Hacker News Reader

"I faced off against a guy with this sort of attitude once. The case did end up in front of a judge. The judge laughed at the guy, and threatened to hold him in contempt of court."

There was no suggestion of keeping this attitude in court. And there was a huge disclaimer only to use it for fending off assholes with no real case.

I think what you're not getting is that within his field of work, the sums of money on the line are not high enough to justify most litigation, so it's all bluffing. The plaintiff tries intimidation first, which is cheap and probably works on a large number of people. Those that don't fold immediately probably aren't worth it. The author is simply suggesting that you put yourself in the latter category.

> a doctor, threatened to report me to the bar association. I responded by reporting him to the medical board. His license was suspended for making threats.

So, threatening to report a laywer to the bar association is not allowed by the medical board?

Even if you have the right to do something, you can't threaten to do it just for personal gain. That's extortion. Oddly, there's an exception for threatening a lawsuit unless you get a settlement (if it isn't clearly baseless).

I think the point was that threatening is not allowed by the medical board. If you have a legitimate complaint, I guess you are free to report the lawyer.

I should clarify: I greatly simplified what happened.

At the time, I was a law student assisting a lawyer in a medical malpractice case. The doctor threatened to make negative statements about my moral character to the bar association in what I assume was an attempt to prevent my admission to the bar.

On its own, that would not have been enough to get him suspended. However, it was the final straw, and it was the straw the board chose to mention when they suspended him. I always thought it was weird that they went with that as opposed to the crap he'd put his patients through.

Okay. That makes more sense. I also assume your other examples were also grossly simplified as well, and that all the opposite sides were, in fact, in the wrong.

Which, I think is contrary to the point of the original article. The original article makes the assumption that you are, in fact,merely getting bullied, and that the lawyer approaching you is threatening you.

Your stories would have more weight if you were bullying people who had done no wrong at the request of your client.