Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I am a recovering employment law litigator.

Most attorneys will advise clients not to make public statements until a matter has been resolved formally. Where appropriate, public statements are generally very direct and avoid detail.

I am skeptical that an attorney blessed statements like "we were fully cleared of all accusations of harassment" and "we learned that, despite, being found not guilty of the harassment accusations." These statements, particularly "found not guilty", would be appropriate following a favorable resolution of a civil or criminal matter. In my opinion they are absolutely not appropriate following the completion of a third party investigation initiated by a company. Such investigations are a standard part of the pre-litigation process; they do not eliminate the threat of litigation and they do not guarantee a successful defense.

I am even more skeptical that this statement was coordinated with counsel because it contains information that could be used to support other claims against the company. The statement gives credence to the idea that some employees may have felt pressured by a superior's spouse. There are a variety of causes of actions under which such an admission could be beneficial to a plaintiff's claims and these statements could conceivably be useful to other employees if they are considering the pursuit of unrelated actions.

Might it be that defunkt said what lawyers would like him to say and that mojombo and his wife didn't? Did you see anything major that defunkt said in those two blog posts that a lawyer would find fault with?

It seems like defunkt may have watched mojombo and his wife do a few things that he'd rather they didn't do. Maybe he was frustrated and talked to their investor about it and they didn't like the situation either, and long story short, mojombo resigned. I imagine this might be hard for their friendship (which I hear is legendary despite their differences) but hopefully they'll overcome it.

Even though I'm no longer a practicing attorney I prefer not to speculate. I can only state that I have watched this situation with interest and am amazed at how poorly both sides have handled the matter. I do not see the fingerprints of competent counsel in the actions of either side.

out of curiosity -- by sides are you referring to {github, tom, tom's wife, julie, or ???}

Question about context: who is "defunkt"?

Would you expect GitHub's legal counsel not to have signed off on these statements? I honestly didn't even consider that a possibility.

Edit: In case you're wondering with the (rather unexpected) downvotes and all; I'm still really curious about the answer.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact