One is Simply Doomed to Fail When Working for Violent Men From Microsoft and Attacking Women as Well as People Who Merely Expose Crimes or Report Real Crimes
Having written about patents and patent lawyers (or lawsuits) for over 20 years, I tend to know their "soft spots" and why they're stigmatised as a public nuisance, menace, obstruction etc. It only takes a few people like Ray Niro to make them all (collectively) seem like unscrupulous villains. Nowadays the world's biggest patent offices aren't run properly; they just try to "print money" at the expense of scientists and - by extension - the "middle class" (what's left of it). In many cases, patents are just "attack dogs" of oligarchs (individuals) and monopolies (companies); they amass them in "portfolios" and unleash them like pack of wolves at rivals, sometimes via proxies. They know exactly why they're doing this and what they strive to accomplish.
Imagine saying to people that you "practice law" or "exercise the law" when what happens in practice is the exact opposite because all you do is attack people who expose and oppose people who actually break the law (e.g. Dan Neidle exposing tax fraud, only to be SLAPPed for it [1, 2, 3]).
Last night we found out that the person who attacked Dan Neidle, who targeted my wife, and who forged an alliance against yours truly with a serial strangler from Microsoft (in another continent where media is besieged!) is most likely "moving on". They save face or keep up appearances by being very vague about it; but it certainly looks like they have just sacked the Microsofters' lawyer or he quit in disgust or handed in his notice (so his official "last day", after handing over some sloppy information, may be imminent). They're no longer signing their letters with a name (using generic names and pen strokes) and they repeatedly refuse to talk about the funding, e.g. Microsoft (for sure a lot of the money they got is Microsoft salaries). I already noticed something was amiss back in December or January. It also looks like their law firm, which focuses on media (SLAPPs and phony GDPR claims), will soon have no suits and no officers to speak of. Maybe it'll lose its licence; staff won't have the patience and tolerance for the evil thing they're doing. Even a recent graduate, who works as a paralegal, would be wise enough to realise that it sucks to be a woman who helps greedy men attack women, especially to cover up strangulation (which can result in death). As pointed out yesterday, law firms tell us (NGOs watch this closely, as they did others before us) that what the Microsofters did with this lawyer is worse than inherently unethical; what they did was likely illegal, not just unethical and in breach of the professional conduct/standards. They very clearly crossed boundaries and someone who only had a lawyer's licence since 2020 (after COVID-19 had broken out) is at risk of losing it.
To be very clear, this isn't about me denying access to a lawyer for very bad people, such as suspected murderers.
This is a lot worse than choosing to work for criminals as lawyers ("reputation management", a.k.a. laundering), e.g. trying to lessen their sentence after some crime happened. This is a case of misusing a law degree - bypassing facts and basic judgement - to actively help dangerous people or criminals silence those who talk about the crime to lessen awareness and maybe help avoid capture/investigation/prosecution. In that sense, via 'mere' SLAPP, it's more like becoming "partner in crime" (suppressing victims, whistleblowers, investigators etc.)... hardly the same thing as advocating/pleading for someone's innocence. This is extortion. There's a big difference between helping someone get away with crimes (in other words, participation) and acting as a voice for due process purposes.
What happened this year and last year merits many more in-depth articles. It goes beyond the thresholds/remits of a law firm and lawyers, too. There's a barrister here and choosing the exact same "Junior" as Barrister matters a lot. The SLAPPs are inseparable (also using similar templates to throw poo at the wall, hoping that something might stick or that a Defence will cost more money, due to time spent) is highly problematic. Those people play with fire, enjoying money from Microsoft, but they might end up with burned hands. Remember that nobody ever survived any kind of partnership with Microsoft. Microsoft is just a user.
SLAPPing critics of Microsoft using phonebook-sized piles of paper (needless length, disproportionate to alleged issue; it has been dubbed 'paper terrorism'; some say "legal terrorism") is a heavy-handed approach to impose a settlement, even agreed upon by innocent parties, so it isn't about justice, it is a form of extortion like we covered 6 years ago (Eric Lundgren*). It's a form of misconduct, like throwing 100 pages of claims at people whom you know lack the means, then boasting about the depths of one's pockets. This is what they did to Aaron Swartz to cost him a lot of money (Prof. Lessig said Aaron's parents would likely need to sell the house) as 'revenge' for protesting (in Demand Progress) what was previously done to him. At the end the prosecutor ended up killing Swartz [1, 2]. He and others then came under investigation for it; their career got ruined for it.
So let this be a reminder: just because you have some diploma or college degree does not mean you legally get to bully women. Those who did things completely unrelated to law (with a degree in English, not law!) and got compensated with a fancy job title deserve to be scrutinised by the authorities here (it's already underway). A day after we published this long article about GNOME (it went "viral") high-level people in GNOME blew the whistle. We'll revisit this in the distant future. The prospects for belated accountability are encouraging, even compensation. The chain of money (and command) is shallow enough for anyone to see.
As we explained yesterday, running away (like Sheela Zemlin) from a company does not exempt one from accountability, even a subpoena (or equivalent). We're talking here about a rapidly shrinking firm (the site has a skeleton crew, almost all companies do this for perceived stability and wellbeing), job title advertised as vacant (matching only one person), there's a demonstrable lack of money in the bank (e.g. for salaries), and no media lawsuits this year (on either side). This person has not been long in this firm or in this occupation (seems like he was rewarded with fancy job titles, not money - that's a typical symptom of lousy tech jobs too) and he received a lawyer's licence after being a clerk, and that was only a few years ago.
People who want a cheap stunt and/or "court" as "PR spectacle" for revenge, not law will not be respected by Judges. So far two Judges (called "Masters" here) separately and independently ruled in our favour because they can see what's really happening. There is backlash and demand for real change. That change will come. I can devote decades of my life to work towards such change as it would benefit millions. It would enrich freedom of the press and ultimately benefit democracy.
"Unfortunately," a friend told me, "it is the staff who are the problem, if they are allowed to practice law instead of pivoting to flipping burgers**, then they bring their values and behavior with them to the new job."
I saw bosses like these in Sirius Open Source. Absolutely no qualifications, skills, experience or basic comprehension of what the company was doing. Compensated with a fancy job title (which they didn't deserve, earned by blind loyalty to a crook who had engaged in embezzlement, then attempted to cover it up), they only ever bullied people like an XL Bully. It just caused many valued colleagues to resign. █
_________
* Mr. Lundgren, whom we spoke a lot to back then, was recycling machines or old PCs (relevant right now due to TPM and Vista 11 amid "end of 10").
** There's nothing wrong with it; I did that as a teenager at Burger King. But do not let people who lack qualifications and integrity misuse a SLAPP weapon; they're likely to bully people "for giggles" or whatever; it harms everybody. It's not funny at all.