
How To Handle Lawyers Threatening You - jason_tko
http://hustlebear.com/2010/12/14/how-to-handle-lawyers-threatening-you/
======
nostromo
I once had a shady service provider that did a terrible job, so I canceled the
service when about 1% of the service had been provided. (Legally, this is as
specific as I should be.) They wanted payment for 100% of the service and sued
me when I refused -- no joke. I suspect this is how they make a fair amount of
money.

So, rather than pay for my own attorney, I just bought Google AdWords for
their name (which, luckily, was too general to be a real TM). I set up a
simple page that explained how they behaved and how they were indeed suing me
- complete with scanned documents.

They took it up with Google, who just asked that I rephrase my ad. I did. Then
they called me, saying they would sue me for slander. I laughed. Then they
called me, asking what I wanted to take it down ASAP. I said: drop this
nonsense. Never call me again. I'll do the same.

Worked like a charm.

If I had gone the traditional route of finding an attorney, it would have cost
thousands. I think my total cost on Google was < $100.

~~~
Andys
Out of curiosity, how did Google ask you to word it?

~~~
nostromo
I had to change it from basically "Don't use company X; click here to read why
not" to something like "Thinking of using Company X; click here to read my
story". Google wants your add to promote your service/content, not demote
someone else's.

They also don't allow things like, "Pepsi tastes better than Coke" for what
it's worth.

~~~
bdonlan
Or, to put it another way, they want people to have to click before reading
your story.

------
idlewords
It's a not a good idea to speak to opposing counsel yourself. If you think the
legal threat is baseless, send a brief polite email to that effect, and ignore
everything afterwards. If you think they have a claim, talk to a lawyer. And
have a plan for who to call if you get served.

This is the approach I've used on the Bedbug Registry for about three years.
We get about two intimidating letters a month from some fairly large hotel
chains.

Making legal threats directly to an attorney is about as good an idea as the
lawyer threatening that he will hack your server. Resist the temptation to get
in over your head.

~~~
lionhearted
Context matters. In the author's context (disclaimer: I know him and think
he's a good guy), the lawyer is representing a businessperson who is
bankrolling them usually in order to help get the businessperson's way in
business/money.

In that case, forcing the businessperson to run their lawyer clock and lose
money by hour and getting nothing pragmatically useful back goes a long ways.
In your case, you're up against bureaucracies with deep pockets, so that
strategy wouldn't work as well. Also, savvy businesspeople tend to recognize
"intelligently crazy" and become a lot more wary when coming across that
personality type.

Someone at the HR/legal department might not flinch at at burning $20,000 in
legal fees for a moral victory if they're antagonized, but in the commercial
real estate world, they'd back off from that. You gotta understand the context
and leverage and desires of everyone involved - in this article's case, it's
not about antagonizing the lawyer so much as sending a clear message to their
client ("I'm going to force you to pay lots of money in legal fees and not
even flinch") - usually at that point it's not worth bringing a case, because
the opportunity cost of many burnt hours and running your lawyer clock while
the other side isn't running theirs is scary. And it doesn't even guarantee
you'll get anything. Context, leverage, motivations - always gotta consider
those. This advice is very good in the relevant contexts.

~~~
luffy
This article is so chock full of speculation and all around horrible advice
it's hard to pick just one thing to criticize. If this guy's crap has worked
in the past, its probably worked because he actually facts of the case in his
favor, not because of these shenanigans.

I feel sorry for those who take legal advice from people who are not lawyers.

~~~
lionhearted
> This article is so chock full of speculation and all around horrible advice
> it's hard to pick just one thing to criticize.

I always thought "This is so wrong I'm not going to criticize it" was a pretty
lame way to disagree. Also, there's no speculation - it's real world stuff
that worked for him from a guy who is rather successful...

Edit, one more:

> I feel sorry for those who take legal advice from people who are not
> lawyers.

Actually, I disagree with this. Don't just take advice from lawyers on dealing
with lawyers - their advice tends to skew a certain way (usually towards more
billable hours). Advice from successful businesspeople on dealing with lawyers
is very valuable too.

~~~
luffy
Well there are no real details or specifics of any kind in this article. So
that right off prevents me from making any type of analysis of the merits of
what this guy is actually doing.

Then there is the speculation as to the mental state of the opponent and the
attorney. The part about attorney's hanging up on the guy because he's "crazy"
and it's "not worth pursuing legal action" is just complete crap. The facts,
the potential damages, and most importantly, this guys ability to pay
determine whether or not it's worth the time. If an attorney has hung up on
him, its because he's a crank.

Look, it's a simple cost-benefit analysis. This guy probably has situational
facts that support his case, such that it's not worth it for the opponent to
pursue litigation. Or it's possible he couldn't pay the damages anyway and the
opponent couldn't take possession of the property. There's lots of
possibilities... _depending on the facts_. You would never know that from the
frothy tone of this piece.

Finally, there's the speculative gem that it will never get in front of the
judge. Trust me, all those pesky "case numbers" and "laws" that the attorney
has been compiling are really going to suck for this guy once a judge sees
them.

I could go on and on, and take this one paragraph at a time. But it's not
worth it. Long story short, take legal advice from lawyers. Likewise,
accounting advise from accountants, design advise from designers, and so on.

~~~
lionhearted
I think we're in agreement on a lot of things, but maybe you missed the
context that it's about commercial real estate? In those kind of deals, legal
threats are really common.

> Finally, there's the speculative gem that it will never get in front of the
> judge.

But it's not speculation - we're talking about a guy who made millions of
dollars as a broker for massively large deals for half a decade, who never saw
a case go all the way to court. In this context, forcing the other side to
keep paying legal fees while you laugh it off works well.

I agree with the rest of your comment - context matters - but I think you
might've missed the context written about here.

------
davidu
This is only effective if you are prepared to put up when they call your
bluff.

Two more points:

1) It's almost impossible for people to not be emotional when someone is
threatening them with a lawsuit and that's why it's always better to have your
lawyer communicate on your behalf.

2) The part I do agree with is (which he didn't say, but it came through loud
and clear) DO NOT be a pussy when someone threatens you. And, DO NOT ignore
them. If they are crazy or being irrational, a logical response from you won't
help. If they found a lawyer dumb enough to represent them, you need to be
ready to bring out the full nuclear assault in your response.

I've been sued before, named in other people's suits, threatened hundreds
(literally) of times with suits and while I often take his approach, I'm ready
to put up if I have to. And I've learned that if I put up, you better be
prepared for the full nuclear response that I will dole out. Once I'm being
sued or named in a lawsuit, the handshakes are gone and only the swords
remain. I will drag every email, text message, conversation, witness you have
ever dealt with related to the matter.

Of course, if I'm in the wrong, I'll settle immediately. And I hope I never
have someone so upset with me over something legitimate that they feel a
lawsuit is their best recourse. To date, I've never been sued over anything
legitimate and I've never lost a suit against me. The other party has always
either settled, withdrawn their complaint, or never moved to a full-blown
lawsuit.

~~~
grav1tas
I think the author makes it known that when you respond like that, you better
not be bluffing at all. It's puffing out your feathers AND getting ready to do
battle in court. The key is don't lie down and take it from somebody if you're
not in the wrong (he qualified this at the end, unfortunately it should have
been at the start methinks). I agree with the rest of your post, though.

------
DanielBMarkham
I wrote an article once for a regional magazine. The title was "Why everyone
hates lawyers" As part of the gig, I got to interview some prominent lawyers
at the regional level.

I'll never forget the answer one gave me, "Look Daniel, lawyers are not like
doctors. A doctor helps you fight a disease. Lawyers, on the other hand,
_fight other people_. Every time you employ a lawyer in litigation, if he is
successful, somebody else suffers. That means that there are going to be a lot
of people out there who don't like lawyers"

Lawyers exist to fight. That's their job. Even if they don't have a case ("If
you have the law on your side, yell about the law, if you have the facts on
your side, yell about the facts. If you have neither, just yell"

I don't know if I would go making phone calls, but I would sure as hell poke
back at a lawyer if he poked at me. I would like to think that folks like us
with lots of ability to assimilate technical details could at least make some
kind of showing -- perhaps enough to run them the ones off who are just
bluffing.

~~~
TotlolRon
> _Lawyers exist to fight. That's their job._

Lawyers fight? We are not from the same hood...

~~~
TotlolRon
Ah. That really hurts.

Lawyers are fighting and downvoting is spanking. Naughty boy will not say bad
things about honorable professions again. I promise.

~~~
TotlolRon
More. Please. Hurt me.

~~~
TotlolRon
MOAR fighting.

~~~
TotlolRon
Are you guys getting tired? Come on fighters you can do it.

~~~
lionhearted
> Are you guys getting tired? Come on fighters you can do it.

Actually, there's a maximum number of times you can downvote someone,
presumably so people can't vendetta against someone if they get their feelings
hurt. So, maybe they can't do it.

Sidenote: I think Steve Pavlina created a joke word for people who are totally
normal and in control, and then flip out randomly over nothing online in a
comment thread - "Kittywompus." I'm not sure where the word came from (maybe
he had a cat that was relaxed most of the time but then flipped out
occasionally?), but it's definitely a real phenomenon.

I still don't understand the roots of it myself, on the rare occasions I get
upset online I close my laptop up and go out for a walk... it's like a circuit
breaker, "oh shit, I'm losing the ability to think clearly, I better get out
of the environment" - I think most people have something like this, but maybe
a few lack this circuit breaker?

~~~
Tangurena
I think you are looking for the "greater internet fuckwad theory" from Penny
Arcade. <http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/>

------
archangel_one
I like his point that they are probably bluffing if they send a big wordy
letter with lots of precedent cases etc. A friend of mine (who is a lawyer)
told me something similar; when they see a letter like that they expect
they're probably full of crap. His reply is normally much more curt: "Please
confirm that you are authorised to receive proceedings on behalf of your
client". If I got that, I'd be worried.

~~~
rmc
I'm not sure I follow. How does asking _"Please confirm that you are
authorised to receive proceedings on behalf of your client"_ frighten people?

~~~
patrickyeon
It seems to suggest to me that you're getting ready to fire back, in a legal
manner. Getting ready to call their bluff, as it were.

------
Tyrannosaurs
Reminds me of the follow case involving British satirical magazine Private Eye
(this quoted from Wikipedia):

"An unlikely piece of British legal history occurred in the case Arkell v.
Pressdram.

The plaintiff was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments, and
for a change the magazine Private Eye had ample evidence to back up the
article.

Arkell’s lawyers wrote a letter in which, unusually, they said: “Our client’s
attitude to damages will depend on the nature of your reply”.

The response consisted, in part, of the following: “We would be interested to
know what your client’s attitude to damages would be if the nature of our
reply were as follows : Fuck off”."

In UK legal circles a polite way of telling someone to fuck off is to refer
them to Arkell v. Pressdram.

------
mixmax
This probably only applies to litigation lawyers, most, if not all of the
lawyers I've worked with have been extremely polite and correct. They've also
all had an excellent grasp of manipulation techniques and human psychology,
and would see right through this bluffing behaviour in a second. Maybe it's
because my experience has primarily been with M&A, contract and tax lawyers.
Or maybe it's differen in Europe.

------
trotsky
It seems that this guy enjoys behaving this way foremost, and has spent some
time coming up with reasons to justify his behavior as rational as a result.
Some of this may in fact be good advice, but I wouldn't be inclined to trust
his word on it. I highly doubt he only acts this way towards lawyers.

------
afshin
This seems like a really easy way to dig yourself into a deep hole. Why not
build a relationship with a decent attorney if you're in the habit of getting
intimidating messages from lawyers regularly?

------
joshuaheard
As a lawyer, I can tell you that if you are getting a letter a week from
lawyers threatening you with legal action, you are doing it wrong. Most
likely, the lawyers in this article are dropping the case because the author
has no money. Without "deep pockets", it's not worth it to sue.

If you do get a letter from a lawyer, the first rule is never telephone. Do
everything in writing.

You basically have three choices: ignore the letter, respond to the letter in
writing, or hire your own attorney to respond. A letter from a lawyer is
usually a shot across the bow. Sometimes it ends there. If you get sued, you
must hire an attorney right away.

You can try writing your own letter, but it is better to hire an attorney. If
you think the letter has no merits, ignore it and wait to see if they sue.

------
dhume
Rather reminds me of The Pirate Bay's legal threat response archive.

------
noonespecial
I'd add that lots of lawyers of the type described are emotional, irrational
bullies. Don't give them a reason to have a personal vendetta against you.

I think you just want to appear to them as a bind alley with no money at the
end so they'll just move along to greener pastures. Better than just yelling
profanity back at them might be a hard-core "we don't negotiate with
terrorists" kind of stance.

~~~
foobarbazoo
Wow, feel the fear. Grow a pair!

------
grav1tas
If you already have counsel, I was under the understanding (IANAL) that it is
against conduct for the opposing counsel to talk to you directly. If they
continue to call you while you're moving to get counsel and harass you, aren't
they in violation of ethical standards or something? Naturally you have to
retain counsel in a reasonable amount of time.

------
imjoel
Anyone else getting 403 Forbidden?

~~~
sean_b
Yup, Google Cache doesn't have the page, but Bing cache does:
[http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=http://hustlebear.com/2010/...](http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=http://hustlebear.com/2010/12/14/how-
to-handle-lawyers-threatening-you/&d=549837276220&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-
US&w=a5725f69,e0f1fba4)

------
mmaunder
Please do not follow this very bad advice. The best lawyers make an effort to
keep the tone civil. If you go to trial you will see your own sarcasm
presented and judges are human. Acting as.the OP suggests could get very
expensive.

------
fmkamchatka
aka How to Threaten Lawyers Handling You.

------
rprasad
I faced off against a guy with this sort of attitude once. The case _did_ end
up in front of a judge. The judge laughed at the guy, and threatened to hold
him in contempt of court. The day before the contempt hearing, we settled for
double what my client had been seeking.

Another guy, a doctor, threatened to report me to the bar association. I
responded by reporting him to the medical board. His license was suspended for
making threats. Last I heard, he'd been forced to declare bankruptcy.

Another guy simply refused to cooperate with a lawsuit. I guess he was trying
to prevent the case from going to trial. Problem for him was that if the case
had gone to trial, we wouldn't have won nearly as much as we ended up winning
in the default judgment (which does not require the other party to show up).

Most lawyers who handle litigation do so because they enjoy litigation. You
try the stunts this guy recommends in his blog post, and they will eat you
alive. So take his "advice" with a grain of salt.

~~~
jasonlotito
> a doctor, threatened to report me to the bar association. I responded by
> reporting him to the medical board. His license was suspended for making
> threats.

So, threatening to report a laywer to the bar association is not allowed by
the medical board?

~~~
rprasad
I should clarify: I greatly simplified what happened.

At the time, I was a law student assisting a lawyer in a medical malpractice
case. The doctor threatened to make negative statements about my moral
character to the bar association in what I assume was an attempt to prevent my
admission to the bar.

On its own, that would not have been enough to get him suspended. However, it
was the final straw, and it was the straw the board chose to mention when they
suspended him. I always thought it was weird that they went with that as
opposed to the crap he'd put his patients through.

~~~
jasonlotito
Okay. That makes more sense. I also assume your other examples were also
grossly simplified as well, and that all the opposite sides were, in fact, in
the wrong.

Which, I think is contrary to the point of the original article. The original
article makes the assumption that you are, in fact,merely getting bullied, and
that the lawyer approaching you is threatening you.

Your stories would have more weight if you were bullying people who had done
no wrong at the request of your client.

------
judd_hustlebear
I am Judd and I wrote this article.

A few points I'd like to clarify:

I'm not advocating bluffing, I'm advocating standing up for yourself. That's
ultimately what this article is about, and perhaps why it's getting the
reaction it has.

Attorneys are smart to intimidate people into settling large amounts of money
over absolute bullshit. Because too often it works. Most people who work hard
to build their life and savings are too confused and afraid of the law to
adequately fight back and defend themselves.

Attorneys are hated because they're in a great position. They get to attack
you with no repercussions. In fact the more fighting there is, the more they
benefit. You will need to get creative to gain leverage and find their
pressure points.

Once someone is attacking you and you're in a fight, you either grow some
balls and take some risks, or you bend over.

I will repeat: If you've done someone wrong, you deserve to pay. This advice
is not meant for someone in the wrong. This is about standing up to legal
intimidation as a negotiating tool. From my experience that is what most legal
action has been about. If you've ripped people off and they're suing you, I
hope you get fucked, and I fully support the lawyer that will help do the
fucking.

I would never tell a moderately reasonable attorney to "eat shit and go fuck
yourself". I tell that to the hardcore condescending assholes. I've done it
many times. It has NEVER defused the situation. They always get pissed and
riled up. That's fine with me because they were already uncooperative and
hostile to begin with. This is not a bluff technique, I'm making it clear that
being a dick is not a productive way to deal with me. And since, in my
experience, their cases have always been vague or based on bullshit, their
ONLY options left after that are to pursue trial on a weak case, or become
friendlier.

If you're willing to look a monster in the eyes, you just might find out he
has no teeth.

~~~
megamark16
Thanks for writing this, it was entertaining and somewhat educational. Mostly
because to those of us who have never been sued, being sued is kind of a huge
scary unknown, so hearing other's stories, even anecdotal ones, sheds a little
bit of light on what to expect.

The whole time I was reading your article I kept thinking about the recent
stories and discussion about kids being bullied. I've tried to teach my kids
not to pick fights, to play nice, but to always stand up for themselves and
other kids who are being picked on. That's how I read your article; don't pick
fights, but always stand up for yourself.

~~~
judd_hustlebear
cool, thanks! yeah, that's what I was going for

------
migpwr
Wow! Tim Ferriss is on a roll today...

