Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

That was even less persuasive than I expected when I clicked. I'm not surprised he lost his lawsuit.


sort by: page size:

I'm sure someone clued this person in in that this blog just gave his adversaries a huge gift in their lawsuit. Not a smart move at all to publicly announce your own guilt in a case you might want to win.

Not sure how you got that impression from the article.

> He repeatedly emphasizes that he’s speaking against his lawyers’ advice (no kidding), because by god he just wants to help.


Regardless of who eventually wins, this blog post comes off as arrogant, juvenile and whiny.

It really wouldn't surprise me if "Donald" wins the case. The author quoted 116 hours and $12k and then failed to deliver, and then acted like a big baby fighting and arguing about it.


The first half of this title sounds terrible ... until you see the second half. "Court Case Alleges" Well, this is the COURT we're talking about, so maybe this is legitimate information. Until you realize that this actually reduces to: "Some guy says (because he think it will get him money)".

> They also made fun of his firm’s no-frills website.

You don't need a cool website to practice law.


It does sound like a strange argument, but he already won in court precisely on it: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...

Not really a surprise given the weakness of their arguments.

If you’d like to hear a lawyer read and comment on their complaint, I recommend https://youtu.be/FL7r-Nt5j50


I'd really like to see a deeper analysis of this lawsuit from an actual lawyer. This article is way too thin on content.

Didn't he have a contract which he used to successfully sue the client with? It didn't seem to make any difference.

At the same time I am uneasy with this sort of one-sided public exposure, doesn't feel very professional even if true, and of course without knowing the facts of the matter we don't know whether it is in fact true.


The article is barely legible and seemed incredibly biased

Did he impersonate an actual person with that hate blog?

That seemed the only thing deserving a court case


Not a lawyer, but yes, his case was predicated on that the answer was not good enough. It was a non-answer, and hypocritical to boot, given their "AdSense for Domains" offering.

When using three specific words in a page can get you banned for life, basic fairness suggests that they at least tell people what the hell those words are.

Legally he had no standing, but what does that mean for regular people? We can be abused at will because all corporations force us to sign contracts full of weasel words?


> he didn’t seem the least bit fazed by all the negative attention he’s been getting throughout the internets

What is he gonna say? "OMG I'm crapping in my pants over this" Of course he's gonna say he isn't fazed. Lawyers need to have a good poker face or they stand to lose what ever ground they may think they have.


Wow, talk about strawman attacks by the lawyer "You do not have a PHd, you are not an academic" etc.

I am surprised he was allowed to get away with it.


> I saw it linked somewhere, briefly glanced at it, thought "wow, this guy's not fit to be anyone's lawyer", and moved on.

In fairness, the real guy's public statements have had the same effect. I'm not sure a parody account can really be said to have affected the guy's reputation, it's already about as tanked as can be.


I clicked the link, but I see no evidence of an actual lawsuit being filed?

Instead I see a meme forum that glorifies poor decision making, with a post saying "My friend is a lawyer and she says we have a good case?"

Don't get me wrong, I've got my popcorn ready to go on this. But I thought from the title this would be a mod-post with actual details for a real lawsuit, not just some guy saying what people want to hear.


Haha yeah. Pretty typical of non-lawyers trying to sound officious and legalistic. Weird that he's choosing this to pick a fight over.

So you thought the website that caters lawyer services would just drop the case? Bold move Cotton.

The lawyers in this case have a godawful track record of winning, because their arguments are lackluster at best.

Fair, I should have said something along the lines of "contrary to popular conception of the lawsuits". I haven't actually followed the court documents at all, so I was actually thinking of discussions in mainstream and social media.
next

Legal | privacy