I recently received a cute little request from the “Web Content Manager” at Thompson Hine, one of “the largest business law firms in the U.S. With more than 380 lawyers in eight offices” according to their website.
Now, before I show you the email, you should know that I am EXTREMELY frightened any time I receive ANY communication from a law firm. More frightened than I am of the PIGS or the DEA even. With all the litigation and MILLIONS OF DOLLARS awarded in today's society, it's NO WONDER lawyers are right up there with doctors as one of the two most HIGHLY RESPECTED and FEARED white collar professionals. With all the wrongdoing I commit on a daily basis, I'd rather go to JAIL than face the wrath of an intimidating company worth over $5.5 million in SUITS ALONE. That's right, 5 suits per lawyer x $3000/each (hey, you ain't winnin' any cases in S&K's clearance selection) x 380 lawyers = $5.7 million. Even if it was POSSIBLE to win a case against a law firm like this, they could just tell their worst 15 associates to trim their suit collection by one and I'd likely be paid off.
I mean, who else is allowed to append the following message to the bottom of every outgoing email besides a law firm:
Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
Ladies and gentlemen, merely by READING an email not intended for you, you have committed an unauthorized action. I can only assume the authorization police are on their way–I hope you've been checking your headers.
What's worse, PIC's own Terms of Service include the following note:
If you send e-mail to any “@pointsincase.com” email address, we assume you are permitting your email and/or attachments to be published with your name and your email address.
I guess I should add the clause, “UNLESS YOU ARE A LAWYER, in which case your email will be sealed in a flame-retardant safe until you telephone us with verbal confirmation.”
ANYWAY, the email read thusly (luckily for me that confidentiality message was not appended):
I am a content manager at a law firm. Someone in our organization has noticed some offensive content on your site and has asked me to investigate having it removed. Can you please let me know who I can call to discuss this matter further? Thanks in advance for your help.
Here is the link:
https://www.pointsincase.com/columns/justin/11-20-05.htm
I checked out the link myself (I like my website, but I still struggle to match every date to a column title). HMMM, “Ben Feder is a Douchebag“…. I mean, that IS somewhat offensive, but then again, so is the act of plagiarism; surely we could've done way worse than “douchebag.”
So I had the Web Content Manager call me.
Long story short: Benjamin D. Feder (Partner) has taken PERSONAL OFFENSE to the fact that someone else has STOLEN his name, TARNISHED its reputation, and managed to get it first in the Google results for “Ben Feder“! Clearly, SOMETHING had to be done. You can't just go around having Google associate your reputation with that of some OTHER douchebag with the same name, right?!
In fact, I was so sure there was a legal precedent for this rule that I dug around the internet Googling names to see what I could find. Luckily, I started with “John Smith” and THERE IT WAS!
Three years ago, John Smith from Southpitchforkbumblefield, Iowa emailed the same type of request to the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities Jamestown Rediscovery Site (the #1 Google result for John Smith). It went thusly (John Smith also didn't care about confidentiality):
Hey guys,
Don't mean to butt in here, but what Captain John Smith did with that red girl Pocahontas is absotutootalutlely DISGUSTING. I mean, it's revolting enough that he'd even acknowledge those backwards, arrow-totin' Indians, but to have actually LAID WITH ONE?? Anyway, I don't want NO PART of that association, ya hear me? That means on Google too. So if you could just go ahead and erase all the nasty, offensive, accurate historical documents you've collected over the last 400 or so years, that'd probably be the easiest way. And I ain't tryin' to single you out neither. I'm about to call up Wikipedia and tell them the same thing. So I hope you'll understand… no hard feelins, it's just that, well, I've got a reputation here in Southpitchforkbumblefield to think about.
Sincerely,
John Smith (the REAL one)
And do you know, that case went all the way to the US SUPREME COURT! WOW!
Unfortunately, John Smith lost. Score another one for the APVAGRS… and PIC.
As Maury Povich once said, “Ben Feder, you ARE the douchebag!”