[jonathanmayer]

(Background: I'm a computer security researcher and lawyer at Stanford.)

When a security researcher gets threatened, there's a tendency to lambast the lawyers. I think that's unfortunate.

It is, very often, the client that demands an aggressive response. A lawyer should counsel against, since nastygrams to researchers tend to summon negative attention. Not being a jerk is also a plus.

That said, if a client insists--and they often do--the lawyers have little choice. Professional ethics generally require following the client's direction, and there isn't sufficient time to withdraw as counsel.

So, for the most part: Don't blame the lawyers, blame the DMCA. It's the law that's broken.

[click170]

That's a fair argument for not blaming the lawyers. But I don't think that line of reasoning deflects blame away from the company demanding they pursue legal action.

[higherpurpose]

What about when EFF tries to kill bogus patents and trial lawyers lobby against it because they make too much money from bogus patents? Can we blame then lawyers then?

What I'm trying to say is that perhaps the sometimes it's not just the law's fault - but the lawyers also like having said law and abusing it.

Also, this is going to get even worse if Obama has his way with the new "enhanced" CFAA law that can jail people even for breaking a company's ToS.

[shaunol]

Is it generally a lawyer's job to advise a client when a case may attract negative publicity? Do they even care?

[socceroos]

I'm pretty sure that 'cha-ching' is mostly what matters. Hate to be cynical but..

[imglorp]

It's a motivator. Counsel gets paid much more to bring a suit than to smack sense into in its client.

[0xdeadbeefbabe]

At some point, does counsel have enough money to choose smacking instead of more pay?

[eli]

Yes, of course. Advising clients to take actions that make them look bad doesn't sound like a way to expand your practice.

[thaumasiotes]

Hmmm... compare http://www.loweringthebar.net/2015/03/obligation-to-make-sen... .

According to that one, it is not acceptable for a lawyer to file the petition his client wants him to file, if that petition doesn't meet the court's standards. If judges can censure lawyers for acceding to their clients' demands, so can the rest of us.

How much time does it take to withdraw as counsel?

[mkopinsky]

There's a big difference between a court filing and lawyerly nastygram. By sending inappropriate nastygrams you're not wasting the court's time.

[thaumasiotes]

I can see why the judge would see this as an important difference, but I don't see that it actually is one. Why do I care which option wastes the court's time?

[madez]

You have responsability for your actions even if you're legaly forced to them. This sane principle was officialized in the Nuremberg trials [1].

Edit0: In fact, the principles were more specific to international law vs national law and orders. However, the idea behind is still sane even if you don't violate international law.

Edit1: It's about recognizing personal responsibility.

Edit2: Those who disagree, why?

[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles

[kemitchell]

Nuremberg? Wasn't the story about computer nerds or something?

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibilit...

Many state bar associations have rules like that one. Lawyers can make good-faith arguments that their client's behavior isn't illegal. They can't break the law for their clients or help their clients break the law.

No one should be stuck, unable to get a lawyer and put up a fair legal fight, just because some part of the population condemns them as amoral, but can't pass a law expressing that condemnation that stands up to civil liberties challenge. Lawyers should serve hated people, too, and ideally do for them just as they would do for themselves if they understood the law and the system.

Lawyers who can do that for truly loathsome clients are superheroes. They often set aside deep feelings and strongly held personal convictions in the service of the greater value of a fairer legal system. It's a real-life Gom Jabbar test, and repeat sittings have driven many good lawyers to self-destruction, one way or another.

So: If you don't want lawyers helping assholes, try and pass a law against being an asshole. It would be vague. Prejudiced assholes would wield it against legitimate non-assholes. Good lawyers defending actual assholes would kill it in court.

More succinctly: https://youtu.be/WMqReTJkjjg?t=2m10s

[brownbat]

> Those who disagree, why?

They probably feel that the Nuremberg trials are a hyperbolic example here, and worry that line of argument brushes a little too close to Godwin's Law.

Upshot, we probably all agree with you that everyone has personal responsibility for their actions. There are still situations where we want attorneys to listen to their clients though.

[Lawtonfogle]

Godwin's law is a overused to shut down legitimate topics. And while the point may be the most extreme, it is still a very valid point. If one wants to say it is different, one needs to articulate why.

[madez]

Thank you for bringing sense into this discussion.

I wouldn't say extreme, but fundamental. I referenced the Nuremberg Principles because they are so fundamental and I genuinely don't know a better example.

Several people in the community misuse down-votes. They down-vote on-topic, constructive and serious discussions which disagree with their opinion instead of simply articulating their criticism.

[0xdeadbeefbabe]

Godwin said, "I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust"[0]

I suppose because "Godwin's law" is in the dictionary now you are free to add meaning as you like, but I wouldn't be happy about this stackoverlow like meta trivial pursuit at the expense of logic if I were Godwin.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[qbrass]

He understood memes and introduced species enough to introduce a meme as a predator to a different meme, but ignored that introduced species with no predators quickly become invasive themselves.

So if he's not happy, he's only got himself to blame.

[madez]

But it has a predator: critical thought.

[madez]

Do you have a better example where personal responsibility was officialy upheld?

[lotsofmangos]

A story about a two year old learning about agency would be a better example, there are millions of better examples for this context.

The most extreme example of a thing you can find is not usually the ideal example to use for most contexts. Rather than clarifying things, if it dwarfs the context, it then appears automatically ridiculous even if the basic argument is sound.

[madez]

> A story about a two year old learning about agency would be a better example,

This is not an example for official upholding of personal responsibility.

> there are millions of better examples for this context.

This is hand-waving. I used the Nuremberg trials specifically to not hand-wave.

[lotsofmangos]

"This is hand-waving. I used the Nuremberg trials specifically to not hand-wave."

Now that is funny, though I suspect unintentionally, and in horrifically bad taste either way.

[lotsofmangos]

If all that Hitler had done was get Goebbels to send out threatening letters to people who remarked that he had left his door unlocked, then referencing Nuremberg over lawyers sending cease and desist letters on behalf of a padlock manufacturer might not seem quite so ridiculous.

[Rangi42]

There is value in doing your legal duty, even if some people think your duty is to do a bad thing. "I was just doing my job" is not considered a sufficient defense of Nazi actions because their actions were so terrible that being legally required to do them does not mitigate that. Threatening legal action, on the other hand, is an ordinary event that can be easily excused as "just what lawyers have to do for their clients."

[karlmdavis]

I don't know this for sure, but I seem to recall that lawyer's professional rules of conduct require them to not leave clients in the lurch, without providing them ample warning to find new counsel.

I believe this is what the GP poster is mentioning when he says that there often isn't "sufficient time to withdraw."

[MichaelCrawford]

There are plenty of times that one has a duty to violate the law. Consider that the US Supreme Court does not render advisory opinions; to overturn an unconstitutional law, one must violate it first, then defend oneself all the way to the Supremes.

This is a very risky proposition as it happens all the time that the Supreme Court will deny certiori over some petty issue.

If you wonder why I use my real name here and elsewhere online, it's because I regard it as my duty to - someday - defend myself before the Supreme Court.

[kemitchell]

> Consider that the US Supreme Court does not render advisory opinions; to overturn an unconstitutional law, one must violate it first, then defend oneself all the way to the Supremes.

Please don't take this the wrong way: Research this topic further!

[MichaelCrawford]

I've been working on that for a while.