Customer Wont Pay for Website, says threating to close website equals Extortion

[magik20]

This is in NY.

The customer is a lawyer, in a 2 man law firm.

Hes been dodging me for MONTHS about paying the $1000 bill he owes for me building him a website.

So, i finally get fed up, and send him a email stating if he doesnt pay in 24 hours, the website will be changed.

The new website will be simple text, saying this law firm hasnt paid the bill on the website and now the website has been taking off line.

Then he emails me back within 30 mins, claims that im committing a criminal act and if I change the website, hes going to have me arrested for EXTORTION.

Heres what he says ( the email is much longer, but this is one of the paragraphs )

" The manner and forum your threat constitutes numerous felonies, including Wire Fraud at the Federal level and Attempted Grand Larceny in New York State. Should you choose to tamper with our web site in any manner we will be left with no choice but to turn this matter over to the District Attorney’s Office. "

 

[Some Random Guy]

He is blowing hot air about the criminal charges and obviously has no clue. What he can do is file a civil suit for tortious interference with a business and possibly for defamation. If you do not have authorization to maintain his web site, you may be looking at computer hacking (unauthorized access) criminal charges.

Just file suit against him in small claims court and get it over with.

But, if he is paying you for hosting and is behind on that, review your hosting contract to see when you are allowed to turn his site off.

 

[JETX]

So, i finally get fed up, and send him a email stating if he doesnt pay in 24 hours, the website will be changed.

Very simple. Change the website as you propose. Absent an agreement to the contrary, your CUSTOMER has no specific rights to the website that you create and/or operate.

 

[Some Random Guy]

The customer is a lawyer, in a 2 man law firm.

JETX, since the deadbeat is a lawyer who presumably has free access to legal services (himself), and can sue at the drop of a hat, perhaps, the poster would be better served by not interfering with the guys business but instead keep it in small claims where an unrepresented web site designer won't be at such a disadvantage.

 

[JETX]

JETX, since the deadbeat is a lawyer who presumably has free access to legal services (himself), and can sue at the drop of a hat, perhaps, the poster would be better served by not interfering with the guys business but instead keep it in small claims where an unrepresented web site designer won't be at such a disadvantage.

Couple of problems with your 'advice'....
1) The 'threat' smacks of an intimidation move. Based solely on the OP information, I doubt that the client/attorney has a valid legal case... especially if the client/attorney does not OWN the website. Of course, any impact of possible litigation would fall back on the contract... which we are not privy to.

2) Even if the OP were to "keep it in small claims" as you propose, it is very easy for the other party (attorney or not) to have it moved to a court of record that follows full rules of evidence and rules of court. Also, the simple fact it is small claims does NOT prevent the attorney from appearing... and very easy to appeal, again to a higher (formal) court.

Bottom line... if the OP is afraid of the other party solely because he is an attorney, he should fold and give everything up. However, if the OP wants to properly recover from his 'agreement' AND if it is as he claims, the fear of litigation should not be an issue.

 

[Some Random Guy]

Since it is clear that the lawyer wants a free web site without paying, then it seems best to go after him for non payment than to open up a new can of worms by disabling his company's web site.

However, you are right that the lawyer may not actually own the site. But we don't know that unless we know whether a written contract of the site exists and whether the $1000 is for the original site or updates to it. If the lawyer never paid a dime for the site, then the poster should be able to turn it off - once again provided that he has the authority to log in to the host server.

Who is hosting the site and who contracted with the ISP to provide the hosting?

If I was going to change the site, I wouldn't announce to the world that the law firm had not paid its bills. Instead, a simpler message of "trial period expired" would suffice.