HN Explorer

Ask HN: Should I testify?

292 points by goingtogetsued ↗ HN
I've been contacted by a major law firm to testify against a former employer about how they've broken California and federal law. I have proof and witnessed it from a bunch of people inside so I'm not worried about that part.

But what will this do to my career? Now when people google me, they find good stuff like projects and presentations and blogs posts. They won't let me be anonymous and the employer is prominent and popular here so people will find out. What happens if they find this instead? Would it be a deal killer if I applied at your company?

I'm looking for career advice here, not legal advice. I have enough of that.

249 comments

[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 154 ms ] thread
porter
I don't think any company here will tell you it'd be a deal breaker. Certainly it will have an impact though. You could testify but still have a plan for controlling what comes up when people search your name. For example, by doing SEO on yourself.

Also, if the law that was broken was actually a major thing then I'd be hard pressed not to testify. It might affect your career, but only with companies that themselves have questionable ethics. You probably don't want to work for them anyway.

flurp
I agree with the advice above, and adding on to it, as a founder... If the case is morally and ethically sound then I wouldn't hold it against you, probably applaud you. On the contrary if it's a shakedown of sorts I would be questionable.

As an exercise I would look into the recent lawsuit against VC firm Kleiner Perkins. Search the web for "kpbc lawsuit" and read how people have reacted to that case.

smitherfield
I'd agree with this; if it's something along the lines of "executives were embezzling from the company," I'd consider it a sign of integrity. If it's "Uber isn't complying with taxi regulations!" then I wouldn't want to work with you.
tinco
"Uber isn't complying with taxi regulations!"

->

"XXX isn't complying with YYY regulations!"

->

"Apple isn't complying with workforce competition regulations!"

So what you're saying is there's a certain level of integrity, and if someone goes over that level of integrity then they are too integer, and you don't want to work with them?

Andrew_Quentin
No. What he is saying is that there are some common sense good laws he agrees with and there are some outdated laws that no reasonable person would want to continue to uphold and need to be changed but our grandpas in congress have not gotten around to it yet.
pen2l
> You could testify but still have a plan for controlling what comes up when people search your name. For example, by doing SEO on yourself.

Hah. Easier said than done. :)

But no, seriously OP, don't rely on this. Whitewashing one-self via attempted SEO is more likely to fail than not fail.

Qworg
Testify. It demonstrates integrity. Any firm that doesn't want to hire you, especially if the case is clear cut, is not worth working for.
CamperBob2
What if he doesn't agree with the law in question? I wouldn't consider it "integrity" to testify against an individual in a small-time drug case, for instance.

I agree with the other posters: if you do want to testify, ask for a subpoena.

mavdi
This is bad advice. This is living life on hard mode. I wouldn't testify. You don't have anything to gain other than morality points, but you'll have everything real to lose.
BurritoAlPastor
Confucius once wrote that 'seeing the right thing and not doing it is cowardly'. This is still true today. But you are right that the life of a coward is easier.

Living a virtuous life is always 'hard mode'; if it were not, would we ever have bothered to identify virtue?

mavdi
Why stop here then? Why not donate 90% of your income to charity and live in a shanty town?
SnacksOnAPlane
Sometimes doing the wrong thing (or at least "not the right thing") allows you to do a much bigger right thing in the end.

For example, Bill Gates. We all hated on Microsoft in the 90s. But Gates has become an amazingly generous humanitarian, which he couldn't have done if he donated all his money to charity in the beginning and didn't focus on ruthlessly building his company.

humanarity
I'd say there's something even more important operating here for you than career, and that's who do you choose to be? This is really a question it works for you to answer yourself. Consult your own values, search your feelings, is this something that really inspires you? Are you being you authentically if you do testify or not? Whatever you discover, take the risk and act on that, whichever it is. The choice that is you, even if it's risky. This is an identity inflexion point. Get your game face on :)
bstrom
This is the only answer to his question :)
BurningFrog
Except it doesn't answer the actual question...
humanarity
and yet somehow it does, which seems to be why it works :)
porpoisemonkey
I agree. The OP is clearly asking for quantifiable responses about career impact and not platitudes.
humanarity
I also thought so, and then I heard the real question
porpoisemonkey
I agree with the sentiment but the issue I take with the original answer is that it is that it's completely unactionable. There's no litmus test defined for what "authenticity" to oneself is or how to achieve it, so there's no way for the OP to really take this information and tangibly apply it to their situation. In my personal opinion suggestion without actionability is not particularly useful and only convolutes the decision making process.
humanarity
Porpoise hi :) thanks for the chance to expand on this, I really appreciate that today :) I agree with your point, and it's a goodun: how can you action authenticity if you don't know what it is? and if so it only makes the process inefficient. Totally agree. It's a mess not knowing where you stand, which is precisely the point. It works when we choose from who we are. There is a way to be authentic - I guess we know it without realizing it. You answered what seemed right for you, and that was being authentic. Sometimes a strong conviction is what's needed for a decision, and that's something being sought here. A reliable guide each of us has for our own authenticity is our own values and our own feelings. Without these invaluable guides we're like travellers without a compass, so it works to cultivate them and deploy them much as we can. It's a process and it gets easier. Follow your heart and eventually you'll find what your values are and be able to say them to people. They're our most valuable guides, and they're ours. :)
wfo
Of course it's actionable. Just because an algorithm can't do a cost/benefit analysis and come up with a deterministic solution absolving OP of all responsibility doesn't mean it's not actionable. The solution does however dodge the question as stated. OP asked what the consequences are of testifying, so he can decide whether doing the right thing is worth the risk/consequences. The solution suggested is telling him to say damn the consequences, do what you know is right, whatever that may be. It's life advice, not factual information. It doesn't answer the question he was asking explicitly, it answers the implicit follow up question; once I know the consequences, what do I do?
humanarity
You sound like a good listener, do you really think the real question is about the risks or is it about personal guidance? Hard to say, right? My feeling is personal guidance, because it just seems so overwhelmingly obvious to me the question is not about what it's stated about. That's just the packaging. Unwrap it -- real q inside! :)
kaens
I'd argue that those are simply two separate questions that both pertain to this particular situation.
humanarity
And you'd have no argument from me there ! :) How would you consider each were you in this situation?
kaens
It would depend very heavily on the nature of the charges.

In general, however, I don't think that I would want to work for a company that would hold a bias against me due to my participating in presumably honest testimony when a previous employer was brought to court for whatever reason.

oskarth
Since when is having a moral compass a platitude?
hueving
It's like the generic advise that everyone already knows. "be yourself!" isn't super helpful when he/she is asking specifically about career impact.
humanarity
Know who you are then you'll know what to do. The question isn't about career impact. That's just like when someone's words are different to their body language. The question is different to the words in it.
kaens
Whether or not he feels that testifying would be the right thing to do isn't about career impact.

Looking for advice about what testifying could do to his career image in the long-term from a crowd that likely has relevant experience is about career impact. Explicitly.

humanarity
Yes, you've correctly comprehended the literal explicit question, that's all there is to it, isn't it?

Except it really isn't about the explicit literal question, it's about the unasked real question.

What happens when you don't know you don't know something, or when asking what would be unacceptable?

A proxy question is substituted, and you hope someone hears what you're really saying.

Also, from a literal sense, I'd say whether you feel the choice is authentic is actually all about career impact. You're choosing to make your career something which isn't you, or something which is. What is the impact on you, and subsequently on your career, for each choice?

Thanks for saying that you're right and that my answer isn't addressing the question. I invite you to create an answer that addresses the question you see, so we can learn from you! :)

humanarity
That's a very compact rebuttal! I hope I can one day express myself so efficiently. Impressive.

There was a time when I didn't know how useful "being yourself" was. I don't believe I'm the only one. For instance, people substitute defining themselves by a contrarian viewpoint relative to others, until they work out who they really are. Case in point: the petulant teenager.

And when you don't know you don't know, the questions you ask and actions you take don't display an understanding of that -- so it works to address the non literal if you want to contribute to helping people with those requests.

I hope this helps ! :)

tempestn
> That's a very compact rebuttal! I hope I can one day express myself so efficiently. Impressive.

Just in case I'm misreading you, this post comes across as quite passive-aggressive and patronizing given your opening line.

humanarity
No I don't think you're misreading. Maybe you're right and it is patronising and passive aggressive. I'm struggling with a response to this, and I meant every word. The rebuttal is very compact and I admire that. I'm often too verbose, and value clarity.

Anyway I'm trying to say something like:

Not everyone may know that. Being yourself is important, all decisions flow from your values works. Sometimes it works to address the substantive content of a question which may differ from the literal.

If you have any ideas how I can say this in a way that works, thank you :)

humanarity
Thanks for sharing that my answer doesn't contribute a thing for you! I invite you to create your own answer which does, so we can learn from you :)
[dead] crypt1d
Sorry to point this out, but the fact that he did nothing to prevent the law abuse while he was an employee there speaks volumes about his moral compass.
emef
That's rather presumptuous, do you happen to know more than what's in the post?
cle
What? It says nothing about his moral compass, because none of us know the details of what went on. Unless you would like to fill us in?
humanarity
It works to give the benefit of the doubt and make a helpful contribution. For instance: my helpful contribution to you is did you notice the person said they had evidence? Maybe they'd been safeguarding some evidence, perhaps at some risk, to ensure justice. Maybe even more. We don't know they "did nothing" so assuming that may be incorrect. :)
rokhayakebe
Beautiful.

I say don't do it if it is not your business, if what the person did did not intentionally physically, financially, emotionally destroy anyone.

If you do it, who would you be helping?

There is something I love about the law, a concept named balance of hardship. If the testimony will do damage to this person, while on the other hand only inflicting slight inconveniences for the business, than again don't do it.

EDIT: Now if the person knew the consequences and intentionally wanted to harm, then I guess they knew what they were getting into.

Confusion
crypt1d's response on this level is invisible for being flagged, but I think he does raise a serious point: wouldn't OP be admitting that he has broken the law or allowed the law to be broken for a longer period of time? What would be the consequences for him because of that?
humanarity
Sure that's possible, however, four things: 1) There's not nearly enough information to determine that from the post, 2) the post actually says evidence was collected, which may suggest the person was caretaking justice, 3) in any case, that would be legal advice, which, however constructive, the person has plenty of and 4) if you believe this, and you don't do anything to report that, does that make you culpable of the very thing you're wondering someone else did?

It's interesting to consider, and I don't know. I'm not a legal professional tho I imagine a legal professional would say "there's not enough information."

So on those points alone I feel it's far more likely what you suggest is incorrect. Also I'm inclined to believe that. One reason is it works to choose the benefit of the doubt (not only because it's a legal doctrine), one reason for that being the benefit of the doubt creates harmony amongst people. Search for the good, sometimes it takes effort, and it's worth it. You'll be happier, definitely, if you see the good. On that point, I'd say we're wired to imaginatively perceive the bad, because we're wired for "threat landscape analysis". Tho this disturbs the mind, and maybe isn't always a clarity that works for people. Seeing the good is more unnatural and yet I think also very valuable.

Finally, if a person is asking strangers for advice at a pivotal moment, I'd say they're valuing and respecting others. It also works to respect their vulnerability in reaching out and help. I mean, that's the putative spirit of "Ask HN", right?

Maybe I'm missing something here, and benefit of the doubt goes a long way it seems to me. I'm also finding the HN Guideline, "Don't say anything you wouldn't say to someone's face" really useful in guiding choice on what to say here! :)

pron
It's a civil suit, not a criminal suit, and he's not the one being sued. I think only company officers may be personally sued for company behavior.
humanarity
Great point. I'm no law expert tho I've heard there's different types of companies ( Delaware c ? ), as a matter of curiosity I wonder if the indemnification changes depending on the type of company.
gershwin
Do what you think is the right thing to do. Any firm that doesn't hire you based on your decision is saving you the frustration of working with a group that doesn't match your ethics.
noir_lord
I'd be more likely to hire someone who testified all things been equal, it's an incredible indicator of integrity.
gargarplex
Don't do it. What's the upside for you? What's the downside?
Scarbutt
Are you going to get remunerated enough for testifying? the law firm is probably as corrupt as your employer.
logn
Usually it's only ethical to pay expert witnesses. At most maybe try to get some free suits and first-rate hotel rooms out of it :) ... but if you're judged to be a whistle-blower you do get paid for winning.
bro_haskell
I would not. Even firms that are not doing anything blatantly illegal steer clear from whistleblowers and the like. A recruiter that googles you and finds you testifying against a former employer may just pass on your resume.
bro_haskell
In terms of career, there is no possible upside to this; I don't think anyone is more likely to hire you because of this. And, there are plenty of downsides.

What's good for society may not always be good for the individual.

bastiaan
Why wound't an employer want to hire someone who is honest and complies with the law?
moron4hire
Recruiters are a pretty terrible way to get a job, though.
2pasc
It depends if you plan on working in big Companies or small to medium size Companies/startups.

Large public Companies (assuming we are talking about a case against a public Company) may be reluctant to have you because HR might freak out. HR is all about damage control and compliance. But startups to medium sized Companies can be talked into it, and if you work is valued and appreciated, you should be fine. As a founder or executive of several Companies from 1 to 80 people here in California, I would not take this against you.

As a side note, I would also advise you to do some SEO on yourself as was said by porter. It's unfortunate, but worth it.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
honksillet
I think most companies are more worried about hiring an employee of POOR integrity. Such a person is more likely to shirk work and be a liability. You should definitely testify.
MichaelCrawford
When the end comes and you look back on your life, how will reflect on the choices you made?

I would testify.

Consider that the law firm can subpoena you. If the choose to do that you would have no choice but to testify - or rather, you could be prosecuted if you choose not to.

pbhjpbhj
Presumably in California USA you can be forced to take the stand as witness but not compelled to bear testimony or indeed speak? (eg http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-... penultimate heading).
MichaelCrawford
The fifth amendment right against self-incrimination only applies to criminal matters, not civil matters. There is a lot about employment law, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act that is civil and not criminal.

Also it is the right against SELF incrimination. One can be compelled to incriminate others.

late2part
IANAL - but I don't think your first paragraph is accurate.

I agree completely with your second paragraph.

Let's say Sally is suing Joe for wrecking her car. I was driving Joe's car, and I fled the scene of the accident.

I'm subpoenaed in the civil matter to come testify for Sally to say what Joe did.

I'm pretty sure that you can tell the judge you refuse to answer due to 5th amendment right.

Source: I did this once in a federal civil suit (no vehicles involved)

pbhjpbhj
Surely as late2part's sibling post sort of suggests without hearing your testimony the judge can't determine whether it's likely to incriminate you or not - you're called as witness to an RTA that you weren't involved in but you were running drugs at the time? Or you're called on a employment law issue but you should have been under a non-compete [which of course may not be legal, but you don't know that and you can't disclose it without potentially incriminating yourself]? Or ...

What's the measure for "self incrimination". For example if I'm called as a witness for a relatively minor offence (non-violent theft say) but it will mean giving evidence that I was cheating on my spouse; that's not criminal but it's potentially going to ruin my life, why would I testify?

What about the converse, there's almost always something you could decide was unlawful, you were speeding, you dropped litter, you jaywalked, you illegally parked - if your testimony might reveal such things then can you claim the fifth?

pbhjpbhj
I don't get it. What's wrong with my question?
MichaelCrawford
In a moment I'm going to submit this as an HN story:

"Is There a Cause for Which You Would Give Your Life?" http://www.warplife.com/mdc/essays/mental-illness/give-your-...

For me, now, there are lots of such causes. But then I am fifty-one years old, I have witnessed a great deal of evil in the world and so would welcome the opportunity to make right that which is wrong.

lordnacho
If it's clear the company has behaved immorally, and that you have no ulterior motive, I don't think anyone would hold it against you.

When people are thinking of hiring you, they aren't thinking whether you'll sue them legitimately. They're afraid of a spurious suit.

sergiotapia
What benefit are you getting for testifying? Is it enough to warrant the possible negatives?

It's simple: do the positives outweigh the negatives?

idlewords
You don't need career advice, you need to degauss your moral compass.
x0x0
I really respect you, but that's spoken by a person relatively unlikely to need to convince someone else to hire him again.
nandemo
Come on. I just want to see a reply from ONE person on HN (presumably working as a programmer or related job) who had to testify against an employer in the US and then faced significant difficulties in getting a job.
[dead] poikniok
With friends like you, who needs enemies.
dang
> With friends like you, who needs enemies.

Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
stevewepay
Testifying isn't as big of a deal as someone who bring a lawsuit against their company. There are a lot of people who testify in lawsuits, and their names never make it to the articles. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
seasoup
It will hurt your career, sure some companies will be enlightened and not hold it against you but some will. That means less places will hire you, meaning less prospects. Are those places you would want to work otherwise? Maybe.

That doesn't mean don't testify though, what's more important to you, your career or getting the company punished for what it did?

mattvanhorn
Tell them to subpoena you - then the choice to testify is not yours any more. You'll have to. But you can tell future employers that you were forced, if you'd like to.
fixxer
This is smart. Guilty as sin or not, testifying against an employer seems risky for one's career. You want to be able to explain to future employers what happened in a manner that takes personal character assessment out of the equation: somebody broke the law and you got a subpoena.

EDIT: I've worked at some shops that were "cultish" and would look at testifying without a subpoena as not being part of the team. Fucked up, but organizations are often so. You need to do the right thing in the smartest way possible.

evan_
> Fucked up, but organizations are often so.

You can choose not to be a part of these organizations.

fixxer
You can certainly aspire to that. Some companies are really good at hiding their true colors.

Mortgage, kids... Sometimes you need a paycheck.

cortesoft
Right, which is why trying to hide the fact you testified might be a bad idea... If someone won't hire you because you testified against a criminal employer... You probably don't want to work for them. Since, as you said, companies hide their true colors, this way you can know before being hired.
pyre
On the other hand, many times hiring managers are just looking for a reason to discard your resume to narrow down the talent pool. Anything negative gets you tossed. They see this. Maybe it's a good sign, maybe it's a bad sign. Either way it's something out of the ordinary that will take more time to evaluate. Better just toss the resume. There's still another stack of 100 candidates to go through...
mreiland
if they're looking you up on the internet they've gone past finding a reason to chunk your resume.
InclinedPlane
Doing the right thing is rarely the most convenient option, that's why it's considered notable.
sauronlord
This is what they mean by 'your house is not an asset'

Mortgages are not inherently bad. It's what you take the mortgage for is the bad decision.

Example:

Good:

Having a mortgage for a legal duplex (2 dwellings) and renting the other half out, while you live in one.

Bad:

Getting a house that's one big sink hole of cash and having more bedrooms/lawn/what have you.

You can be employed to build someone else's dreams. However there are other options available to you that don't involve being a rat.

kragen
My reading of “your house is not an asset” is “Robert Kiyosaki apparently failed Introduction to Accounting because he still doesn’t know the definitions of basic accounting terms.” (Except in very rare cases, like when the verdict against you for the neighbor kid drowning in your pool is more than your house will sell for.)
fixxer
I could have just as easily used "rent" instead of "mortgage". Spare me the political grandstanding.
strathmeyer
Not if their former employees won't testify against them?
TheOsiris
I think OP's concern is that he'll lose out on even getting an interview. Basically, employers will get his resume, like what they see, google him then decide to pass
vicngtor
I prefer this over to the "search within yourself" answer.
s_q_b
Perfect, unless they're threatening to prosecute you as well if you don't cooperate.

Otherwise, explain the situation to the prosecutor and detective and ask to be subpoenaed. They'd likely be happy to comply.

jszymborski
Will future employers care that he was subpoenaed? Or will they just see the headline?
ForHackernews
Any employer large enough to have a legal department understands a subpoena.
cauterized
Doesn't mean the hiring manager or individual HR drone does, though.
ecdavis
I agree with this approach.

If you do decide to testify, I would strongly recommend finding someone completely unrelated to the case who can coach you on how to be a witness. Not what to say, but how to say it. My only experience testifying was in a small criminal trial, but the advice I was given was to keep my answers short, factual and free of emotion.

Some companies will immediately discount you if you testify against a former employer. For those that look closely at the case, though, you do not want to come across as someone testifying because they bear a grudge. A calm, passive, "just the facts" attitude will be the best for your career.

gumby
Excellent advice. Also ask if they can subpoena you and depose you rather than have you testify in court.
spacemanmatt
Yup, and they're likely to go the deposition unless he's a "star witness" they rather have for the dog & pony show in court.
gargarplex
Don't even tell them to. Wait til they do. Otherwise, if you then tell people you were forced, you will be lying.
wfunction
Why would that be lying? Being forced to do something doesn't imply it was against your will. It simply means you didn't have any other choice.
gargarplex
It belies the fact that OP prompted the lawyers to subpoena him.
tinco
If you state "I won't cooperate unless I am ordered to by a court." then you did not prompt them for subpoena. The door is also still open for them to explain why they won't get a court order in which case you might still reconsider.
wfunction
Could you explain what exactly you see as the difference between "I won't cooperate unless you subpoena me" and "I would like to cooperate, but I don't want this to affect my future job prospects, so please subpoena me"? The OP is prompting the subpoena in either case, as far as I can tell. In either case, the other side can choose whether or not to subpoena him/her. I'm not sure I see any difference between the two...
bayesianhorse
I think the first OOP said something like "Tell them to subpoena you".
jmccree
The first option could be legitimately said by someone who doesn't want to talk or be subpoenaed. It's the difference in occupy style protesters saying "They'll have to come arrest us." and "Please come arrest us.". Though in both scenarios there may be some that get the desired end result, the first option places the responsibility for the end result on the third party.
USNetizen
This is the best answer here. Takes the blame off of you by mandating your compliance and testimony. Always just tell the truth - no one can fault you for that. If future employers have a problem with you testifying to what you saw, truthfully, then you don't want to work for someone like that anyway.
dvirsky
Yep, I did this once, I was also kinda hoping not wanting to testify will signal the lawyers my testimony won't be that great for them, but they didn't give up. Eventually I didn't have to testify because a deal had been reached while I was bored to death waiting for my turn. I did get a nice little compensation check for my wasted half day, ordered by the judge, which was cool.
tptacek
There are two potential downsides to this:

* You may not be called to testify because you've made yourself a hassle, which solves your career problem but implicates you morally.

* Converting your testimony from freely-provided to compelled might have logistical implications. I've been compelled to testify before, and it was a nightmare for me. I'd have been happier if I could have told the trial participants "I'm busy this week, fuck off".

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
aaronyo
If you want to testify, asking them to subpoena you seems smart. I can't see how a subpoena could make testifying look worse, and yes, it just might alleviate some employers' concerns. But your first step seems to be deciding, for yourself, if testifying is the right thing to do. What if someone asks, "Did you ask to be subpoenaed?" Most people won't go that deep, but wouldn't you still like to feel comfortable answering that? Do you want to let unproven fears about this somewhat crazy but very diverse industry sway your decision? What will you think when you look back on this in 5 years?
jmccree
Of course you should never ask to be subpoenaed. You inform the Plaintiff that "I would never would willingly testify about all the illegal things I saw at former employer, you'd have to subpoena me to get me to talk!". You can then answer that question honestly with "No, I told them I'd never talk, but they subpoenaed me and forced me to."
tormeh
Why were they (singular) subpoenaed, though? It's definitely possible that a prospective future employer would consider a subpoenaed person a person who talks too much.
cauterized
Why?
nmrm
I think the logic goes that out of everyone at this company -- probably dozens or hundreds since OP says it's well known locally -- OP was the one that the plaintiff knew about and called up. Probably because the OP is a big-mouthed trouble maker and everyone knew it. Or something.

Whereas everyone else at the company were good team-players and kept their mouth shut and head down, so the plaintiff wasn't sure if s/he could count on their testimony or if they even knew anything.

Again, just explaining how someone might fear the logic would go. Not saying anyone does or should actually think like this.

impish19
Would you mind specifying what was the law being broken?
mazlix
Career advice- it's a wash I don't see how it realistically would hurt you or benefit you much either.

However, don't get pressured into doing something you're not comfortable doing. If you morally want to do something, but only feel comfortable doing it anonymously just stick to that. And if the law firm doesn't see any benefit from your anonymous reporting then I would recommend to just leave it at that.

colechristensen
The kind of company you want to work for is the kind of company that looks positively on the responsible and professional response to difficult situations like this.

Not everyone is willing, interested, or capable of affording themselves the luxury of working for such a place though it can be very rewarding to make those life choices.

In this sort of circumstance the merits of the case might make a difference to future employers and to yourself, whether the legal action and your participation in it seems morally just.

You have to weigh your specific circumstances and the circumstances of the case to make your decision, likely nobody but you can really understand enough to give solid advice.

x0x0
There's a lot of naive bullshit in here, with people running their mouths about integrity or other nonsense. Remember that the only person prosecuted for waterboarding is the whisteblower John Kiriakou, and he got two and a half years for his trouble.

My point is, you need to look out for number one and not let some law firm looking for (their own) payday get you entangled in their profits, because none of them give a fuck less about you.

So without more clarity on which laws were broken and your role in this (are you the primary witness? Sole witness? One of a dozen?) it's hard to give specific advice.

But just don't let yourself get screwed because some lawyers see a payday they damn well aren't going to share with you.

ps -- if you get a subpoena, get your own lawyer. Maybe even get one now; a lawyer's job is risk management and that's what you need.

ps2 -- Depending on what happened, when people ask, "What kind of person do you want to be" the response might be, "The sort who has a career and can afford indoor living." Here's another whisteblower about mortgage fraud who has destroyed her career [1]

[1] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witn...

benjohnson
Testify.

As an employeer, the kind of lawsuits that give me pause would be from a sanctamonious employee out to make a quick buck.

This lawsuit look like the testamony is coming from a principaled employee: the kind of employee that I would be proud to work with that would call me to better behaviour.

BurningFrog
I think it depends a lot on what the actual infraction is.

If it's something that most people in your industry actually think is bad, go for it.

Then again, there are now so many and so broad regulations that any business will violate some on a daily basis. I would like to work with people who don't go to the legal system whenever they can.