Hacker News Reader

Comment by NathanKP | Hacker News Reader

First of all I think the lawyer is clearly wrong to take such a foolish case, yet I don't think it is right that so many people chose to attack him personally. Ultimately he's just doing the job he was hired to do.

If he can make some money off FunnyJunk pushing obviously doomed-from-the-start legal action, then the only loser is FunnyJunk. And realistically FunnyJunk probably did it for the press coverage and extra traffic that will result.

The Oatmeal wins reputation and traffic, FunnyJunk gets lots of traffic (and more bad reputation as a troll), the lawyer gets money.

Welcome to how the internet works.

View on HN

Ultimately he's just doing the job he was hired to do.

So is a hit man. Doing something obviously inappropriate doesn't become OK just because there is a pay cheque attached to the instruction.

There is always going to be an awkward area for some lawyers, because in an adversarial legal system you have to allow anyone accused of anything to have robust representation to defend themselves in court, which means some lawyers are always going to act for bad people some of the time. I have no problem with a lawyer defending any client in court to the best of their ability; this goes right to the heart of presumption of guilt/innocence.

But this action isn't defending someone who hasn't yet been convicted of anything against a criminal charge that must be answered in court. This appears to be actively going after someone who has done nothing wrong, by exploiting the technical flaws of the relevant legal system in a way that no ethical lawyer should ever do. If half the Internet can see that, then either the lawyer knows something that none of us do, or the lawyer is in trouble on several levels.

> then the only loser is FunnyJunk.

I'm not so sure this is the case. The Oatmeal also loses since it has to defend itself against a garbage lawsuit, were one to be filed, or pay tens of thousands of dollars to prevent such a filing. In fact, we all lose if you consider that pointless lawsuits are a drain on our court system.

So I see good reason to be angry with lawyers who do things like this. I don't necessarily condone the harassment, but I think you've greatly underestimated the scope of the problem. This stuff affects everyone.

Edit: typo

"Ultimately he's just doing the job he was hired to do."

"I was just following orders" never makes a good excuse for doing something that is patently wrong. It is even less so for an independent lawyer who has tremendous discretion to refuse to take a case.*

*Just to be clear, once a lawyer begins working on a case for a client there are ethical rules that (within limits) require him/her to follow the client's directives and work for the clients best interests. The lawyer also may not be always be free to cease representation once it has begun. But an independent lawyer can generally freely refuse to accept a case.

What about the case if a lawyer is being paid a retainer?

Ultimately he's just doing the job he was hired to do.

That's only a good excuse for people who can barely find work and would otherwise not be able to put food on the table. I (and I'm sure a lot of other people) have turned down work of similar/questionable nature.

> Ultimately he's just doing the job he was hired to do.

There are plenty of activities in the world that are not illegal. But "legally allowable" is not the sole test of what is right or moral.

There is no excuse for not applying your best judgement to every situation. If you think something is immoral or otherwise wrong, you should not do it, even if your boss said it was OK.

> Ultimately he's just doing the job he was hired to do.

Being paid for doing evil is not an excuse.

I don't condone attacking this guy either, but frankly he and funnyjunk are equally to blame for the mass disapproval aimed in their direction.

Lawyers like this aren't dying for work, they pick and choose their cases.

I could understand a lawyer writing a letter they later regret on behalf of a client, but he followed that up by trying to get IndieGoGo to take down a charitable fundraiser.

TheOatmeal didn't direct a mob to attack FunnyJunk or their lawyer. TheOatmeal said what happened and directed a mob to express their emotions by donating to two charities. If some people got mad at FunnyJunk's lawyer, that's his problem. Maybe he can bill FunnyJunk for the time it takes to deal with the backlash from their ill-advised actions.

then the only loser is FunnyJunk.

Doesn't the fact that we're having this conversation and he looks foolish prove that this assumption is wrong?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com