Hacker News Reader

Comment by htsh | Hacker News Reader

PG, I know you aren't inviting them to your demo day, but I hope you can commit to not not doing business with the law firms on this list and also not sharing law firms with these old-media dinosaurs like ESPN and the NFL.

If ESPN hires a law firm to write this bad law which will likely hurt your business in the future, doesn't it make sense to advise your clients to not hire that same law firm? As someone who has worked with both, it's clear that the Entrenched Big Law model & the Disruptive Startup Model are obviously incompatible and the more we can do to move away from these conflicted monoliths the better we can actually affect real reform.

This will require some work and likely even severing an old business relationship or two, but these small changes from someone like you and a peer or 2 can have immeasurable effect. 1 Paul Graham taking business away from 1 Big Law Firm will do more than thousands of us can.

View on HN

By and large, the law firms shouldn't be on the list. Some lawyers wrote a letter arguing that the Constitutional concerns around SOPA are non-issues; Rep. Lamar Smith and co. used that letter as a basis for including many of the firms on the official list of SOPA supporters.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/09051617180/law-fi...

This does not change the fact that ESPN's law firm working with other big law firms wrote large chunks of this bad law just the way their clients wanted it.

Or that lawyers at law firms don't just willy-nilly write or sign these letters for free, they do it on behalf of their SOPA-supporting clients while receiving a paycheck from the law firm who their SOPA-supporting-client has hired.

Again, that's why I made the point about sharing law firms. All it's saying is "I'm not doing business with these lawyers who I think are being paid by clients to help them censor the internet."

And though the law firm isn't saying "our entire law firm supports this law," they are saying "our lawyer looked at this law for our client and she did find constitutional problems with it even though that is not the position of the entire firm." As I explained below I can understand why the latter isn't so troubling to some but I think the incentives these firms face are the same once they are in the business of protecting ESPN's interests.

And it will not change the fact that startups not working with ESPNs law firm will 1 - Give business to lawyers who do believe censoring the internet is unconstitutional & 2 - Remove an obvious and blatant conflict of interest.

I'm just saying, do we really want our startups to be working with the same network of big law firms that helped Disney extend copyright law duration to infinity 100 years ago? These big law firms obviously have their interests in protecting old streams of business -- I would too.

The point is that the firms themselves were not behind SOPA. If you're suggesting that we shouldn't deal with any businesses that employ anyone who supports SOPA, I think you're a little off the rails here. That won't help anything and just makes us look unreasonable.

These aren't just employees who signed these letters independently. They were asked by a client to sign onto the letter which agrees with the clients interests. They sign these precisely because the client of the firm paid them to. While I was at a firm we signed onto letters or drafted our own for clients all the time (and it was precisely b/c it helped get the laws through, so call it what you want -- i know I don't mind "support" though I can see how some object to the technicality). In laymen's terms, client shows up and says "we need this law to go through we'd like to hire a lawyer to write an independent legal opinion letter to the court to help them make their decision. Or maybe you guys can sign on to this guy's already written letter? We'll pay you for it, of course."

The techdirt article points this out too. When there's a law up for debate which a client wants to get through they try to get these letters in to make it more likely the law will pass. And yes this is different from official "support" which is saying "we the law firm want this law to pass." This is more like "our lawyer looked at this for our client and he does not think it's unconstitutional though this is not the position of the entire firm." To me, that's still bad but I completely understand if others are okay with it. Reasonable men can and do disagree about a lot of things.

Law firms aren't supposed to take on clients with conflicting interests. If a firm has helped one of their clients lobby in support of SOPA, they shouldn't accept clients who depend on fair use or DMCA Safe Harbor.

well should is a strong word. and if you are a startup it's very possible that you don't depend on a fair use / DMCA Safe Harbor argument now but will in the unpredictable future so it's unlikely a client will ever get rejected for that potential conflict.

Is it really wise to get in bed with ESPN in the first place? that's all I'm saying. I am not and will not be the first to argue that sharing lawyers with those on opposite sides of important legislation with you is a bad idea.

"""I'm just saying, do we really want our startups to be working with the same network of big law firms that helped Disney extend copyright law duration to infinity 100 years ago? These big law firms obviously have their interests in protecting old business -- I would too."""

The law firms care about what their clients care about. If a startup is paying them, they care about the startup's concerns.

The problem lies with the legislators, lobbyists and big media companies --not with lawyers.

It's like arguing you wouldn't want to do business with a lawyer who works with murderers and such! Well, the whole point of the law system is that EVERYONE gets their defense.

My point is simply that if a startup is paying a law firm & that ESPN is paying a law firm then maybe the law firm cares more about ESPN's business in case of conflicts. I do not think that is as unreasonable as your hysterical response makes it out to be.

They are not saying "we the firm support SOPA" but they are saying "our lawyer looked at this law for our client and he finds it constitutional though this is not the position of the entire firm." I can understand if you're not disturbed by the latter but I think a simple incentive analysis should make it clear why I'm not the first to argue against sharing law firms with those on the opposite sides of controversial issues facing the court.

A simple hypothetical should explain it: ESPN wants SOPA, they get their lawyer to sign a letter which says the law looks fine. Let's say the law threatens the startup's business at the same time, maybe the law firm isn't as likely to write or sign a letter arguing against the law if it means it upsets ESPN. End result, more lawyers at these firms sign on to SOPA and you end up with what appears like considerably more support for that side from the legal community simply b/c bigger clients support the law than those that oppose it.

Really -- my point is simply that you don't need to hire a 5000 lawyer firm who also represents ESPN & the NFL when a 20 lawyer firm will do. I believe that is in line with the startup ethic as well.

And again that's not my point at all to not work with lawyers who work with murderers -- your statement of my position is a straw man at best and a dishonest mischaracterization at worst. I'm not saying ESPN did anything wrong here -- I'm saying ESPN disagrees with your startup's positions and it is paying that law firm to do what it can to win and hold their position. Maybe it's not a good idea to hire the firm if you don't like the law, you know?

"""My point is simply that if a startup is paying a law firm & that ESPN is paying a law firm then maybe the law firm cares more about ESPN's business in case of conflicts."""

That would be a case of mis-representation of your interests, and the lawyer/firm could face serious legal consequences.

"""I do not think that is as unreasonable as your hysterical response makes it out to be."""

You keep using that word, "hysterical". I don't think it means what you think it means.

"""They are not saying "we the firm support SOPA" but they are saying "our lawyer looked at this law for our client and he finds it constitutional though this is not the position of the entire firm." I can understand if you're not disturbed by the latter but I think a simple incentive analysis should make it clear why I'm not the first to argue against sharing law firms with those on the opposite sides of controversial issues facing the court. A simple hypothetical should explain it: ESPN wants SOPA, they get their lawyer to sign a letter which says the law looks fine. Let's say the law threatens the startup's business at the same time, maybe the law firm isn't as likely to write or sign a letter arguing against the law if it means it upsets ESPN. End result, more lawyers at these firms sign on to SOPA and you end up with what appears like considerably more support for that side from the legal community simply b/c bigger clients support the law than those that oppose it."""

Hmm. Not really familiar with how the legal system works, are we?

Hear, hear! Anybody that argues otherwise should familiarise themselves with the cab rank rule - "the obligation of a barrister to accept any work in a field in which he professes himself competent to practise, at a court at which he normally appears and at his usual rates. In the absence of such a rule it might be difficult for an unpopular person to obtain legal representation, and barristers who act for such people might be criticised for doing so."

(i meant "did not" rather than "did" in paragraph 4 above. apologies for the confusion & for posting this but it was past the allocated edit time)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com