invasion of privacy?

[krystl5003]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? florida

I recently had an opinion issued by the US tax court(decision not entered yet). I did a name search of myself on google and was astonished to find that atleast 4 different tax attorneys have cut and pasted the opinion on there website and posted it. My name is all over it and at the bottom they have put my name. One website even went as far to give the opinion a title as if it were a newspaper article. Are these attorneys within there rights to do this? I assume they are but I find it highly offensive and an invasion of my privacy to list the judges opinion on there website without my approval. If they are within there rights to be in my opinion an ambulance chaser, than so be it. But if they arent and I have recourse I would like an attorney to handle this on a contingencybasis anyopinions? thanks

 

[swalsh411]

That is public record. If you ever have a lot of free time you can go to taxcourt.gov and read tens of thousands more of them.

 

[krystl5003]

Thanks for your reply. I actually have done that numerous times and I have no problem with it being posted there because I know it is public information. My question is does someone have the right to TAKE THE INFORMATION from there and post it on there own website so now the chance of it being seen by accident is far greater? It seems to me that just because something is public information doesnt give someone the right to post it whereever they feel like it. Thanks

 

[HomeGuru]

Thanks for your reply. I actually have done that numerous times and I have no problem with it being posted there because I know it is public information. My question is does someone have the right to TAKE THE INFORMATION from there and post it on there own website so now the chance of it being seen by accident is far greater? It seems to me that just because something is public information doesnt give someone the right to post it whereever they feel like it. Thanks

**A: the info is public domain so the answer is yes.

 

[swalsh411]

My question is does someone have the right to TAKE THE INFORMATION from there and post it on there own website so now the chance of it being seen by accident is far greater?

Yes.

It seems to me that just because something is public information doesnt give someone the right to post it whereever they feel like it.

You are incorrect.

 

[krystl5003]

Thank you all for the information. Public domain means anyone can do anything with it. I understand I cant do anything about it. I hope I still have the right to question the ethics of someone doing that and be of the opinion that they live under a rock, benefiting by someone else's misfortune but I totally understand that legally they are within there rights. We all must live with ourselves and the decisions we make. Thanks again all for setting me straight.

 

[justalayman]

It's not that they are benefiting from your misfortune so much as they are benefiting from the resulting legal actions. Whether you gained or lost in the situation is not why they are using it. It is the decision itself that they are concerned with.

They are not being unethical in any way. Court decisions are published so those having a need for them can use them. It just happens that yours was unique in some way and as such, useful for their purpose.

 

[krystl5003]

Sorry to differ with your opinion. If they are reading the decision so that if in the future they can use that information to help a client then that is one thing. However, the only thing they are doing is putting it on there website like it is there monthly newsletter and that is where they gain from it. Because someone out there even more naive than me will think "hey this guy is pretty sharp with this kind of information" and then hire him. So in a way, yes they are or at the very least hope to benefit individually from posting this information. Doing a public service?? Hardly. Giving the appearance of doing a public service when in actuality you are just trying to drum up business is why i believe it is unethical and the last time I checked I am still entitled to my opinion.

Tell me exactly what would be changed in enlightning the public about a law if they removed the actual names of the participants? why couldnt they just be referred to as petitioner? Leaving the names in as is, even though public domain shows me a lack of compassion. If you want to give information that could be helpfull to the public, please tell me what is to be gained by giving the names of the parties involved. Wouldnt the info be the same without the names of the people? I appreciate the comments but I maintain that I would never use the services of anyone who would do that and I absolutely question there ethics and motives.

 

[Zigner]

Sorry to differ with your opinion. If they are reading the decision so that if in the future they can use that information to help a client then that is one thing. However, the only thing they are doing is putting it on there website like it is there monthly newsletter and that is where they gain from it. Because someone out there even more naive than me will think "hey this guy is pretty sharp with this kind of information" and then hire him. So in a way, yes they are or at the very least hope to benefit individually from posting this information. Doing a public service?? Hardly. Giving the appearance of doing a public service when in actuality you are just trying to drum up business is why i believe it is unethical and the last time I checked I am still entitled to my opinion.

Tell me exactly what would be changed in enlightning the public about a law if they removed the actual names of the participants? why couldnt they just be referred to as petitioner? Leaving the names in as is, even though public domain shows me a lack of compassion. If you want to give information that could be helpfull to the public, please tell me what is to be gained by giving the names of the parties involved. Wouldnt the info be the same without the names of the people? I appreciate the comments but I maintain that I would never use the services of anyone who would do that and I absolutely question there ethics and motives.

In a nutshell, you don't LIKE what the did, but you acknowledge that it is perfectly legal. As such, your legal issues have been resolved. If you want a change in the laws, you will have to advocate through the proper channels.

 

[Proserpina]

Sorry to differ with your opinion. If they are reading the decision so that if in the future they can use that information to help a client then that is one thing. However, the only thing they are doing is putting it on there website like it is there monthly newsletter and that is where they gain from it. Because someone out there even more naive than me will think "hey this guy is pretty sharp with this kind of information" and then hire him. So in a way, yes they are or at the very least hope to benefit individually from posting this information. Doing a public service?? Hardly. Giving the appearance of doing a public service when in actuality you are just trying to drum up business is why i believe it is unethical and the last time I checked I am still entitled to my opinion.

Tell me exactly what would be changed in enlightning the public about a law if they removed the actual names of the participants? why couldnt they just be referred to as petitioner? Leaving the names in as is, even though public domain shows me a lack of compassion. If you want to give information that could be helpfull to the public, please tell me what is to be gained by giving the names of the parties involved. Wouldnt the info be the same without the names of the people? I appreciate the comments but I maintain that I would never use the services of anyone who would do that and I absolutely question there ethics and motives.

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion.

However it is, in this case, completely irrelevant legally.

 

[Silverplum]

Sorry to differ with your opinion. If they are reading the decision so that if in the future they can use that information to help a client then that is one thing. However, the only thing they are doing is putting it on there website like it is there monthly newsletter and that is where they gain from it. Because someone out there even more naive than me will think "hey this guy is pretty sharp with this kind of information" and then hire him. So in a way, yes they are or at the very least hope to benefit individually from posting this information. Doing a public service?? Hardly. Giving the appearance of doing a public service when in actuality you are just trying to drum up business is why i believe it is unethical and the last time I checked I am still entitled to my opinion.

Tell me exactly what would be changed in enlightning the public about a law if they removed the actual names of the participants? why couldnt they just be referred to as petitioner? Leaving the names in as is, even though public domain shows me a lack of compassion. If you want to give information that could be helpfull to the public, please tell me what is to be gained by giving the names of the parties involved. Wouldnt the info be the same without the names of the people? I appreciate the comments but I maintain that I would never use the services of anyone who would do that and I absolutely question there ethics and motives.

So you'd like for every case to be, officially, "Petitioner vs. Respondent"?

And then when one wanted to study a case, one would Google, "Petitioner vs. Respondent," and get eighty bazillion hits.

Not my idea of efficiency and fun.

 

[krystl5003]

Then i guess you would have a problem being a competent attorney pre internet when everything didnt just fall into your lap.

 

[Silverplum]

Then i guess you would have a problem being a competent attorney pre internet when everything didnt just fall into your lap.

Okay. Let's go back in time.

So, you'd like for all cases to be labeled, "Petitioner vs. Respondent," and when one goes to the law library to study cases, they are all named, "Petitioner vs. Respondent."



Table of Contents:
Petitioner vs. Respondent
Petitioner vs. Respondent
Petitioner vs. Respondent
Petitioner vs. Respondent
Petitioner vs. Respondent
Petitioner vs. Respondent
Petitioner vs. Respondent
Petitioner vs. Respondent
Petitioner vs. Respondent
Petitioner vs. Respondent
Petitioner vs. Respondent
Petitioner vs. Respondent

 

[Proserpina]

Then i guess you would have a problem being a competent attorney pre internet when everything didnt just fall into your lap.

Consider the archaic times before Teh Ninterwebz:

Hi, Friendly Law Librarian Person! Could you please see if you have handy this case? Oh...the name of the case? Petitioner Versus Respondent.


Come on.

 

[Silverplum]

Consider the archaic times before Teh Ninterwebz:

Hi, Friendly Law Librarian Person! Could you please see if you have handy this case? Oh...the name of the case? Petitioner Versus Respondent.


Come on.

MY favorite case was, you know, the old favorite: "Petitioner vs. Respondent."

SO enlightening! You should read it.