Copyright troll Paul Hansmeier now sues small businesses over ADA violations

A doctor's 1.5-inch threshold leads to a $15,000 damage demand.

Read the whole story

 

[qasimq]

So if there is an alternative entrance how is this an issue ?
This dude is the very definition of a troll.

 

[Kilroy420]

A slimy, litigious troll.

 

[zarmanto]

Serious question: Just what exactly does it take for a lawyer to be disbarred? Because if ever I've seen a situation which called for it...

 

[UserIDAlreadyInUse]

Yeah, I'll just bet this guy has a 1 1/2" threshold.....

 

[Rabbiddog]

This scumbag lawyer has lived up to his scumbag image and has become the quintessential "ambulance chaser" type lawyer. What a fucking scumbag.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

Kilroy420[/url]":230dgmrn]A slimy, litigious troll.

Pretty much, and the legal system lets him get away with it too.

Edit: it also makes a mockery of the ADA laws as well.

 

[ChickenHawk]

The fact that people can sue for cash over these laws is counter productive - it makes it harder for them to comply

The only remedy available should be to order the business to make the required modifications.

 

[millerbrad]

Wait... You can seriously get sued because a blind person can't read your website?

 

[Jug6ernaut]

zarmanto[/url]":27yj5aec]Serious question: Just what exactly does it take for a lawyer to be disbarred? Because if ever I've seen a situation which called for it...

I do not know the answer for this question, but IMO the repercussions for something like this should go beyond just being disbarred. Is there such thing as "white collar blackmail"?

 

[Rookie_MIB]

ChickenHawk[/url]":32zk6c7k]The fact that people can sue for cash over these laws is counter productive - it makes it harder for them to comply

The only remedy available should be to order the business to make the required modifications.

Exactly. I can certainly understand making things accessible, but when it allows for attorneys to sue for damages just because the customers can't patronize a business:

1) The loss of income to the business because of a lost customer should be the only financial punishment.
2) The business should be forced to make modifications within reason.

One would also think that the associated negative press would be sufficient to make businesses more amenable to making the changes as well.

 

[mpfaff]

strohminator[/url]":3rzvz5cp]This has been going on for years in New York City. The ADA is being badly misused by a small percent of lawyers. Congress needs to change the law, but Dems love trial lawyers, and no one wants to be seen as anti-disabled, so nothing has happened.

Politics in general is full of lawyers, not just the Democrats

 

[flyingember]

The law should allow the collection of fines that may only go towards repairing the situation forcefully with a small percentage fee for lawyers.

Since the end goal is to get a solution for their clients.

This way a disabled person knows the situation will be fixed and give them access.

 

[cromination]

The legal system supports itself first and foremost. Its why those in the system have much more latitude than the public at large. The public is second in this equation. Its very much like the healthcare system in the United States. It allows for total shit for human beings to do things like this. Its disgusting and I completely agree that they should both be disbarred and have to personally pay back damages and not hide it behind their LLC, a spouse, or property.

 

[Digitlman]

Jesus jumped-up fucking christ. How much more will it take to see this fucker as the slimebag he is and DISBAR him?

 

[siliciferous]

zarmanto[/url]":y1767ubq]Serious question: Just what exactly does it take for a lawyer to be disbarred? Because if ever I've seen a situation which called for it...

A lot. A hell of a lot. Look up Jack Thompson for an example - you quite literally need to be a raving lunatic. It took years of him publicly lashing out and attempting to humiliate those he opposed in court (lawyers included), insulting judges by sending letters to their managing partners saying that they were complicit in the criminal distribution of sexual material to minors, and oh so much more.

When he was finally disbarred it took 2,400 pages of transcripts and 1,700 pages of exhibits as supporting evidence, and he was fined a mere $43,675.

 

[Kilroy420]

zarmanto[/url]":1zjv8t6i]Serious question: Just what exactly does it take for a lawyer to be disbarred? Because if ever I've seen a situation which called for it...

I suspect he is "tolerated" because he has not yet been convicted of any crimes, and generates tons of court fees/work for the legal system; distasteful as that may be for the rest of society.

This guy is a culmination of the negative aspects of attorneys and why people in general hate them.

And all those lawyer jokes...

 

[THavoc]

The cases have the attention of the Chief Judge of Hennepin County District Court, Peter Cahill. "The serial nature of these cases … raises the specter of litigation abuse, and Mr. Hansmeier’s history reinforces this concern,” Cahill wrote in a recent order reassigning Hansmeier's cases to a single judge.

So can I have some of my Italian "Family" pay him a visit?

I'd like to give him a new pair of concrete shoes...

 

[emag]

flyingember[/url]":1bcixg7i]The law should allow the collection of fines that may only go towards repairing the situation forcefully with a small percentage fee for lawyers.

Since the end goal is to get a solution for their clients.

This way a disabled person knows the situation will be fixed and give them access.

The problem with that approach is that there is no incentive for individuals to report and investigate the businesses that fail to comply. Therefore, many states/localities offer monetary compensation to individuals who properly report and investigate such businesses in the manner described in this article.

An alternative would be to allow anyone to call out a business at minimal cost and have the state/locality bear the brunt of investigative costs. This, unfortunately, would lead to plenty of bogus complaints and a corresponding waste of taxpayer money.

 

[Guyde]

millerbrad[/url]":3dp166y2]Wait... You can seriously get sued because a blind person can't read your website?

I can't speak to the specifics of the case mentioned in this article, but in some countries, yes, you are required by law (or soon will be) to make the information on your website available to the blind and visually impaired.

I just started a job for a company in Ontario, Canada which has to achieve WCAG "AA" level compliance by 2016, or risk breaking the law. This involves things like:
- not hiding important text inside an image (i.e. text that can't be read by a screen reader) without providing a readable equivalent,
- maintaining a certain contrast ratio between the colour of the text and the colour of the background (e.g. not using yellow text on a white background), and
- making sure users can access all content easily with nothing more than a keyboard.

http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/

 

[razzmatazz]

Rookie_MIB[/url]":1z8m0gmc]

ChickenHawk[/url]":1z8m0gmc]The fact that people can sue for cash over these laws is counter productive - it makes it harder for them to comply

The only remedy available should be to order the business to make the required modifications.

Exactly. I can certainly understand making things accessible, but when it allows for attorneys to sue for damages just because the customers can't patronize a business:

1) The loss of income to the business because of a lost customer should be the only financial punishment.
2) The business should be forced to make modifications within reason.

One would also think that the associated negative press would be sufficient to make businesses more amenable to making the changes as well.

Sounds good in theory, but it creates a problem of incentives. By and large, disabled folks are less likely to have the money to pay a lawyer on an hourly basis to bring a suit to force the business to make modifications (suing to force an action is called suing for "injunctive relief").

If you can't afford to pay an attorney his or her hourly rate, the attorney may still take the case on a contingent basis. That is, whatever monetary amount the attorney secures is split between the client and the attorney by a pre-agreed percentage allocation (they lawyer commonly may receive 25-33%). The more the attorney can recover, the both that attorney and the client will get. This creates an incentive for the attorney to recover as much as possible, which benefits both client and attorney.

However, this arrangement becomes less feasible when injunctive relief is the only available remedy. While forcing the business to comply with the law will benefit the client, there is no way that benefit can be split or in any way used to compensate the attorney. The practical effect of this is that attorneys will only be able to take these cases on a "pro bono" (free) basis. This disincentivizes attorneys from taking these types of cases, because they have to pay their bills like the rest of us. The end result (especially in the ADA context) is an already disadvantaged population facing further structural roadblocks to asserting their rights.

Damages are also useful to provide incentives to business to comply sooner rather than later. If the only risk you run by not complying is that someone might sue one day to force you to comply, why not just wait until then to comply? From a rational actor standpoint, you spend the same amount complying now as you would possibly complying later. Since it's not a certainty that you will have to comply later, the rational choice is to postpone compliance.

All that being said, Hansmeier seems to be abusing the legal process in this case, demanding unreasonable amounts for slight or imagined violations of the ADA. Given his history, it's not surprising that he would engage in abusive litigation for personal gain. I would caution against jumping to the conclusion that the ADA is in need of reform simply because Hansmeier is abusing it. There's probably no limit to the number of laws he could attempt to abuse for his own gain, but that's not an indictment of those laws; it's an indictment of his character.

 

[orangebag]

The first word that springs to mind is extortion.
The only lawyer that does this is Tom Hagen, surely?

 

[Ranma]

zarmanto[/url]":l9b6u9xf]Serious question: Just what exactly does it take for a lawyer to be disbarred? Because if ever I've seen a situation which called for it...

It pretty much has to be deliberate theft or fraud. Lawyer's I've worked with (am I not a lawyer but I did tech consulting with quite a few) say that co-mingling of funds is the most common reason for disbarment. In terms of practicing law, lawyers are granted a wide latitude of what they're allowed to attempt/argue.

 

[Danrarbc]

UserIDAlreadyInUse[/url]":h4ekki9u]Yeah, I'll just bet this guy has a 1 1/2" threshold.....

He saw the size of the threshold and became jealous.

 

[Kin24]

ChickenHawk[/url]":2csrb36g]The fact that people can sue for cash over these laws is counter productive - it makes it harder for them to comply

The only remedy available should be to order the business to make the required modifications.

And those orders should come from the state and any and ALL fines payable to the state. A private lawyer should not be involved and no one should ever get any kind of payout.

 

[bettercitizens]

This has been done before, see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Law_Group . Fortunately the principals perpetuating the lawsuits were disbarred, see - http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/22 ... -lawyers22

 

[Trout Mask Replica]

THavoc[/url]":167sz595]The cases have the attention of the Chief Judge of Hennepin County District Court, Peter Cahill. "The serial nature of these cases … raises the specter of litigation abuse, and Mr. Hansmeier’s history reinforces this concern,” Cahill wrote in a recent order reassigning Hansmeier's cases to a single judge.

So can I have some of my Italian "Family" pay him a visit?

I'd like to give him a new pair of concrete shoes...

This is what it comes down to if you want any kind of Justice. It is intentionally made impossible to play by the so-called rules( see virtually every aspect of government ). The idea of Law is a noble one, but in our society it is a construct used to control, suppress, and empower the ruling class. You can point to thins such as the ADA itself and say, "here' something that is good and serves the people", which is true, but it is one of many that exists merely because it does not a) limit power of those who wield such power, and b) it doesn't cost them anything ( it costs the person who must comply ).

 

[Static and Noise]

millerbrad[/url]":35sxlfe9]Wait... You can seriously get sued because a blind person can't read your website?

Dunno the laws in the state in question, but there exists software to make the web accessible to blind people, and there are ways you can design your web page to help the process (using alt text the way XKCD does is kinda the opposite of that, for example). I'm guessing at least some type of web pages are required to be as compliant as possible.

This case though didn't look even remotely serious.

 

[chocoruacal]

zarmanto[/url]":22l5bxv1]Serious question: Just what exactly does it take for a lawyer to be disbarred?

About the same as it takes to put a banker in jail...a miracle. Judges are lawyers, and lawyers take care of each other.

 

[fryhole]

One of two lawyers pointed to as the organizer of "copyright troll" Prenda Law appears to have a new business model, and in some ways, it looks like his old business model.

Wait wait wait.... aren't Steel and all of the Prenda Law crew still evading warrants and contempt charges from the last round ?

 

[Baron von Robber]

thornburg[/url]":yavredgm]Is Ars just not even going to mention that their site was defaced yesterday?

Was it? All I noticed was the moon/shark that's normal for this site when there is a glitch. It was up for bout 15 min, but never noticed any 'defacement'.

What did you see?

 

[wallinbl]

Ostracus[/url]":zzngzjl9]

Kilroy420[/url]":zzngzjl9]A slimy, litigious troll.

Pretty much, and the legal system lets him get away with it too.

Edit: it also makes a mockery of the ADA laws as well.

It sounds like the court system has caught on and is preparing to make a determination on whether he's abusing the system. He might not get away with it.

 

[Chemical Tribe]

Weird, does he even have standing to sue? Is he going to find some poor sap on the street to claim that person couldn't get in? Are the fines in the thousands of dollars? That's sad.

 

[fryhole]

The article highlights Dr. Mohamud Afgarshe, a 61-year-old doctor whose clinic serves mainly refugees and poor people. Afgarshe told the newspaper that Hansmeier came to him and demanded $15,000 to make the lawsuit disappear.

I'd take that to the DA and point out the extortion component of the lawyers actions.

Also, Dr. Afgarshe's practice might be in an older building that was built to codes that pre-date current ADA requirements, there are exceptions to those rules. Additionally, does Dr. Afgarshe own the building he has his practice in or lease it ?

 

[gmerrick]

Why haven't these folks been disbarred yet?

 

[bettercitizens]

flyingember[/url]":115khaup]The law should allow the collection of fines that may only go towards repairing the situation forcefully with a small percentage fee for lawyers.

Since the end goal is to get a solution for their clients.

This way a disabled person knows the situation will be fixed and give them access.

Unfortunately the law is about lobbying Congress to get certain words inserted into legislation that are advantageous to those doing the lobbying. Or you can wait until the timing is just right and slip something into a spending bill at the last minute, see - http://marketdailynews.com/2014/12/15/w ... ashington/ .

Interesting that both JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and President Obama were whipping passage of the spending bill that rolled back the Dodd-Frank derivatives push-out regulations.

 

[siliconaddict]

zarmanto[/url]":vl399q7a]Serious question: Just what exactly does it take for a lawyer to be disbarred? Because if ever I've seen a situation which called for it...

Probably the same as what it takes for an officer to be charged with murder.

 

[siliconaddict]

Oh and I'll just put this right here. Seems very applicable.

http://youtu.be/MeXQBHLIPcw