Carl M. Varady

Carl Varady

Scott Goold demanded I form an attorney-client relationship with him to assist him in suing a prospective employer who did not hire him. I declined to represent him. He refused to accept my decision. I don't accept clients who think the law is a tool to bully or abuse others who have disappointed them or who have failed to recognize their "perfection". Over the last 2 weeks I repeatedly refused to accept documents from Scott Goold that he claimed were protected by the attorney-client privilege; they are not. Though he is not a lawyer, he insisted I was wrong. I have been unable to get him to stop contacting me; he's still harassing and threatening me today. I don't know why Scott Goold insisted on retaining me. Maybe he knows I obtained a $3.8 million verdict in a race discrimination case--the largest single employment discrimination verdict ever in Hawai`i? Maybe he's aware of the $2.5 million settlement in a Title VII race discrimination case I obtained for my client in a lawsuit against the largest defense contractor in the world? This still is the largest settlement in an individual Title VII case, in Hawaii and nationally. Maybe he researched the recent victory we obtained in the Hawaii Supreme for a class of 2,721 Hawaiian Home Lands beneficiaries in a 20-year breach of trust case that is ongoing? Or maybe it's my reputation for being willing to take on difficult David-vs.-Goliath cases and fight for everything and every dollar my clients deserve, including through trial and appeal? Scott Goold's motives in trying to force me to represent him are otherwise a mystery. Being opinionated, without being fully informed, and angry, is a toxic combination for any lawyer (or lay person) to deal with. In 35 years of practice, I've learned that I do not have the time deal with such people. But even when I decline their demands, I still try to steer them straight. Even after he threatened to make the above post to Avvo and contact the Hawai`i bar to "report" me, I still made certain that Scott Goold knew that any claims he had against the prospective employer were time sensitive and would permanently expire if he did not find someone willing to work with him. I even provided him the number of the local bar association lawyer referral service and repeated my request that he not call me further. Rather than look for a lawyer who would be willing to work for him, however, Scott Goold, instead made the Avvo post, continues to e-mail me, and is now contacting my colleagues and disparaging me further. I wanted to explain why I'm bothering to respond here, should anyone read this. In my opinion, Avvo facilitates this baseless harassment. Avvo provides a forum for people like Scott Goold to engage in character attacks without any attempt to verify the facts. Avvo claims that, as it is an "opinion" site and, as I "claimed" my "site," it is immune from the law of defamation and not responsible for publishing Scott Goold's and any others' disparaging statements. As that is Avvo's position, I will freely state my opinion. Based on reading several reported lawsuits, I believe Avvo promotes pages of lawyers who pay more, giving them higher ratings. I believe Avvo is an advertising not a rating site. I only claimed this page so that no one else could use it for improper purposes. I have contacted Avvo five times over the past two days and gotten only smug e-mail responses saying that Scott Goold's disparaging post is consistent with Avvo's terms of use, suggesting I can respond if I choose. So, I must. Like many other lawyers who only wanted to protect their name by claiming their "page", my only remedy is to write this. Avvo's lack oversight and intervention have aided and abetted Scott Goold's disparagement with (what Avvo asserts is) impunity. To all prospective clients: Avvo is an "opinion" site; in lawsuits, the courts, and Avvo here do not care whether what's said about lawyers on this site is true.