Dispatch from Rock Bottom

One of the employees of R.W. Lynch whom I was a little bit tough on here filed a complaint against me with the State Bar of Texas. The State Bar dismissed the complaint.

In her cover letter, our complainant claimed that I misquoted her, and that in 2 1/2 months at R.W. Lynch she never left a message stating that she was the injured party.

No, she didn’t exactly say that. She said that she was calling about a new case, that it was an injury that she was involved in:

Image of complainant's first phone message.

Which are the words I attributed to her. Twice. And which R.W. Lynch ex-employee InTheKnow identifies as R.W. Lynch company training: lie your way past secretaries to get to the attorney.

I’ve been taken to task for blogging about the complainant and other dishonest telemarketers who are “just trying to feed their families.” Our complainant echoed that in her cover letter:

It seems to me that Mr. Bennett could/should have vented his frustrations toward RW Lynch, not someone being paid to perform a job at their employer’s behest . . . . I personally don’t agree with some of RW Lynch’s practices and strategies, but don’t feel that I should personally pay this kind of a price . . . . It seems to me that a rational person would just ask to be put on a “no call” list, and not make a sleazy, stalker-like call, followed by a damaging, slanderous action, targeting someone who is just trying to make a living in a horrible economy.

Four things:

First, “I was just following orders” is still, even in a horrible economy, not a defense.

Second, R.W. Lynch left at least 13 messages for me, several of them lies, before I ever returned a call. Who’s the sleazy stalker?

Third, the truth is, even in a horrible economy, a defense.

Fourth, here’s Bennett’s Law of Rules: If you can’t pay the penalty proudly, you weren’t justified in breaking the rule. One danger of lying for a living is that you might be exposed very publicly as a liar. If it’s worth lying for a living to feed your family, you should be prepared to stand up and say, “damn right, I lied for R.W. Lynch to feed my family.”

When I got our complainant’s letter, I agonized — for about five seconds — over whether I should have used her name in the blog posts about her dishonest calls on behalf of R.W. Lynch. I don’t feel any need for retribution, but if I can help deter our complainant and others from lying for a living, then in my own little way, I’m trying to make the world a better place.

Our complainant claims that she asked RW Lynch management to contact me with hopes of having her name disassociated with my blog. RW Lynch “did not support her in her efforts”, so she left the company. I’d like to take credit for that decision, but I’m sure that our complainant isn’t the only one who, in hindsight or in foresight, would rather be unemployed (or do honest work, like robbing banks) than lie to people for a living.

0 responses to “Dispatch from Rock Bottom”

  1. I can’t believe she filed a complaint. What a pain in the butt. Even spurious complaints cause embarrassment and require a response.

  2. I’m surprised she used her real name when cold-calling you. I’ll bet that’s all that’s changed. Now she probably just says she’s Mary Jones, and she’s probably put you on the twice-a-week call list.

  3. […] If the pro­posed action is not legal, the criminal-defense lawyer should not take it. There is a pos­si­ble excep­tion to this: if the law is not just, the lawyer might not fol­low it. We expect juries to nul­lify unjust laws; we shouldn’t be closed to the idea of doing so our­selves. Act­ing for a client in vio­la­tion of an unjust law is harsh and dan­ger­ous med­i­cine, though, and it shouldn’t be taken with­out con­sult­ing more-objective coun­sel and fol­low­ing Bennett’s Law of Rules. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.