Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

iPod Lawsuit Lawyers Sue Their Own Plaintiff?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the saving-face dept.

424

Guinnessy writes "Jason Tomczak, who is mentioned as the lead to the iPod Nano 'Scratch' Class Action law suit filed against Apple computers has published an open letter to the mac community. In it he claims that he never asked to be represented by David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, the lawyers in the case. He spoke to them once by phone about his scratched iPod case and asked that his name not be used. In fact, the two firms agree there is no signed document proving that Tomczak asked for representation. However, because Tomczak wants nothing to do with the case, David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro are currently suing him to try and stop him from pulling out. They also say Tomczak is legally liable for their fees if they lose the court case against Apple. Needless to say Tomczak isn't happy with the arrangement, and is likely to still lose thousands of dollars under the best scenario."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

next up (4, Funny)

iocat (572367) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397554)

a lawsuit for slashdotting his server. No posts and already dead.

Re:next up (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397568)

Open Letter to the Mac Community
The Truth Behind the iPod Nano "Scratch" Class Action Suit

May 22, 2006

Dear Mac Community:

Hello! My name is Jason Tomczak. Many people around the world rightly know me as a mild-mannered techie, photographer, writer, and nature-lover. I am an Apple fan and have been fortunate enough to use Mac computers and other Apple products since about 1985.

On October 19, 2005, my life changed due to the unauthorized conduct of others. From that date forward, countless numbers of people around the world were driven to hate me and slander my name, sometimes using foul and threatening language.

Since October 19, 2005, my name has been infamously tied to the iPod Nano "Scratch" Class Action law suit filed against Apple.

What You Don't Know About The Nano Suit
The truth is that I never sought out nor did I ever hire David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro to represent me in any case, much less the iPod Nano Class Action suit.

The iPod Nano Class Action law suit was initiated by David P. Meyer & Associates Co. LPA of Columbus, Ohio and their representative firm, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP of Seattle, Washington and filed on October 19, 2005.

David P. Meyer & Associates contacted me, soliciting my opinions and comments about the scratching of my iPod Nano after finding Nano-related blog posts I'd written on my own website, on The Unofficial Apple Weblog and on The MacCast. They informed me that they had received an "overwhelming number of complaints" about the Nano and that they wanted my "insight into the problem". Yes, I answered their communication and told them that I had problems with my iPod Nano, however I clearly told them that they should do their own professional and technological study of the iPod Nano.

I emphasized that I did not have any access to any specific data about the materials used in making the iPod Nano. David P. Meyer & Associates used my personal comments and opinions as the basis of the iPod Nano suit. To my knowledge, there was no actual technical study done on the iPod Nano before the Class Action suit was filed.

Additionally, I told David P. Meyer & Associates that I wanted to remain private, and that my wish for privacy, among other considerations, would preclude me from getting involved in the case.

No Documentation
At no time did David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro ever receive any attorney-client agreement form from me. On their own time and based on their own schedules and plans, they prepared the paperwork and filed the iPod Nano Class Action suit in California using my name as Lead Plaintiff, however this was done without my knowledge or consent.

The Filing and The Call
The senior partner of David P. Meyer & Associates and one of his representatives called me during the afternoon of October 21, 2005 to urgently request my signature on an attorney-client agreement - two days after the Class Action suit was filed; two days after they began their action against Apple; two days after the press had begun running the story. They then warned me that my family, friends, clients and I should expect to hear from the media and others interested in the iPod Nano Class Action suit.

During that phone call to me, David P. Meyer and his associate blamed the faulty Nano filing on Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

Spin Cycle
During that week and the following months, my name was posted in relation to the iPod Nano Class Action suit on websites all over the world, even in foreign publications like Russia's "Pravda" newspaper, the Enquirer, Stuff Magazine, Popular Mechanics, CNN, BusinessWeek, MTV, VH1, etc.

Google results for my name skyrocketed. I began getting hate mail from people upset about the iPod Nano suit. I had to take my website down and remove legitimate references to my name on numerous web services. My fiancee and I were afraid to go outside in our own home town for fear of recognition and reprisal.

Call For Help
Given the gravity of the situation I was facing, I had to hire a law firm to protect myself, clear my name and set the record straight. David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, when contacted by my lawyers, did not even offer to correct any of their press releases. Not even an official apology was offered.

Law Firms' Defense Begins
A David P. Meyer & Associates representative contacted my lawyers with a highly suppositional account of what my intentions might have been; that perhaps I had second thoughts or "buyer's remorse" about the suit, etc. They snubbed the fact that David P. Meyer & Associates violated my request for privacy and non-involvement and the fact that neither David P. Meyer & Associates nor Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro ever received a single document or written communication from me agreeing to be any part of the iPod Nano Class Action law suit.

Then David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro each hired professional defense law firms to fight against me. These two powerful law firms hired two highly aggressive defense firms to confront me, a sole individual.

Things Get Very Personal
Their malpractice defense law teams scheduled me for deposition in Los Angeles. During the first day of my deposition, which was scheduled for April 20 and April 21, 2006, David P. Meyer & Associates' and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro's lawyers deposed me for about 6 hours. Were the majority of their questions directly related to the Nano issue? No. They wanted to know details about my family, the personal circumstances of why my parents got divorced, what I thought about their divorce; where I went to grammar school, high school, college, what my majors were; names, locations and ages of family members and a number of other personal topics seemingly unrelated to the Nano issue. The bulk of the questions were, in my personal opinion, invasive, inappropriate, off-topic and an attempt to overwhelm me.

Toward the end of the first day, they bluntly refused to continue the deposition as scheduled. Their abrupt cancellation will likely cost me thousands of dollars in added travel and legal expense, time away from my family and clients and added emotional stress of not being able to find closure on this horrible and sometimes terrifying experience.

A SLAPP In The Face
On May 1, 2006, David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro defense lawyers filed Motions to Strike the entirety of my case against the two firms despite evidence that I had unwillingly and unknowingly been made Lead Plaintiff in the iPod Nano Class Action suit. In their Motions to Strike my case against them, they also requested of the Court that I be held financially responsible for their attorneys' fees and costs.

The defense teams filed "demurrers" against my filings which state, in short, that David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro did, in fact, mistakenly file the iPod Nano Class Action suit with my name, but they claim that they legally had a privilege to mistakenly file documents in my name without culpability or recourse.

They also filed an Anti-SLAPP motion against me and my claims against David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion prevents me, the plaintiff, from amending my complaint against David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and delays all discovery. This means that no parties from either firm can be deposed, and possibly incriminating documents cannot be requested of them. Anti-SLAPP motions are like terribly expensive and time-consuming "pause buttons".

Where Do We Go From Here?
I've learned that every day that passes can bring big surprises - though not usually pleasant ones. I am not sure how the iPod Nano Class Action suit will turn out, nor do I know how David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro will continue to act with regard to my request for justice and the return of honor to my name. If recent actions are any indicator, I am preparing for an emotional, stressful and expensive ordeal.

Although it is too late to completely clear my name from the iPod Nano Class Action law suit, by writing this Open Letter to the Mac Community, I am hoping to make an attempt to reduce the damage already caused to my good name and to open people's eyes to the fact that I did not approve, endorse, authorize, initiate or promote the lawsuit against Apple. These actions were taken without my authority and against my express wishes by the law firms of David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

I am frightfully aware of the fact that issuing this letter could possibly spur an even more aggressive legal attack against me as they apparently wish to suppress the truth and wish to suppress me. Whatever the outcome, whether I am successful or I am financially crippled by David P. Meyer & Associates' and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro's defense firms, it is my sole intent to communicate the truth of what happened so that I can begin to find some peace of mind after the hate, harassment and embarrassment brought about by the misuse of my name in the iPod Nano suit.

Sincerely,

Jason Tomczak
c/o Cameron Totten
Sherman & Nathanson
9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 820
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
© 2006 - Jason Tomczak

Re:next up (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397645)

So if his letter makes it really really clear that he's suing them (and that they're putting up an aggressive defense), why does the Slashdot headline say that it's them suing him?

Re:next up (4, Interesting)

phoenix.bam! (642635) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397682)

The filed a lawsuit using his name as the lead defendent.
They would not remove his name from the lawsuit even though they had no proof he wanted to be involved and he explicity stated he want to NOT be involved.

They did not comply so he was forced to file a lawsuit to clear his name. Instead of settling, the offending lawfirm counter-sued using Anti-Slapp laws. Now the guy will be in for a boatload of money because some scum bag lawfirm decided to use a few quotes of his from a blog and his name inappropriately for a class action lawsuit.

The headline says they are suing him because that is the news. This guy should be suing the lawfirm, but them suing him? Now that's news.

Re:next up (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397755)

You don't need to repeat the facts stated in the letter. I read it. I understood it. If accurate then the law firms have behaved despicably. However, he is suing them according to his letter. They are not suing him, according to the letter. They have filed an anti-SLAPP motion to make his suit more difficult, according to the letter, and if the letter's contents are accurate then that's a terrible misuse of anti-SLAPP provisions.

However, there is nothing in the letter that suggests that they have sued him. No matter how much it might be news if they were suing him, that simply isn't something that you can get out of that letter.

Re:next up (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397805)

What a fucking pack of shysters. They should get disbarred over this.

-jcr

Re:next up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397817)

This guy is getting hate mails and fear for reprisal? ... I think some people *love* Apple to the point of fanaticism.

http://www.hbsslaw.com/report_a_fraud.jsp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397848)

"Please fill out this form if you believe you have information regarding fraudulent activities at a company or organization."

Hmm. This would apply, no?

Re:next up (1, Informative)

falcon8080 (975701) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397853)

Sooo, October 19th his name became infamous, and hes only just releasing his letter? Somethings not quite right here....

IANAL... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397569)

Last I checked, no signed contract means the two law firms have no case. I'm sure with some legal back channels they could try to sue this guy but isn't this wrong? What judge will even bother listening to this?

Re:IANAL... (5, Funny)

Intron (870560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397584)

Verbal contracts are binding, and who wouldn't trust the word of a lawyer?

Re:IANAL... (1)

windex (92715) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397620)

Every judge that's ever lived?

Re:IANAL... (2, Funny)

rovingeyes (575063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397628)

Verbal contracts are binding...

NOT TRUE. If it were, lot of men would be married to lot of women.

Re:IANAL... (1)

iocat (572367) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397655)

They *are* binding, but tough to prove.

Vis-a-vis scumbag guys, I think a promise of marriage is more like an LOI than an actual contract.

Re:IANAL... (2, Informative)

Chirs (87576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397662)

Actually, in many places verbal contracts *are* binding, as long as they meet certain criteria. See the following for some details.

http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/contract/verbal. html [onlinelawyersource.com]

Re:IANAL... (4, Informative)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397667)

Verbal contracts are definitely binding, except in very specific circumstances. Marriage and real estate are two of those. However, your burden of proof of having the contract is high, and since the contract is not written the judge is going to impose what he thinks are reasonable terms on it. For example, if you have an oral contract to paint a house and one of you claims the amount was for 6 rooms and the other for 1 room, the judge will decide which is more likely correct based on market rates.

Re:IANAL... (2, Insightful)

agibbs (729458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397669)

As a law student I can categorically say that you are wrong. With only a very few exceptions (sale of land for example) verbal contracts are just as binding as written ones. The only issue is an evidentiary one of proving that the oral contract existed, which can sometimes be a bit difficult.

Re:IANAL... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397733)

C'mon, I think the guy meant to say that verbal contracts like marriage, which are generally done while under the influence of alcohol and sometimes a gun are not binding.

Given the proposals I know of, that's the assumption I made...

You might be right but.... (2, Interesting)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397712)

that won't stop the lawyers from trying to harrass him into joining or supporting their case. Not all lawyers rate the same on the scum-bag-o-meter. IMHO Class action suiters are the worst (patent trollers a close second). Patent trollers work in a similar way. A company might be legally OK to be using some ficticious IP, but often it is easier to pay off the trollers then get your products held up pending a court hearing.

The class action suite is severly diluted if the highest profile person is not party to the action. They hope to harrass him into joining their case.

Just go away. (1, Insightful)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397570)

Never talk to them again; if you get a phone call from them, hang up immediately; if you get a letter, leave it in the mailbox and tell the postman you are refusing mail from them. If they cannot demonstrate proof that the guy asked for representation, no bounty hunter is going to go after him to get court fees.

Re:Just go away. (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397802)

if you get a letter, leave it in the mailbox and tell the postman you are refusing mail from them.

      *gasp* Refuse a friendly fellow citizen his rightful job? You should be sued for that.

wow (1)

El Pollo Loco (562236) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397572)

That's insanity. They're suing HIM for their court fees? I hope he wins this. I hope those lawyers are disbarred. Morso, I wish this was all a joke. What are these people doing???

Re:wow (2, Insightful)

ShibaInu (694434) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397735)

Bottom line, when you call a lawyer, be very careful what you say. If you mention a public company and potential for class action, they will run with it.

He didn't call them (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397835)

You say when you call a lawyer but he didn't. Here is what he says:

The truth is that I never sought out nor did I ever hire David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro to represent me in any case, much less the iPod Nano Class Action suit.

The iPod Nano Class Action law suit was initiated by David P. Meyer & Associates Co. LPA of Columbus, Ohio and their representative firm, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP of Seattle, Washington and filed on October 19, 2005.

David P. Meyer & Associates contacted me ...

Re:wow (4, Insightful)

loraksus (171574) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397800)

What are these people doing???
Making hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in "legal fees" from a case that will eventually get all the people in the class 5 free songs off iTunes.

Typical class action stuff. The lawyers win, we get screwed.

Full text of Open Letter (-1, Redundant)

TellarHK (159748) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397574)

Dear Mac Community:

Hello! My name is Jason Tomczak. Many people around the world rightly know me as a mild-mannered techie, photographer, writer, and nature-lover. I am an Apple fan and have been fortunate enough to use Mac computers and other Apple products since about 1985.

On October 19, 2005, my life changed due to the unauthorized conduct of others. From that date forward, countless numbers of people around the world were driven to hate me and slander my name, sometimes using foul and threatening language.

Since October 19, 2005, my name has been infamously tied to the iPod Nano "Scratch" Class Action law suit filed against Apple.

What You Don't Know About The Nano Suit
The truth is that I never sought out nor did I ever hire David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro to represent me in any case, much less the iPod Nano Class Action suit.

The iPod Nano Class Action law suit was initiated by David P. Meyer & Associates Co. LPA of Columbus, Ohio and their representative firm, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP of Seattle, Washington and filed on October 19, 2005.

David P. Meyer & Associates contacted me, soliciting my opinions and comments about the scratching of my iPod Nano after finding Nano-related blog posts I'd written on my own website, on The Unofficial Apple Weblog and on The MacCast. They informed me that they had received an "overwhelming number of complaints" about the Nano and that they wanted my "insight into the problem". Yes, I answered their communication and told them that I had problems with my iPod Nano, however I clearly told them that they should do their own professional and technological study of the iPod Nano.

I emphasized that I did not have any access to any specific data about the materials used in making the iPod Nano. David P. Meyer & Associates used my personal comments and opinions as the basis of the iPod Nano suit. To my knowledge, there was no actual technical study done on the iPod Nano before the Class Action suit was filed.

Additionally, I told David P. Meyer & Associates that I wanted to remain private, and that my wish for privacy, among other considerations, would preclude me from getting involved in the case.

No Documentation
At no time did David P. Meyer & Associates or Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro ever receive any attorney-client agreement form from me. On their own time and based on their own schedules and plans, they prepared the paperwork and filed the iPod Nano Class Action suit in California using my name as Lead Plaintiff, however this was done without my knowledge or consent.

The Filing and The Call
The senior partner of David P. Meyer & Associates and one of his representatives called me during the afternoon of October 21, 2005 to urgently request my signature on an attorney-client agreement - two days after the Class Action suit was filed; two days after they began their action against Apple; two days after the press had begun running the story. They then warned me that my family, friends, clients and I should expect to hear from the media and others interested in the iPod Nano Class Action suit.

During that phone call to me, David P. Meyer and his associate blamed the faulty Nano filing on Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

Spin Cycle
During that week and the following months, my name was posted in relation to the iPod Nano Class Action suit on websites all over the world, even in foreign publications like Russia's "Pravda" newspaper, the Enquirer, Stuff Magazine, Popular Mechanics, CNN, BusinessWeek, MTV, VH1, etc.

Google results for my name skyrocketed. I began getting hate mail from people upset about the iPod Nano suit. I had to take my website down and remove legitimate references to my name on numerous web services. My fiancee and I were afraid to go outside in our own home town for fear of recognition and reprisal.

Call For Help
Given the gravity of the situation I was facing, I had to hire a law firm to protect myself, clear my name and set the record straight. David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, when contacted by my lawyers, did not even offer to correct any of their press releases. Not even an official apology was offered.

Law Firms' Defense Begins
A David P. Meyer & Associates representative contacted my lawyers with a highly suppositional account of what my intentions might have been; that perhaps I had second thoughts or "buyer's remorse" about the suit, etc. They snubbed the fact that David P. Meyer & Associates violated my request for privacy and non-involvement and the fact that neither David P. Meyer & Associates nor Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro ever received a single document or written communication from me agreeing to be any part of the iPod Nano Class Action law suit.

Then David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro each hired professional defense law firms to fight against me. These two powerful law firms hired two highly aggressive defense firms to confront me, a sole individual.

Things Get Very Personal
Their malpractice defense law teams ordered me for deposition in Los Angeles. During the first day of my deposition, which was scheduled for April 20 and April 21, 2006, David P. Meyer & Associates' and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro's lawyers deposed me for about 6 hours. Were the majority of their questions directly related to the Nano issue? No. They wanted to know details about my family, the personal circumstances of why my parents got divorced, what I thought about their divorce; where I went to grammar school, high school, college, what my majors were; names, locations and ages of family members and a number of other personal topics seemingly unrelated to the Nano issue. The bulk of the questions were, in my personal opinion, invasive, inappropriate, off-topic and an attempt to overwhelm me.

Toward the end of the first day, they bluntly refused to continue the deposition as scheduled. Their abrupt cancellation will likely cost me thousands of dollars in added travel and legal expense, time away from my family and clients and added emotional stress of not being able to find closure on this horrible and sometimes terrifying experience.

A SLAPP In The Face
On May 1, 2006, David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro defense lawyers filed Motions to Strike the entirety of my case against the two firms despite evidence that I had unwillingly and unknowingly been made Lead Plaintiff in the iPod Nano Class Action suit. In their Motions to Strike my case against them, they also requested of the Court that I be held financially responsible for their attorneys' fees and costs.

The defense teams filed "demurrers" against my filings which state, in short, that David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro did, in fact, mistakenly file the iPod Nano Class Action suit with my name, but they claim that they legally had a privilege to mistakenly file documents in my name without culpability or recourse.

They also filed an Anti-SLAPP motion against me and my claims against David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion prevents me, the plaintiff, from amending my complaint against David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and delays all discovery. This means that no parties from either firm can be deposed, and possibly incriminating documents cannot be requested of them. Anti-SLAPP motions are like terribly expensive and time-consuming "pause buttons".

Where Do We Go From Here?
I've learned that every day that passes can bring big surprises - though not usually pleasant ones. I am not sure how the iPod Nano Class Action suit will turn out, nor do I know how David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro will continue to act with regard to my request for justice and the return of honor to my name. If recent actions are any indicator, I am preparing for an emotional, stressful and expensive ordeal.

Although it is too late to completely clear my name from the iPod Nano Class Action law suit, by writing this Open Letter to the Mac Community, I am hoping to make an attempt to reduce the damage already caused to my good name and to open people's eyes to the fact that I did not approve, endorse, authorize, initiate or promote the lawsuit against Apple. These actions were taken without my authority and against my express wishes by the law firms of David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

I am frightfully aware of the fact that issuing this letter could possibly spur an even more aggressive legal attack against me as they apparently wish to suppress the truth and wish to suppress me. Whatever the outcome, whether I am successful or I am financially crippled by David P. Meyer & Associates' and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro's defense firms, it is my sole intent to communicate the truth of what happened so that I can begin to find some peace of mind after the hate, harassment and embarrassment brought about by the misuse of my name in the iPod Nano suit.

Sincerely,

Jason Tomczak
c/o Cameron Totten
Sherman & Nathanson
9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 820
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Re:Full text of Open Letter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397633)

I'd be contacting the state bar association, making complaints about their ethics.

Re:Full text of Open Letter (5, Informative)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397703)

From the Washington State Bar Assoc. Rules for Professional Conduct...

RULE 7.3 DIRECT CONTACT WITH PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS

        (a) A lawyer shall not directly or through a third person solicit
professional employment from a prospective client with whom the lawyer has
no family or prior professional relationship in person or by telephone,
when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's
pecuniary gain.

        (b) A lawyer shall not send a written communication to a prospective
client for the purpose of obtaining professional employment if the person
has made known to the lawyer a desire not to receive communications from
the lawyer.

RULE 1.2 SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
        (f) A lawyer shall not willfully purport to act as a lawyer for
any person without the authority of that person.

(CAPCHA: 'Sexual')

The only solution that makes sense (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397575)

... is to disbar the lawyers from ever practising again, *and* to make them liable for his fees. That's assuming he's telling the truth, but it sounds like he is.

Not only are they giving their profession an even worse name (who'da thought it possible!) but they are in effect forcing him to pay for their lawyers fees when he didn't want anything to do with it. It beggars belief!

Lawyers ought to have a hippocratic oath, just like doctors... "Do no harm". Not sure how that fits with defending a murder suspect, but it certainly seems wrong for them to (ab)use someone's name like this...

Simon

Re:The only solution that makes sense (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397649)

Yes, you're exactly right. Disciplinary actions need to be brought by the Ohio and Washington Bars - one of the most basic rules of professional responsibility (1st/2nd year of law school) is that a lawyer does not do _anything_ (enter into settlement agreements, file suit, etc.) without the client's authorization and consent. Even a bar exam flunkee would know this very basic concept.

I haven't read any of the pleadings in the case, and of course there's two sides to every story (it should be noted that the above letter was drafted or approved by this guy's lawyers) but based on the facts made available, something should happen to these lawyers. If not disbarment, then at least a suspension, or fines payable to this guy.

Re:The only solution that makes sense (1)

Associate (317603) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397660)

I can think of several sensible solutions.
But they involve things that might require one to seek legal council.
It's a vicious cycle.

there comes a point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397674)

when hiring a hit man is cheaper than dealing with their legal tricks.

Re:The only solution that makes sense (2, Insightful)

linefeed0 (550967) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397693)

I would think disbarment is quite possible here. The fact that their lawyers started asking him unrelated personal questions in a deposition, blatantly fishing for dirt, is quite possibly a criminal offense (harassment and abuse of process).

Too bad that the Mac community is so full of mindless toadies that they joined in the harassment from their own side. I don't think *they* deserve an apology from this guy, who did nothing wrong.

"I began getting hate mail from people upset about the iPod Nano suit. I had to take my website down and remove legitimate references to my name on numerous web services. My fiancee and I were afraid to go outside in our own home town for fear of recognition and reprisal."

I mean, seriously folks, you love a defective product *that* much? It sounds like great advertising for Apple...except for the whole "well, we sell so many of these because people are mindlessly attached to our brand and don't want to hear anything bad about them" bit.

Re:The only solution that makes sense (1)

Syrrh (700452) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397701)

I can't imagine they can make a case out of this. Verbal agreements may have some binding, but they need witnesses to carry any weight against him simply denying it. Otherwise, there's nothing to keep lawyers in line. Who needs to chase ambulances when you can just take the names off an accident report and then extort legal representation out of them?

It's not about making the case (4, Insightful)

doublem (118724) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397791)

Since lawyers are involved, I must first state that the following is my opinion, and is not to be considered authoritative in any way shape or form.

Here's the deal:

They didn't care about actually getting the necessary documents signed before filing.

They need this guy to keep quiet so they can pursue the lawsuit.

They want to keep him tied up in legal proceedings until the Apple case has been resolved, and they're using a number of dirty tricks to do so.

If they win, he won;t get a dime anyway, as it will all be eaten up in "legal fees."

If they lose the suit with Apple, they'll then go after this poor guy with everything they have to either get him to cough up some obscene legal fees or declare bankruptcy. After all, if they lose, SOMEONE has to suffer for it.

It's not about proving anything about if he's really their client. It's all about delaying him so they can continue going after Apple.

Re:The only solution that makes sense (4, Insightful)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397711)

Oh, we have an oath. They vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, of course. I practice in Massachusetts, so the oath I took is as follows:

I (repeat the name) solemnly swear that I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless, or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent to the same; I will delay no man for lucre or malice; but I will conduct myself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity as well to the courts as my clients. So help me God.


I certainly don't see how there'd be conflict with defending a murder suspect. It's important to force the state to prove their case, lest innocent people be wrongly accused and punished for things they didn't do.

Re:The only solution that makes sense (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397858)

The "do no harm" thing w.r.t a murder suspect would be "a bad thing" if the suspect was indeed the murderer, but the lawyer successfully argued his case and got him off, at least IMHO.

I think it'd be hard to argue that a lawyer oughtn't do his/her utmost to protect the client (in *any* circumstance), but if justice does not prevail, I'd consider that "harm" to society as a whole - it's not about having baby-eaters wandering the streets, after all. If you commit the crime, the idea is that you get caught. That was all I was trying to say... I took too few words :-)

Simon

Re:The only solution that makes sense (1)

Homology (639438) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397719)

Not only are they giving their profession an even worse name (who'da thought it possible!) but they are in effect forcing him to pay for their lawyers fees when he didn't want anything to do with it. It beggars belief!

This is in USA, and this happens all the time: Justice for those with deep pockets. Why do you think that so many cave in for RIAA at the mere threat of a law suit? Note that these tactics don't work in Europe.

Sing Sing? (3, Funny)

dotslashdot (694478) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397579)

If they lose, do they go Sing Sing?

my god... (0, Troll)

rjpaw (976945) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397585)

A lawyer trying to screw someone to make a profit... what is this world coming to!

chum... (1)

p!ssa (660270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397590)

Nothing like sharks eating thier own! Now if we could just get ALL of the lawyers suing each other maybe the rest of us could get something done,

Amazing (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397595)

How Apple, who seems to like to sue everyone for anything, creates a whole culture of lawsuits.

Steve Berman... (4, Interesting)

Starxxon (889509) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397597)

Steve Berman from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro was one of the lawyers handling the nano suit. He's one of Microsoft's favorite lawyer, having defending MS in more than 50 class-action suits made by the states and consumers.

Let's say that the following is completely speculative and happens in fantasy-land. (I don't wan't to get sued!)

One day in autumn 2005, Bill Gates is playing golf with his lawyer friend Steve Berman.

-Steve: Did you see the new iPod nano?

-Bill: Yeah yeah I did...nice little player but you know my position about iPods... We had big plans with the RIAA to impose WMA as the audio standard, by this year we were supposed to drop Red-Book audio from all CD sold in the US, replacing the content with DRMed WMA. You can imagine how the iPod and iTMS screws up our plans badly.

-Steve: I guess many big-players are pissed-off by the iPod success.

-Bill: Yes they are, but the iPod seems unstoppable... Even with dozens of our ghost-writers publishing negative articles about the iPod, it keeps dominating the market.

-Steve: I've read that the iPod nano scratches very easily, and that some of the early batches had screens that spontaneously break.

-Bill: I know about it, our ghost-writers are already trying to spread the word... but we need something bigger, we don't have a choice.

-Steve: There's a guy that built a website to complain about his iPod nano screen problems and he's very vocal about it.

-Bill: What if your law firm gave him a hand to help him build a class-action suit against Apple?

-Steve: Yeah we could do that, but what if he doesn't want to be part of the lawsuit?

-Bill: I'm %100 sure your great firm will be able to "convince" him... And by the way, you owe me that, remember that "thing" I sent you last month?

-Steve: Oh right, that "thing" was very enjoyable... I guess I owe you that one...Let me see what I can do!

We have a word for this: (4, Funny)

Paladin144 (676391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397601)

Clusterfuck.

This poor guy. I hope things turn out okay for him. Conversely, I hope the lawyers are eaten alive by a cauldron full of insane, demonic, snow-weasels. Or another group of lawyers. Whichever is more painful.

Re:We have a word for this: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397652)

Dear Paladin144, I have recently received notice of your threatening other lawyers. I quote, "I hope the lawyers are eaten alive by a cauldron full of insane, demonic, snow-weasels. Or another group of lawyers. Whichever is more painful.". I warn you, under Section 37B of the attacks and counterattacks act of 1957, it states that "all threats against lawyers is a crime against the state, and..." oh hello, little weasel. You do seem cold today. What's that you want? You want sdffj gdfgjdfg AAAAH my face aaah it's trying to eat my face aaaah actuallythatwasquitenice AAAAAAHHH

Someone mod parent "funny" (1)

sfled (231432) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397781)


" oh hello, little weasel. You do seem cold today. What's that you want? You want sdffj gdfgjdfg AAAAH my face aaah it's trying to eat my face aaaah actuallythatwasquitenice AAAAAAHHH
LOL

Re:We have a word for this: (5, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397801)

I hope the lawyers are eaten alive by a cauldron full of insane, demonic, snow-weasels.

Why bring Canadian lawyers into it?

KFG

What I do not understand... (3, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397611)

If he is listed as the lead plantif, why can he not simply ask for the case to be dropped OR dismiss the law firm handling it? People persuing lawsuits seek other legal counsil all the time.

If indeed he did not file the case that would seem the best revenge, but them out of the loop (and the winnings).

I would say the lack of any signed document stating the case is truly in his behalf almost certainly indicates his story is the correct one, for what lawyer would even pick up a pad of paper without a full and binding contract signed in triplicate?

Re:What I do not understand... (2, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397656)

I would assume that if he took any action regarding the case it would show his intent to be involved in the case and would give the law firm grounds to demand payment from him.

-Rick

Re:What I do not understand... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397797)

I am not a lawyer (but I play one on Slashdot), however there is difference between being involved with a case and being represented by a law firm. If he writes to the court where the case is due to be tried and states that the suit is being brought without his consent and that he wishes it to be dropped, then they should do so.

If the lawyers then wanted him to pay their fees then they could sue him. In this case, I would expect him to turn up on the first day with a motion to dismiss unless they can provide a contract, signed by him, authorising them to represent him.

Even dismissial? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397798)

I would assume that if he took any action regarding the case it would show his intent to be involved in the case and would give the law firm grounds to demand payment from him.

If he writes a note to the judge saying that he did not authorize the case and wants it dismissed I don't see how that's any indication he owes them anything.

It would be more the case if he dropped them as legal council and used someone else. But perhaps that new law firm would take the case on contingency and also as payback for the obscene amounts of money they'd be receiving from the main lawsuit.

Or, as they say on Blazing Saddles... (1, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397616)

Lawyer: Hand over the iPods or I'll blow the sucker-plaintiff brains all over this place!
Plaintiff: Do what he says! Do what he says!
Citizen (Male): Do it folks! He's not messing around!
Citizen (Female): Isn't anyone going to help the poor man?!
Plaintiff: Help! Help!
Lawyer: Shud up!

slimiest lawyers I've heard of in a while (2)

ummit (248909) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397617)

Presuming we can believe Jason's letter, these guys are mondo scumbags. The "anti-SLAPP [wikipedia.org] " suit they filed is normally intended to protect "little guys" who are being legally harrassed by big companies. In filing one against him, they're implying that he's harrassing them. Lovely.

The attorney is in the details. (1)

Suzumushi (907838) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397624)

Proof once again that the subject matter, outcome, and purpose of a lawsuit are all secondary to the primary reason for lawsuits...that the lawyer get paid.

this is why... (5, Insightful)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397630)

>...is likely to still loses thousands of dollars under the best scenario ...a loser-pays court system is the only reasonable way, like in the UK.

no wonder the USA legal system is so fucked if you can do no wrong, tell the truth, and still by charged money that is a significant part of your wages. whereas companies can provably break laws, be found guilty, and still be charged a meaningless fraction of their profit.

It's not about "right" (2, Informative)

doublem (118724) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397749)

It's not about who's right and who's wrong.

It's about who has the better lawyers.

Why you dirty commie! (4, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397768)

What, don't you believe in the free market? We have the best justice system money can buy! I bet you just want to drag everyone down to the same level. Hah! If I have tons of money, that proves I am a better person and more deserving of justice. Damn commies with your "justice should be blind" crap. If I wanted justice to be blind, I would have hired someone to poke her eyes out.

Re:Why you dirty commie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397863)

It sure must be nice not having to think before speaking.

Gotta love it! (1)

garylian (870843) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397631)

What is this law firm going to do next? Sue the poor guy for using his own name for things, since the law firm will want to trademark his name?

Since the only real winners of a class action lawsuit are the lawyers, you have to wonder why anyone tries to be a part of one.

Re:Gotta love it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397747)

Can't trademark a name; he's safe there.

On the other hand, if you're named Thomas, you can trademark Thomas, Inc., so he'd better not hope to own a business with his name.

Obligatory Shakespeare quote.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397641)

""The First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lawyers"
      -Henry VI

Fanboy danger (2, Funny)

Tx (96709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397651)

My fiancee and I were afraid to go outside in our own home town for fear of recognition and reprisal.

I'm scared of many things, but raging hordes of Nano fanboys fanatics? I think not.

Seriously though, this guy played it all wrong. It sounds like if he pulls out, the case is sunk, so he should've been like "What's my cut?". If the case is won, those lawyers would made a stack, I'm pretty certain a deal could have been struck.

Re:Fanboy danger (2)

doublem (118724) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397724)

The problem is, as things stand now, if they lose the lawsuit, which is likely, this poor guy would be on the hook for all the legal fees concocted by the lawyers.

In other words, he'd end up selling everything he owns and spending the rest of his life in debt if Apple wins the lawsuit.

Anyone else asked the lawyers for clarification? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397663)

I read his letter yesterday and thought t might be worth writing about. I emailed every contact address I could find on the sites of both law companies, unfortunately I haven't gotten a reply.

info@dmlaws.com
rcarey@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
info@hbsslaw.com
mark@firmani.com

Unfortunately none of them has responded so I can't clarify the truth of the allegations. Perhaps some other people should email them asking for clarification as well.

Careful now, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397855)

they might sue you, or at the very lease charge you. Let's see you emailed them 5 times. Let's say their billing rate is a low $50/hr, with a 2 hour min. So each email incurs you a $100 charge. So $500, add another $100 to process the bill. And you already own them $600!

Apple Ipod Suit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397664)

Good that is what he gets for buying an iPod.

i say it all the time (1)

blew_fantom (809889) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397666)

i say it all the time but if lawyers and doctors were professions that legally needed to be provided for free and practitioners could not make a dime out of their practice, i wonder how many would still choose that as their careers? while there ARE lawyers and doctors who truly care, they always seem to be the minority.

Re:i say it all the time (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397825)

while there ARE lawyers and doctors who truly care, they always seem to be the minority.

      Hey! I care!

      That will be $45 please...

      Dr. D

Re:i say it all the time (1)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397828)

Well if they literally couldn't make a dime at it, then no one would except for people who are already independently wealthy. You can't very well make something your career if you don't get paid to do it.

Re:i say it all the time (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397856)

Um, I don't think anyone would choose a career that they can't make any money out of. Well, maybe a few rich people.

There would probably be quite a few hobbyist doctors. There are already some who go and work in Africa for basically nothing except the pleasure of getting shot at.

Lawyers... well, some. They'd probably go back to calling themselves advocates though.

Sleazy lawyers? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397671)

Whoever heard of such a thing?

-jcr

Profit (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397675)

1. File class action lawsuit without plaintiff's permission.
2. Sue plaintiff.
3. Profit

Business plan 2nd list item.. (1)

alexhs (877055) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397691)

I think I've found the definitive answer to fill the answer marks of the second item :

  1. Sue
  2. SUE AGAIN !
  3. Profit !!!

What needs to happen is a massive ... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397692)

...petition of the law firms to against this man to ough up the proof this man agreed to their blathering claims.

and when they fail to do so, to reemburse this man all legal expenses he has incurred as well as punitive damages.

If this fails then there sould be a class action suit against these law firms for contributing to the distrustfullness of the legal profession.

either they have proof or that don't anbd if a judge can't simply request that info and see that then the judge needs to be disbarred for abusing the legal system for personal blindness.

If this guy is lying, then who cares?!

 

Re:What needs to happen is a massive ... (1)

dhasenan (758719) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397762)

A class action suit? They've been doing this to a number of people, then? Where did you get that information?

As for the judge, judges can't exactly be disbarred; they're usually elected. While most of them are lawyers, practicing law would be a conflict of interest.

Contact the ABA (5, Informative)

ChefAndCoder (902506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397702)

IANAL, but what you're describing seems to be a serious breach of ethics on the part of the lawfirms involved. Yes, some lawyers actually take their ethical obligations to society and the courts seriously. I think you or your lawyers would be well advised to immeadiately contact the ABA (American Bar Association) and talk to them about your situation. The simple fact they cannot produce a client-attorney agreement when a lawsuit has been filed in your name is pretty damning. More then that, their behaviour after the fact is plain out wrong and the ABA may be able to help redress that.

Re:Contact the ABA (1)

doublem (118724) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397763)

That assumes the ABA will do anything about this or even care.

It sounds like the law firm in question is using the various loopholes in the system to keep their scam running. If they win the suit with Apple, the guy won't get anything because the entire settlement would be declared eaten up in court costs.

If Apple wins, they'll bankrupt the guy with lawsuits if he doesn't cough up about 20 years of his potential income to pay off their fees.

Either way, they're going to screw him over any way they can.

Re:Contact the ABA (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397789)

Well, the ABA has no disciplinary authority. The respective state bars need to be contacted, and they can disbar, suspend, or reprimand the lawyers involved.

I can't believe how stupid these law firms are. There's really no other way to characterize them. Once it became apparent that the client (or purported client) wasn't going to pay, they should have gotten out and cut their losses. One thing I learned about law practice is that no matter what, you don't sue your client for fees. It's absolutely guaranteed that the client is going to try to dig up dirt on the way you handled the case, the way you've been handling other cases. Chances are good that such information will mar your reputation as an attorney, and possibly subject you to discipline before the Bar. Not only that, public opinion isn't going to be on your side, no matter what the circumstances.

Even if the lawyers do eventually end up winning, it will not have been worth it, no matter how vexatious the client was in refusing to pay. They're going to be in a world of pain, and rightfully so.

Contact the STATE Bar (was Re:Contact the ABA) (5, Informative)

McNally (105243) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397813)

I think you or your lawyers would be well advised to immeadiately contact the ABA (American Bar Association) and talk to them about your situation. The simple fact they cannot produce a client-attorney agreement when a lawsuit has been filed in your name is pretty damning. More then that, their behaviour after the fact is plain out wrong and the ABA may be able to help redress that.
Not a terrible idea but.. the American Bar Association is largely a legal-profession advocacy group and doesn't have much of anything to do with licensing or with punishing unethical behavior. For that you'd want to contact the appropriate department of the state bar association for the state in which the case was filed.

Either Or ... (3, Interesting)

dbretton (242493) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397708)

Either he is not telling the entire truth here, or these attorneys are out of their minds. I don't see any middle ground here.

If this fella *is* telling the truth, he simply needs to report this incident, along with all evidence of correspondence and communication, to the Bar Assn. An egregious misuse of the law such as this could get the attorneys disbarred.

Re:Either Or ... (1)

doublem (118724) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397818)

Yeah. Good luck with that. I'm sure the ABA will clear this all up right quick.

Re:Either Or ... (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397844)

There are millions of dollars that the lawyers for the plantiffs stand to gain if they are successful in this class action suit. Apple settles to pay the damages for millions of iPod users, which is millions of dollars. Divided out, every nano owner gets some three dollars and fourty-three cents, and the lawyers get 30% of the settlement, which is 3 million dollars.

This figures are totally bogus, but they're in the ballpark. That's why this law firm is so interested in pursuing this case -- millions of dollars.

How is this even plausible? (1)

dozer (30790) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397714)

They also say Tomczak is legally liable for their fees if they lose the court case against Apple.

If Tomczak has no prior arrangement with those law firms, how can he be involved at all? Let's say those law firms lose their case against Apple (likely) and file a suit to recover their fees... Wouldn't any judge just throw it out with prejudice?

Someone please explain!

Re:How is this even plausible? (2, Informative)

ummit (248909) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397756)

I think the /. post got that part wrong. I think they're trying to hold him responsible for their fees in his little suit against them telling them to take his name off the big suit, or perhaps for their fees in their own suit against him for failing to participate, but not for their fees in the big suit against Apple. (That'd be completely insane!)

Re:How is this even plausible? (1)

doublem (118724) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397807)

Since lawyers are involved, I must first state that the following is my opinion, and is not to be considered authoritative in any way shape or form.

They'll either make it less expensive to pay them off than to fight them in court, or they'll drive him into bankruptcy.

It's about getting paid, and failing that, getting vengeance on someone, regardless of if it's that person's fault.

precedent (1)

reldruH (956292) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397715)

Can there be any better proof that lawyers are running rampant than the fact they can sue somebody for not hiring them? For not wanting to have anything to do with them? If these lawyers aren't reprimanded, soon, severly and publicly, the precedent this sets could be disasterous.

I'd like to say I can't believe this... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397760)

But we all know how slimey lawyers can be. As someone else mentioned, this is this worst I've heard in a long time and does a great job of making lawers seem worse than they already do!

All that being said, let's remember that we have a history in this country of the big guy lording it over the little guy, so I find no reason to disbelieve him. How about this: let's put this community of ours to work here and raise funds to help him against these lawyers. There are so many readers here at /. that we could each dump a buck or two into a Paypal donation account for his legal fees that he actually might be able to get a legal team truly able to stand up to these big, nasty jerks. If somebody'll set it up, I've got a buck or two! How about you? Are you going to just stand there and make a bunch of noise, or are you going to be part of the solution and help this guy out?

This can't happen... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397764)

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP works hard to prevent this kind of fraud. Look:
http://www.hbsslaw.com/report_a_fraud.jsp [hbsslaw.com]

Wow - holding bloggers acountable - that's evil! (1)

i am kman (972584) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397775)

While, if true, it's a terrible injustice (although it seems so blatantly unfair that I'd think the courts would throw out such crap). (Personally, I'd bet there's more gray than the open letter admits to after the whole topic seemed to steamroll out of control).

However, it does make one wonder how accountable folks are for the rants they make as bloggers....

While I probably don't want to be named as a plantiff, if I complained on a blog that my Viagra didn't work (or, rather, if my girlfriend complained - not that she ever would, of course, but I digress), can I be dragged into court as a hostile witness against Pfizer? What if I go the extra mile and setup a blog that has frequent criticism of the product?

Minimally, it seems reasonable for lawyers might want to scan blogs for witnesses and potentially even compell them to testify. Even without being named a plantiff, that's pretty scary.

Thus far, I think most of the questions about a blogger's accountability have centered on slander. But using blogs as evidence or compelling bloggers to testify seem like potentially serious and legitimate issues that haven't really been explored much.

Shouldn't he go throught different channels (2, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397780)

Defending in court would seem rather foolish considering these guys know how to play the system extremely well. However, surely it should be possible to make a complaint to the bar organisation or something. these guys have clearly acted in a somewhat unscrupulous way. The professional body should be told.

wise like a fox (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397782)


Much like scorpions, lawyers will act according to their nature.

Tell these dipweeds what you think... (1)

moosehooey (953907) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397784)

David P. Meyer & Associates
1-866-827-6537
info@dmlaws.com

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
(206) 817-9357 (press guy's cell)
(206)-623-7292
info@hbsslaw.com

Re:Tell these dipweeds what you think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397804)

Time to put my free SkypeOut service to work.

Apple should get involved (2)

_spider_ (171782) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397811)

Maybe Apple should move to strike the class-action lawsuit, since it seems to *only* benefit the lawyers. I think they were hoping he would jump onboard and sign anything they threw at him saying he would get a lot of money back from the class action suit (like $0.01 for every dollar they got in reality). But when he didn't go with it, they are going after him since it leaves them out there with their pants down.

I think Apple should help this guy beat the lawyers, and get the C. A. suit dismissed. Probably be cheaper for them anyway. Give this guy some ammo to fight back, as, its in their best interest.

Thats what I think..

-Me

Crazy lawyers... (1)

nosredna (672587) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397819)

This seems to be shooting themselves in the foot more than anything else. AFter all, what kind of incompetence has to exist for a LAW FIRM to not know enough to get everything in writing? Even if they win this piece of inanity, they're basically demonstrating to the entire world that not only are they willing to litigate against their own client during his proceedings (hey, conflict of interest... maybe if they sue him, the guy gets a free out on his other associations with them), but they're not even intelligent enough to wait until they have signed papers in hand to begin representing someone.

Contact info for David P. Meyer & Associates (5, Informative)

loraksus (171574) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397833)

http://www.dmlaws.com [dmlaws.com]

Phone numbers
866.827.6537 Toll Free
614.224.6000 Local
614.224.6066 Fax

Address
The Arena District
401 North Front Street
Suite 350
Columbus, Ohio 43215

If you wait outside their offices, you might even be able to say "Hi" to them and have a conversation about the case.
What's that? You don't know what they look like? Sure you do.
David P. Meyer, principal [dmlaws.com]
Marnie C. Lambert, Associate Attorney [dmlaws.com] Possible home address [google.ca] Possible home phone: (614) 469-1400
Patrick G. Warner, Associate Attorney [dmlaws.com]
Shelly J. Coffman, consumer claims investigator [dmlaws.com]

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397857)

Am I the only one that finds it ridiculous that he received hate mail from the flock of Apple fanboys for complaining about a Apple product but also feels like he has to apologize to the entire Mac community?

If you think this is outrageous (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15397859)

David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro have also announced their intention to represent defendant Jason Tomczak in the case of David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro v. Tomczak. In the case the defendant declines this unilateral offer, the offices of David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro intend to double sue Mr. Tomczak for declining to accept their offer of defense against their suit.

No! Lawyers aren't suing him, he's suing them! (0, Redundant)

cinnamoninja (958754) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397860)

The iPod lawsuit lawyers are not suint their own plaintiff. I realize that the page is slashdotted, but plenty of people on this page have reposted it. In it, he:

1.) Complains that the law firm contacted him for advice
2.) Complans that they ignored his desire for privacy, and slapped his name on the class-action suit
3.) He then claims that he received harassment and hateful treatment from third parties, because of his perceived attack on the Nano.
4.) Then, he sued the lawyers for Step 2):

Call For Help
Given the gravity of the situation I was facing, I had to hire a law firm to protect myself, clear my name and set the record straight. David P. Meyer & Associates and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, when contacted by my lawyers, did not even offer to correct any of their press releases. Not even an official apology was offered


Now, he is complaining, and loudly, in this "Open Letter to the Mac Community", that the law firm is defending themselves. They're even *gasp* making him come to court to give a deposition for his prosecution. He is also furious that the law firm dared to file a Motion to Strike against his lawsuit, since he believes it is obvious that he has been abused.

I don't know the merits of Mr. Tomczak's case, but it is clear that he is suing the iPod Lawsuit Lawyers, not the other way around.

California State Bar (1)

revery (456516) | more than 8 years ago | (#15397864)

Here [ohiobar.org] is the contact page for the State Bar of Ohio and here [wsba.org] is the same for the State Bar of Washington.

You may want to drop them an email or make a phone call and see if they are looking into this.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?