my online footprint. I have talked to many of my friends who are
recruiters at tech companies. The recruiters don't dig that deep and the
interviewers are discouraged from looking at more than the candidate's
LinkedIn profile.

I am still inundated with invitations to interview.

I think you will be fine too.

Edit: Look up the names of people who have sued their employers.
[http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/](http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/)
Try googling their names and see if you can link them to the cases. I bet the
connections are hard to make.

------
stevewepay
Testifying isn't as big of a deal as someone who bring a lawsuit against their
company. There are a lot of people who testify in lawsuits, and their names
never make it to the articles. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

------
teammatters
I'm in slightly similar situation in terms of speaking out against a huge firm
in the Valley. This firm found out about my east coast start-up and invited us
to demo our novel technology. They made promises of buying it for lots of
money. Well we flew out there and it was a nightmare, as we were treated like
dogs and or worse.

There is a ton of bad behavior going on in this industry and I have pondered
whether or not to write about our experience as a warning to all other start-
uppers/innovators. I've been going back and forth on whether or not to come
out and say who the company is and those who scammed us out of our technology.
Though will doing such make me look bad, when the narrative is Silicon Valley
companies are no friend to the little guys with no connections!?!

~~~
carrotleads
Well in this case you have to speak out.. to atleast signal to the next set of
scammers to not mess with you.

~~~
teammatters
Scammers HA this is one of the biggest companies in the world. They have some
real jerks working for them!

------
whizzkid
"major law firm" \--> you are not the main character in the movie. So please
keep this in mind. As soon as something goes wrong, you will not be first one
to be saved from the bad situation. At the same time this is a risk that can
lead to both good and bad stuff.

For the career advice;

You will be a lot more known than your projects since this topic will be
covered by media as well.

This can be risky too.

The bad:

If law firm loses the case, then you will end up with them as a loser too
which will lower your chances getting a similar job like you are working now.

Keep in mind that you former employer also have lawyers to defend themselves,
and at the end after the case, they will most probably be still operating.

The good:

You will be known as someone that actually did something about the problem.
This can open opportunities for you to work for/as something else than what
you are doing now. (they might want to host you on TV, interviews, people
would would want to hire you to do some other things, i don't know maybe IT
specialist for law firms?)

For both cases, doing what you are doing now MAY not be easier for you after
this. (This is my opinion)

Taking or not taking this risk should be ONLY your decision since advantages
and disadvantages will mostly affect you.

There are some other things came to my mind that might be worth thinking about
as well.

\- Do you have a family to take care? (taking risks are easier when you are
single)

\- Would you be happy doing something else than what you are doing now?

\- What are you expecting that will happen when the case is over? (How will
you feel about it?)

And one more thing,

Since i am not a lawyer, you actually can find another law firm or a lawyer
and ask them about this offer you got. And listen what they are saying about
the whole thing.

Good luck!

------
lordnacho
If it's clear the company has behaved immorally, and that you have no ulterior
motive, I don't think anyone would hold it against you.

When people are thinking of hiring you, they aren't thinking whether you'll
sue them legitimately. They're afraid of a spurious suit.

------
noir_lord
I'd be more likely to hire someone who testified all things been equal, it's
an incredible indicator of integrity.

~~~
marrington
agree

------
hypatiadotca
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. (a line from
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U)
, if you've not seen it)

Can you live with yourself ethically if you don't testify?

Are there ways that telling the truth about what you witnessed could actually
be an advantage to your career?

Say, for example, that you witnessed sexual harassment and were put on the
stand to talk about that. Sure, there may be some shitweasel who won't hire
you because you "snitched" \- but there may be a woman founder of a healthier
and more profitable company ([http://qz.com/361602/companies-run-by-women-
perform-better/](http://qz.com/361602/companies-run-by-women-perform-better/)
, just sayin') who takes your having testified as a positive, rather than a
negative, signal.

Integrity counts for a lot. If someone doesn't want to hire you because you
showed integrity under difficult circumstances, did you really want to work
for them in the first place?

Now if you're worried about testifying because you yourself behaved
unethically, that's a whole other story.

------
colechristensen
The kind of company you want to work for is the kind of company that looks
positively on the responsible and professional response to difficult
situations like this.

Not everyone is willing, interested, or capable of affording themselves the
luxury of working for such a place though it can be very rewarding to make
those life choices.

In this sort of circumstance the merits of the case might make a difference to
future employers and to yourself, whether the legal action and your
participation in it seems morally just.

You have to weigh your specific circumstances and the circumstances of the
case to make your decision, likely nobody but you can really understand enough
to give solid advice.

------
Bluestrike2
Your question is a lot trickier than you might think at first. A lot of
comments seem to imply that any potential employer that opts to pass on your
resume based on you testifying is a company that you wouldn't want to work
for. Maybe, but I don't think that's how most HR departments would be
considering it.

Their goal is to add value to the company with each hire. They could agree
with your ethics and even applaud your speaking out, but still pass on you
because your past history as a whistleblower (or at least close enough to one
for the term to broadly fit) makes them nervous about what you might do over a
difference of opinion even if _they_ believe their company to be ethical and
law-abiding. Unless you happen to be a major witness in the case and the
defense manages to drag you thoroughly through the mud, it's unlikely that
your CV will be tarnished enough for it to be automatically rejected as though
you marked down a felony conviction on the application.

It's not completely analogous, but imagine a hypothetical case where Edward
Snowden is applying for a position at Google. Were you to poll Google
employees, I'd expect strong support for his actions. Hell, his leaks
_clearly_ benefited Google by informing them what the NSA was up to and how
they were tapping into their internal traffic. But would that support prevent
them from worrying about what might happen if he disagreed about certain
activities at Google? Snowden already demonstrated a strength of character
strong enough to go against the massed might of the United States government
of all entities, and for all of their marketshare, Google's own reach pales in
comparison. I don't think it'd automatically disqualify Snowden, but it's
something that would probably be considered at least in part.

For an employer, it boils down to a simple risk analysis. What's the
likelihood that the applicant will find themselves in a similar situation
again, and how does that weigh against the value that their work would add to
the company? There's really no simple answer here, let alone a guaranteed one.
If you're a strong candidate that they'd otherwise want, it'll matter less
would be the case if you had little to offer them compared to other
candidates.

------
pvg
It's fairly straightforward - follow the legal advice of counsel that
represents you.

It's not going to affect your career in the slightest, unless it's a gigantic,
newsworthy case and even then, it's unlikely anyone will care about your
participation as a witness.

------
gojomo
How controversial are the laws broken?

For example, do you think they're good laws? Or do you think these laws are
widely broken, at least technically, by all comparable companies because
they're unrealistic, and any harm to non-consenting third parties is
negligible?

Do only a few of the worst operators, or worst divisions of a larger company,
break these laws? Do the laws effectively protect identifiable victims?

This could matter, because with good laws, lawful operators are happy to see
transgressing competitors take a fall. And lawful operators need to hire
people who help them stay compliant.

But with problematic laws, that are hard to obey and thus widely violated but
with no harm to others, people who (cheerfully) become involved in their
enforcement can become distrusted. (Did you earnestly try to check the
lawbreaking when first observed, or just stockpile evidence for a later legal
assault? The 2nd strategy can appear to be scheming or disloyal even if the
law is righteous.)

IFF (and it's a big IFF) anyone ever sees your testimony as part of a hiring-
evaluation, whether they care will depend on whether the case looks like a
shake-down/gotcha/technical-violation, or a remedy-of-great-injustice.

OTOH, I tend to agree with others that this is unlikely to be a big deal.
Individual witnesses don't get that much coverage. Unless you're the
plaintiff/whistleblower, you're just one of many people called upon to tell
the truth. The case could easily be resolved long before your testimony
becomes public. Even if it seems at the moment like a giant controversy
involving titans of the industry, it'll soon become a footnote, not a
headline, about your career, and equally as likely to help (with most major
and upstanding employers) as it could hurt.

------
Taek
It would change my thoughts on hiring you. What were the crimes? What were the
values you were defending? Are those values I want in my company? How much
were you sticking your neck out?

Your answers and justifications could swing the pedlndulum either way. I would
want to know that you believed you did the right thing, and that you took the
time to really question what the right thing was.

------
MarkPNeyer
i was a named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against google in 2009. that
didn't stop them from contacting me repeatedly to try and hire me, and i did
work for google for a bit in 2013.

i wouldn't worry about it.

------
sixdimensional
This is definitely not legal advice, just some personal experience/thoughts.

You're thinking only about your career? How about the mental and emotional
toll that being involved in a court case can take? Don't doubt that there is
one. These are all costs to you.

This may be too simplistic and quite conservative, but if you are not
personally involved in the legal case, nor the actions that were taken which
were illegal, then it is the company's problem and not your own. I like to
hope the legal system was designed to get to the bottom of the issue, which
has already been identified.

From a career or personal perspective, it might be a better idea to stay out
of it unless you must be involved, either because it is needed to serve
justice or because it is required because you are subpoenaed. Why not let the
court decide if that is needed? One thing I know for sure is, if one side or
the other needs/wants you bad enough, you will get dragged into it.

On the other side, if you don't need to be involved, it is probably safer to
stay on the sideline. Especially if there is any chance that you aren't sure
about the legality of the issues involved. Why take the unnecessary risk and
burden to yourself? The company probably wouldn't do that for you.

As for your career question - I think most reasonable employers may ask, but
would realize that the actions of a corporation do not equal those of an
individual working at that corporation. I do think your career can survive
being associated with such an entity, even if you have to be involved.

Worst case, change the entry on your resume to make the company name anonymous
when applying for jobs... instead of XYZ, Corp, just say "A Major Consumer
Technology Firm", etc. I have seen folks do that and it is not totally
unacceptable.

Good luck with your decision.

------
pekk
HN tends to be populated by people who either are or claim to be very
successful, and are very confident they will always have well-paid work.

But many other people have to pay their bills and exist in a hiring
environment which is somewhat hostile - maybe they can't move to the Bay Area,
they are not very outgoing and networked, rumors have been spread about them,
they are old - this industry is punishingly picky and hiring managers like
nothing better than filtering you out. So, bottom line, a lot of us don't have
leverage and do have to play stupid corporate games (and work at shitty and
occasionally unethical employers) on pain of losing our livelihoods. It's all
fun and games until you have to stop writing code and go work at Wal-mart.

If this issue is of Schindler's List magnitude, I guess you have to bite the
bullet, but if all you're doing is making a law firm happy by being a +1 that
might not be worth the risk of self-destruction.

------
mthq
This article gives some ethical analyses:

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/23/nobody-likes-a-
tattleta...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/23/nobody-likes-a-tattletale/)

------
2pasc
It depends if you plan on working in big Companies or small to medium size
Companies/startups.

Large public Companies (assuming we are talking about a case against a public
Company) may be reluctant to have you because HR might freak out. HR is all
about damage control and compliance. But startups to medium sized Companies
can be talked into it, and if you work is valued and appreciated, you should
be fine. As a founder or executive of several Companies from 1 to 80 people
here in California, I would not take this against you.

As a side note, I would also advise you to do some SEO on yourself as was said
by porter. It's unfortunate, but worth it.

------
ChuckMcM
So if the law firm has contacted you then it makes things a bit clearer.
Either you'll testify willingly or, if they feel your testimony is important
enough, they will subpoena you to appear and you'll testify anyway. (or serve
time in jail for contempt, which is not advised)

So it really isn't a choice of "do I or don't I" it is really about the choice
you made when asked. The actual choice here may be whether or not you need
representation.

------
topkai22
I'll give the consultant answer- it depends. There are still a surprising
number of employers who don't do a internet search on prospective employees,
but assuming you apply to one that does, testimony would only have a negative
effect if they a) found the testimony and b) thought you to be risk because of
it.

As others have said a) is pretty easy to avoid if you aren't the star witness
in a major trial and you have any sort of web presence (or you have the same
name as someone famous.) Assuming a potential employer did hear about the
trial, they are going to care a lot more if your testimony is related to
something they MIGHT be doing\accused of doing. If you are being asked to
testify that your ex-employer over worked employees or allowed a culture of
harassment to exist, then sadly the HR person or hiring manager may worry that
you'd make an accusation against them because those conditions are sadly
pervasive and\or subjective. If on the other hand you are testifying that the
ex employer is clubbing baby seals to make fancy watch bands, then they are
much less likely to care because they know they aren't also clubbing baby
seals (or if they are, you should be happy they pass on you.)

On a personal level, I'd probably ask them to get a subpoena and testify. I'm
reading between the lines, but it sounds like you think it's the right thing
to do. If you really believe that then it's worth doing, even if it might have
s marginal effect on your some job applications down the line. Tech is big,
good engineers are scarce, and most jobs will come from your personal network
anyways, and the small downside is worth sleeping well at night.

------
grandalf
If you feel the law that was broken should be upheld then go ahead and
testify. If I were considering hiring you I'd probably look at your decision
to testify as a positive one unless I strongly disagreed with the law.

While I don't think we should selectively obey laws, there are certainly some
that are very stupid and I'd question the judgment of someone who went to
great lengths to punish a firm for violating one.

------
louithethrid
Most companys CEOs have a "My Tribe" versus the rest of the world attitude,
with the law beeing defined by themselves. They will see you as a potential
traitor no matter what if you testify. Good or bad arguments for or against
that dont factor into that view on the world.

You certainly can try to fit into that perspective, but those vasalls and
slaves turn productive companys into king-courts that go nowhere. Better start
sooner then later to openly not be one of those. So it actually depends on the
crime comitted. If the crime in question was part of such a court and the
shenanigans those produce. Hit it. And write it in your resume. Dont hide it.
Show it and the reason why you did it. And would do it again. Make clear, that
kings without cloths have a tendency to loose there head throughout history
and that speeding up the fall of unmerited authority is a virtue.

Also, it wont be found out over the web, but via personal contacts. You and
everbody meets twice in live, and they will chat. So if you do testify- tell
it right now.

------
seasoup
It will hurt your career, sure some companies will be enlightened and not hold
it against you but some will. That means less places will hire you, meaning
less prospects. Are those places you would want to work otherwise? Maybe.

That doesn't mean don't testify though, what's more important to you, your
career or getting the company punished for what it did?

------
erikb
I suggest that you don't testify for the reasons you've mentioned. Even a good
company with good people will have a harder time hiring you. When you hire
someone and you have to choose between different people, then a normal HR
manager will choose the one that is less noisy. They are not looking for
someone who does the right thing, but someone who will provide more value to
the company than trouble.

The only thing you haven't mentioned that might be relevant is if your silence
might hurt someone. Then you have to weight own disadvantage against their
disadvantage. Although I'd probably do the moral choice, I don't think it's
the smarter one. In real life moral decisions often don't pay off, not even
for the people you try to protect.

Also if you have spouse or other people who depend on you (e.g.,
brothers/sisters) discuss with these people and make a decision together. Your
decision will also influence their life.

------
BurningFrog
I think it depends a lot on what the actual infraction is.

If it's something that most people in your industry actually think is bad, go
for it.

Then again, there are now so many and so broad regulations that any business
will violate some on a daily basis. I would like to work with people who don't
go to the legal system whenever they can.

------
dataker
I don't wanna sound evil, but why not something else? You could let them know
you've got proof and try to get into a deal.

After that, even if you left the company, they wouldn't get sued or have any
media attention. You wouldn't be known as 'the whistleblower' and probably get
a decent compensation.

------
CodeWriter23
I can't tell you what you should do. I can say for myself, what matters the
most to me is what looks back at me in the mirror. If I felt my former
employer had done something for which they should be held accountable, I would
testify. I would not worry about future employers who would discard my resume
over my choice...I would instead welcome the benefit of their filtering
action, which would lead me away from companies that are intent on breaking
the law, leaving only companies that are lawful and ethical as potential
employers. Companies who would view my actions as those of someone with
integrity. Because the bottom line, the only company who would pass someone
over for something like this is one that operates on legally shaky grounds to
begin with.

------
Mz
_The fearful are caught as often as the bold.

Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the
children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the
long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or
nothing.

It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting the devil. If they
would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men, the devil
would die in his own tracks of ennui._

The above are all three quotes from _Helen Keller._

I will suggest that you do whatever it is you believe to be ethical. Well paid
careers are often careers in which character and trustworthiness are
important. It is part of why you get paid: They can trust you with the keys to
the thing or the personal data on people or whatever. If a law firm knew to
contact you, then it isn't a secret that you have insider info. If you do the
unethical thing, people learn of that.

If you want some "plausible deniability," sure, tell them to subpoena you. But
reputation matters immensely and when something like this comes into your
life, the question is not whether or not you can avoid the consequences. There
will almost certainly be consequences. There will almost certainly be a price
to pay and, whatever you choose, the price may well be painful. When all is
said and done, do what you believe to be the ethical thing. It will do the
most to protect your employability. So avoiding the consequences should not
enter your mind. The choice here is _which set of consequences do you prefer?_

There is also no price you can place on a clear conscience. I like being able
to sleep well at night. I have a medical condition, so a good night's sleep is
something I have fought hard for. I would hate to lose my good sleep habits
over a guilty conscience. Having lived my entire life suffering from a serious
medical condition, I believe firmly that _bars do not a prison make._ The
prison of our own body or our own mind is often far worse than anything anyone
else can do to us.

Best of luck with both your decision and the path forward.

------
zefei
You are what defines your career, not the other way around. There are a lot of
companies out there, some will see testifying as good, some bad. If your
choice is true to yourself, and the company you want to work for really
doesn't like that, I'd say eventually you will not go along well with that
company and this acts as a "fail fast" filter.

Finding a good career path may take quite some time, but working for the wrong
company can cost magnitudes of more time.

For most HN readers, including me, the answer is an obvious "testify", because
we see it as a big plus. Do you want to work for people who see it as the
right thing to do, or people who avoid it?

------
Frozenlock
Edit: OP, if you read what I wrote, you will see why you shouldn't use the
number of upvotes to make your decision: the point is precisely that a
'popular' choice can quickly turn south. At this point, all these upvotes will
have disappeared and you will be alone facing the consequences.

\----

If they did something so awful that it's keeping you awake at night, do it.

Otherwise, don't.

...

Wait... are you still reading?

Don't!

....

Okay, darn it...

If you STILL want to do it:

Career-wise, make sure it's something which is universally seen as awful _AND
will probably continue to be seen as such_. If the wind changes direction,
there's still going to be a record about what you've done. Things seen as
obviously right can be seen as obviously wrong in the time of a single decade.
When this happens, the 'major law firm' and all those who did encourage you to
do it will magically vanish.

> Would it be a deal killer if I applied at your company?"

Depends on what and why you did it.

If you testify only because someone broke the law, from my point of view as a
hypothetical employer, you are a huge liability. Most people break the law
multiple times a day and don't even know it. I honestly don't want people
around me who are ready to report me just 'because I broke the law'.

If you've done it for moral reasons, even if I agree with you, I might have to
refuse to hire you because it might gives a bad image to my business.

Now, what if I agree with you and you did something which is currently
politically correct. Is there any advantages? Not really... I still don't know
if you are good at your job; I'll have to evaluate you the same as everybody
else.

In short, there's no advantages (employer/employee-wise) to doing it. Only
potential downsides.

It's like behind an asshole on a social network. It might gives your friend a
few giggles, but it can hurt you years down the line.

~~~
Frozenlock
I'm genuinely curious about the downvotes. Which part of what I said didn't
you like?

Is it because you think he should testify, and you just downvote the opposed
side?

Is it because you don't agree with my hypothetical employer?

Is it because you don't like the distinction between morality and law?

It would be much more helpful to say what you don't agree with.

~~~
lmz
I've been watching the votes from the start and the ones against testifying
get downvoted quite often. If I had to guess, it is probably because those
voters refuse to believe that they will someday have considerations other than
their "ethics" or "integrity".

~~~
Frozenlock
Yeah.

The sad thing about this is that OP specifically asked for career advice, not
an open "should I / would you do it".

------
bro_haskell
I would not. Even firms that are not doing anything blatantly illegal steer
clear from whistleblowers and the like. A recruiter that googles you and finds
you testifying against a former employer may just pass on your resume.

~~~
bro_haskell
In terms of career, there is no possible upside to this; I don't think anyone
is more likely to hire you because of this. And, there are plenty of
downsides.

What's good for society may not always be good for the individual.

~~~
bastiaan
Why wound't an employer want to hire someone who is honest and complies with
the law?

------
gershwin
Do what you think is the right thing to do. Any firm that doesn't hire you
based on your decision is saving you the frustration of working with a group
that doesn't match your ethics.

------
late2part
Do you think you can go your whole career making everyone like what you do?

If not, do what you think is right. You'll be your best critic and fan, pay
attention to what's good for you.

Separately, if you want to spend your life working for soulless corporations,
then the publicity could hurt you.

If you want to work for good people that understand real issues, they'll
appreciate what you do if you handle yourself honorably.

This reminds me of John Boyd's famous question: "Do you want to be somebody or
do you want to do something?"

------
hewitt
Any action you take causes some reaction somewhere out there, be it now, or
later; sometimes you know but other times you have no idea where that
somewhere is or will be. Whatever you decide think strategically and long
term.

It's highly admirable to care about the world, but sometimes it turns out the
world will not care about you.

Listen to all the opinions/advice you can get, adjust your beliefs in the
light of this new information, then make a decision you'll be most conformable
with.

~~~
jschwartzi
Sometimes you have to have the courage to care anyway, or nothing will change.
When you look back, history is full of people giving a shit against all odds.

------
dragonwriter
If you have the information and the law firm knows this, and you resist
voluntary testimony, both your testimony and the evidence in your position can
be subpoenaed, at which point you will legally be compelled to provide the
testimony and evidence. I've heard of this happening to people who didn't want
to testify, and also of people preferring to be subpoenaed so that they could
honestly say to others that they testified only because compelled.

------
chatmasta
What do you gain from testifying? Probably nothing. So why would you do it for
free?

Maybe I grew up listening to too much rap music, but personally I would stay
on the sidelines.

------
mazlix
Career advice- it's a wash I don't see how it realistically would hurt you or
benefit you much either.

However, don't get pressured into doing something you're not comfortable
doing. If you morally want to do something, but only feel comfortable doing it
anonymously just stick to that. And if the law firm doesn't see any benefit
from your anonymous reporting then I would recommend to just leave it at that.

------
throwaway78821
My name is associated with a lawsuit where I testified against a former
employee. It's all in the public record, and if you try really hard, you can
find all about it on Google. But it would take you a lot of work. Unless you
get mentioned by name in all the associated press, you're probably safe,
especially given your projects and presentations and blogs posts.

------
dmgbrn
While the "tell them to subpoena you" answer is obviously more correct than
the "do the authentic thing" one, I want to point out that by making certain
sacrifices (you probably shouldn't make any babies if you're going this route)
it's entirely possible to have a career where you simply make the ethical
decision every step of the way.

------
drallison
I would recommend that you engage a good lawyer, one with significant
litigation experience and an understanding of the issues at hand, to represent
you and your interests, which are different and distinct from either of the
parties. Assuming that you are a fact witness and that your testimony is
confined to facts, your good name and reputation will not be sullied.

------
room271
People are giving surprising answers here. But it is really quite simple:

\- do you think the company did something wrong?

\- do you want to help discourage other companies from doing the same thing in
the future?

If the answer is yes to both, then you should testify.

The truth is, no one here has a crystal ball that will tell them the impact of
testifying on your future. In life, you sometimes have to just go with what
you think it right.

~~~
humanarity
Yes. You don't know so choose on your values. It's a fallacy to judge choices
by their results anyway. You sound like a prosecutor, capable of convincing
people to testify! :)

------
andreyf
It would not be a deal killer if I saw this when I Googled your name while
researching your background. Depending on the nature of the case, I might even
bring it up in an in-person interview as interesting smalltalk, as it
definitely sounds like it could be a good story.

------
benjohnson
Testify.

As an employeer, the kind of lawsuits that give me pause would be from a
sanctamonious employee out to make a quick buck.

This lawsuit look like the testamony is coming from a principaled employee:
the kind of employee that I would be proud to work with that would call me to
better behaviour.

------
eonw
I've worked for a number of employers that violated state and federal laws, in
fact one asked me to lie on in a federal court on their behalf.

Ive always kept my mouth shut for the same reasons... most employers are doing
something wrong, and no one likes a tattletail.

------
andersonmvd
That's your chance to do something that is worth for the world. IMHO you
should not let it pass. Good recruteirs will not judge you by that. If they
do, they aren't good recruiters. And good companies should have good
recruiters.

------
aepearson
Seems like any company you would potentially work for that is turned off by
the fact you testified against a former employer who was BREAKING THE
LAW...probably isn't the type of place you should be working. Right?

------
mikgan
Don't be afraid, I would always hold someone with ethics above a peer of
comparable ability and background. Testifying against someone who has done
wrong would only prove an ethical standing.

------
dtcarlso
Tell the law firm to f*%k off. Attorneys are vultures and just care about
themselves (spent most my life working with them). You are just toilet paper
to them. What is the benefit of testifying?

------
trollian
I wouldn't want to work anywhere that wouldn't hire someone for testifying
against wrongdoing. Ideally we'd be more concerned that you weren't a
whistleblower.

------
honksillet
I think most companies are more worried about hiring an employee of POOR
integrity. Such a person is more likely to shirk work and be a liability. You
should definitely testify.

------
alextgordon
Why not offset?

Instead of doing the world a service by testifying, you could do the world a
service by not buying t-shirts made in sweatshops, or something like that.

The moralising in this thread is too much.

------
spacemanmatt
If you testify, a company that is good and wants good people to work there
might see you in a more positive light. This can have positive external
effects.

------
anonymfus
Imagine that there are thousands of people in the same situation as you. Do
you want all of them to testify or to keep their mouths closed?

------
professionis
I would say if you apply for big companies, it probably doesn't matter. The
people who hire you are also employee. But startup may hold that against you,
if they aren't very good companies. Also what you can do is to write an
article about why you choose to testify, to huffpost blog or similar blogs (it
is actually quite easy to write a blog there, especially with your story),
then when people search, they hear the real story about you, not just a media
coverage of the case.

------
dec0dedab0de
If you agree with the law, testify. If you do not agree with the law keep your
mouth shut. Anything else lacks integrity.

------
JabavuAdams
It would not affect my decision to hire you. In fact, I'd probably admire you
more for doing the right thing.

------
rando289
First off: You already have google results, this one will probably not be on
the first page, and you can easily push it down further.

Secondly: A good employer is interested in your current abilities to fulfil
the role they need, and will ignore unrelated information.

I've worried about having anti-commercial anti-proprietary statements on my
google results, but I've never had a problem getting job offers from
proprietary software companies.

------
idlewords
You don't need career advice, you need to degauss your moral compass.

~~~
x0x0
I really respect you, but that's spoken by a person relatively unlikely to
need to convince someone else to hire him again.

~~~
nandemo
Come on. I just want to see a reply from ONE person on HN (presumably working
as a programmer or related job) who had to testify against an employer in the
US and then faced significant difficulties in getting a job.

------
digitalpacman
If you don't care about the crime, don't do it.

------
impish19
Would you mind specifying what was the law being broken?

------
sydney6
Try to imagine how you would think about this if you were 80 years old. Don't
do something you fear you would regret sometime later. Be sure about yourself
and only about yourself.

------
theorique
What's the personal benefit for you, if you _do_ testify? It sounds like they
are asking you to go out on a limb, without compensating you.

------
mattmaroon
FWIW, I wouldn't hold it against a prospective employee if they testified that
their former employer did something illegal.

------
Grue3
Is it Gawker? Please be Gawker.

------
hellbanner
If it's a deal killer for a company, then that company may have a precedent of
acting illegally or immorally.

------
johndevor
I'd say the only reason you shouldn't is if you disagree with the law.
Otherwise, I'd testify.

------
scandox
Do you want to be a free person or the indirectly indentured slave of a small
group of large organisations?

------
teekert
So you want to work for companies that won't hire you because you speak up
when you witness injustice?

------
ScottBurson
Testifying in such a case certainly wouldn't be a negative for being hired
into my group.

------
jedanbik
Do the right thing.

------
aforty
Do what's right for others and it'll be right for you too.

------
louwrentius
What is the moral thing to do?

------
MichaelCrawford
When the end comes and you look back on your life, how will reflect on the
choices you made?

I would testify.

Consider that the law firm can subpoena you. If the choose to do that you
would have no choice but to testify - or rather, you could be prosecuted if
you choose not to.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Presumably in California USA you can be forced to take the stand as witness
but not compelled to bear testimony or indeed speak? (eg
[http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-
amendment-...](http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-
right-against-self-incrimination.html) penultimate heading).

~~~
MichaelCrawford
The fifth amendment right against self-incrimination only applies to criminal
matters, not civil matters. There is a lot about employment law, such as the
Americans with Disabilities Act that is civil and not criminal.

Also it is the right against SELF incrimination. One can be compelled to
incriminate others.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Surely as late2part's sibling post sort of suggests without hearing your
testimony the judge can't determine whether it's likely to incriminate you or
not - you're called as witness to an RTA that you weren't involved in but you
were running drugs at the time? Or you're called on a employment law issue but
you should have been under a non-compete [which of course may not be legal,
but you don't know that and you can't disclose it without _potentially_
incriminating yourself]? Or ...

What's the measure for "self incrimination". For example if I'm called as a
witness for a relatively minor offence (non-violent theft say) but it will
mean giving evidence that I was cheating on my spouse; that's not criminal but
it's potentially going to ruin my life, why would I testify?

What about the converse, there's almost always something you could decide was
unlawful, you were speeding, you dropped litter, you jaywalked, you illegally
parked - if your testimony might reveal such things then can you claim the
fifth?

------
MichaelCrawford
When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus to a white person, she
lost her job as a seamstress. No doubt she found it difficult to find work
after that.

~~~
icebraining
But do you blame everyone else who didn't refuse?

~~~
MichaelCrawford
That's a tough question.

Some would have had a lot more to lose than she did; say someone who had an
outstanding arrest warrant, someone who owed a lot of money, no I would not
blame them.

------
mkramlich
do you have FU money in the bank? financially can you retire now? if not, I
think its wiser to say no. Caveat if this is a case of something truly evil
that was done. If its more of a protocol/regulatory/victimless kind of law,
then I'd argue its not worth hurting yourself financially over. Again, unless
you already have FU money in the bank.

There is no single perfect advice anyone can give. This is my off-the-cuff
sense for what my own thought process would be.

~~~
varelse
As someone who is currently getting screwed over for helping someone out, by
the person I helped out, because the thing I let him do was done improperly
and it has caused ~$50K in damages I will likely end up footing, I agree 100%
(I'm not going to provide details here just take it as given that I did
someone a solid and they #$%^ed me hard in return, and yes, I have a lawyer,
that's factored into the $50K).

IMO in our bizarre litigation-driven society, no good comes out of putting
yourself out there unless you 100% CYA which is the mistake I made here. CYA
or you'll (probably) be sorry.

------
a3voices
I wouldn't testify because there is nothing for me to gain monetarily.

------
danschumann
avoid it

------
bbrowngrin
DO NOT TESTIFY

------
bbrowngrin
DO NOT TESTIFY.

------
igl
...because of your career? Are you working in IT or the Mafia?

------
fru2013
Snitches get stitches.

------
sergiotapia
What benefit are you getting for testifying? Is it enough to warrant the
possible negatives?

It's simple: do the positives outweigh the negatives?

------
gargarplex
Don't do it. What's the upside for you? What's the downside?

------
Scarbutt
Are you going to get remunerated enough for testifying? the law firm is
probably as corrupt as your employer.

~~~
logn
Usually it's only ethical to pay expert witnesses. At most maybe try to get
some free suits and first-rate hotel rooms out of it :) ... but if you're
judged to be a whistle-blower you do get paid for winning.

------
fourstar
You getting paid? If not, then do not testify.

Everything has a price, and if you aren't getting paid, someone else is.

