Technical People Need Technical Lawyers
Lawyers easily give away their lack of digital literacy or poor comprehension of inherently technical matters. Most of them never studied technology, so no "unmasking" is needed. They talk down on people (perched on their high horse), but that disguises their insecurities in fields other than a certain specialty in a certain area - usually a rather narrow niche - of law.
Brett Wlison LLP staff seem to have panicked a bit over this post, then a very short time afterwards they sent E-mail (totally redundant one) to show they know also how to send two sentences without 3.5MB of cruft (they sent the same redundant message by post). Courts don't mind such stuff, it's just that it shows the lawyers who progress SLAPPs in IT (e.g. for a serial strangler from Microsoft) do not get the very basics in IT. Progress in their IT department? Who, Mee?
Technical Litigants in Person (LIPs) have many real and concrete advantages, for they can explain in very simple terms very complex concepts. Processes and protocols can be learned on the go and judges tend to be lenient or fairer towards them. They recognise nobody is a jack of all trades.
It's generally true that some technical people act as attorneys (or similar), but they tend not to be so good at the "art" of litigation, which requires experience.
I very much look forward to future articles which explain how SLAPPs works and how to properly handle them. A lot of knowledge about this can and will be shared when we campaign for reform and pursue compensation. It'll probably end like it did a decade ago. █