Carl David Ceder Triples Down

Dan Hull, being the very sensitive guy he is, tried one last time to get Dallas’ tough guy baby lawyer, Carl David Ceder, to remove Hull’s stolen content that remains on Ceder’s website.

Twice thus far, Carl David flailed blindly in an effort to salvage his dignity. Inquiring minds wondered if he would go for three.  And now, Carl David’s reply to Hull, unchanged from its original format:

From:[email protected]
Date: January 21, 2014 at 7:19:35 AM PST<
To:[email protected]
Subject: Re: Informal Take Down Request: “12 Rules for Client Service”

Mr Hull – this was sent to me late last night. I am currently driving to court and will try and respond more later. I honestly don’t know how this thing got so overblown. I can assure you I was not trying “steal” you content or pilfer anything from you. Until a couple of days ago I did not know who you were, and still don’t outside this capacity. A law grad waiting for bar results about a year or toe ago was in charge of my web content. I was having trouble with a new paralegal, who while doing a great job, was not copying or cc’ing our clients enough. She cut and pasted the rules , and put them up there. I have never taken credit for them, shown them to a client, obviously care very little about blogs, and do not even know how to take the content down as of now even if I wanted to. I would have to e-mail my web designer to do so. Yesterday was a holiday here so everyone was taken the day off. I don’t know what number you called or dialed, but out main number is 214.702.2275. I have not received any messages from you, although I am not implying you didn’t call. I was not in the office yesterday. Maybe a message will be waiting for me by one of my assistants when I get back there. The main problem for lies with Mr. Greenman or Greenfeld or whatever his name is. He impugned my character, reputation, and my integrity. I have a policy to shut bad karma and attitude out of my life, ignore it, and only partake in dialogue with those who approach me with respect. You have done so, and that is why I am taking the time to write this (again, sorry for any grammatical errors, I’m on my iPhone). I can honestly say I did not try to steal your content. If I did it would be in another section of my site. I have plenty of pages I wrote personally and had my web designer convert in the CMS we use or HTML or whatever. That was really put up there to remind my paralegal of your rule about bombarding the client with correspondence. I am sorry if you took it the wrong way. Again, my frustration lies with the guy in NYC. If he would agree to take down all the disparaging remarks about me, I would have whatever content he is referring to down ASAP. Honestly, and this is not intended as a shot at you (because it seems like you do more civil work, my practice is devoted almost entirely to criminal defense) – but most of your Rules, are not germane to my practice, and if anything, I would tailor it to my own, and what I believe to be true. What does confuse me as I finally read where it came from, is it seems you gave a speech or a seminar at some point, urging these Rules as guidelines for a Firm and to use as a practice. Again, I never intended to plagiarize. In my line of work, I put little stock in an on-line presence, blogging, or whatever material is on any of my websites. In fact, almost al of my DWI content has been ripped in some form or fashion by other attorneys, including my old boss and mentor. Some with my approval (usually old friends) and some not (like what was mentioned with James Saint, and he didn’t even bother to change my name on his site when evidently stole some of my content).  But honestly things like this take a back seat to me, because I believe in the personal practice of law, and not being hunched over a computer critiquing other attorneys or blogging about some point of law, etc. For me, my time is better spent personally interacting with clients, judges, court coordinators, etc.  Simply put, in a local, and personal fashion. I really don’t want the client who would hire me based on web presence alone. Anyway, thank you for your message and the demeanor and approach you took. This is all that it had to take. My frustration lies with Mr Greenbaum, or whatever he goes by. It seems you and him are in close contact with each other. And I stand by what I first wrote to him. You can forward this message to him if you like. You can beat reach me on this e-mail address. Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

There was an initial suggestion that I should note that Carl David is dumber than dirt, but I feared the nasty reaction I would get from dirt for making the comparison. My apologies in advance for anyone who got a headache.

44 comments on “Carl David Ceder Triples Down

    1. SHG Post author

      And that was all done on an iToy while driving. That’s a lot of work to come up with different jew names each time. And spell them wrongly correctly. He could have had an accident.

      1. Ken

        Am I reading this right? Is he saying “I will not take down the content I have thieved from you until that guy in New York retracts his criticism of me?”

    2. william doriss

      I made fun of Mr. Greenfield’s surname a few years back when I was a newbie here. Think I called him “Mr. GreenHorn”. Big Mistake: He took me to the woodshed, where I remained for a year and a day. Don’t tell that to too many people!?!
      P.S., honestly was not picking on him–not me–I just like to make fun of people’s names. I do it all the time, but not here, not now, not ever?!?

  1. Antonin I. Pribetic

    ” The main problem for lies with Mr. Greenman or Greenfeld or whatever his name is…Again, my frustration lies with the guy in NYC ”

    This poor fellow has fallen into an abyss of self-denial. In my opinion, Carl David Ceder is utterly clueless in his attempts to dissemble, minimize and rationalize the impact of plagiarizing Dan Hull’s post on his professional reputation. Instead of pointing an accusatory finger at you, Ceder should immediately retract his, admittedly, incoherent diatribes and unreservedly apologize to both you and Dan and take down the post. Instead, he appears to be holding the plagiarized post hostage, until you remove your post.

    If Ceder has any mentors or colleagues in Texas that can read him the Riot Act and straighten him out before he goes off the deep end, they should so, post haste. Otherwise, this run away train is fast approaching the crossing and will go off the rails into a spectacular train wreck, if it hasn’t already done so.

    A shame, really.

  2. Jake DiMare

    I feel a blog post of my own coming on: “12 rules for managing your law firm’s web content with a loosely knit network of unqualified paralegals and zero budget.”

      1. Godfrey

        His delegation of his online presence to non-lawyers, of course, aggravates and does not mitigate.

        His story seems to be that he can’t stop stealing from the other lawyer but will become able to once the gentleman with the uncertain surname … ceases criticism. What, does the genie give him the password or the magic beans when you RETRACTslanderlibel?

        Only correct answer is “my team stole your stuff and I recklessly let them do it. Mea maxima culpa. That page is getting killed/erased as soon as technically feasible; what’s a good accountability date for you?”

  3. william doriss

    What we have here is not so much a case of “Failure to Communicate”, as a failure to un-communicate. Some lawyers, as well as defendant-clients, would be well-advised when not to speak,… to shut up, simpley.
    This current/extant conundrum-kerfuffle would appear to be a classic case of Verbal Diarrhea, to put it in the vernacular. Medically speaking, the diagnosis might be called Chronic Bubble Syndrome, where the patient lives in a “bubble” (of his own making?) characterized by delusions of grandeur, salted with crystals of extreme egotism, self-centeredness and selfishness. There may be an element of associated narcicism, although not necessarily. The patient may be simpley overcompensating for real or perceived lifelong disadvantages and adversities. You will not find this [diagnosis] in the current DSM (Diagnostic Statistical Manual), but watch for it soon!?! Volume V?

  4. Victor Medina

    Oh, these two quotes are priceless:

    ” I can honestly say I did not try to steal your content. If I did it would be in another section of my site. ”

    Oh, please let there be another part of his site holding all the content he’s stolen. Please, please, please.

    and

    “For me, my time is better spent personally interacting with clients, judges, court coordinators, etc.”

    Notably absent are: “other lawyers from whom I may learn something” and “focusing on the road while I drive, instead of my iDevice”.

    On behalf of all iPhone evangelists and enthusiasts, I would like to disavow this asshat.

    1. SHG Post author

      I kept the little iPhone thing at the bottom just for you. I wondered whether iPhones were preferred by the unethical and teenaged girls. Thanks for clearing that up.

  5. RAFIV

    Carl:

    Let me help and it will save your thumbs and prevent screen smudging. Copy and past this into an e-mail

    “I am sorry. I didn’t know/didn’t check that the rules were from your website. I will remove it and provide a link to your article instead with a full explanation and proper attribution. As professionals, our writing and experience is our stock and trade. I admire your work and am sorry for not giving proper credit. I will be more careful in the future.”

    Maybe even too long, but it would save further humiliation.

  6. John Barleycorn

    I am still booking props, teasers, and if bets on the GreenMan vs. CriminalAttorney#9 if anyone is interested. Straight bets and parlays are off.

  7. Antonin I. Pribetic

    To Carl David Ceder:

    Step back.
    Take a deep breath. Take a couple of more deep breaths.
    Reflect on your actions.
    Talk to your colleagues with more experience.
    The practice of law is more than a scoreboard of trials and victories.
    Your reputation hinges on how you handle this fiasco.
    Consider the consequences of your responses. Take responsibility for your lapse in judgment.
    Apologize and remove the post.

    Collegially Yours,

    A Canuck from Toronto

  8. C. N, Nevets

    “I can honestly say I did not try to steal your content. If I did it would be in another section of my site.”

    Did he really just say that we should know he didn’t mean to plagiarize this because it’s not posted in the section of his website where the plagiarized material goes?

      1. Dissent

        I’m gobsmacked by this part:

        and do not even know how to take the content down as of now even if I wanted to. I would have to e-mail my web designer to do so.

        He admits that he still hasn’t asked anyone to take the material down from his site? After all this time? Could this kid possibly be as stupid as he appears about copyright law? Does he assume Dan won’t file an ethics complaint against him or does he assume that because he doesn’t care about this as a big deal, his state bar association won’t care, either?

        Incredible.

        1. SHG Post author

          There is always an inverse correlation between how big a deal it is and whether you’re the guy doing it or the guy getting it done to him.

  9. AP

    Greenbaum? Hey Scott are you and Brian opening a new inter-state law firm together?

    “Miami New York
    Say no more get on the floor”

    Jennifer Lopez, “On the Floor”

  10. Caudex

    He wrote THAT while driving? On an iPhone? Well, that just adds to the pile of evidence saying our friend Carl David Ceder is not too intelligent. (It also adds to the many reasons I don’t like to drive.)

    1. william doriss

      Not even SuperMan could write that drivel while driving. Not even Super-Giuliani, not even Super Chris Christie! He was NOT driving; he was DIVING (for cover). On the other hand, Texas does have long stretches of boring highway. We’re not talking Mid-town Manhattan, here now, with jaywalkers right, left and dead-ahead? We’re talking stray prairie dogs and vultures feasting on roadkill. I think Cedar has a chauffeur-GoFer, and a shotgun behind the seat, which allows him to… I wonder if he’s ever been to a Broadway play?!?

  11. Larry

    As a lawyer of 40 years, I’m glad I learned one lesson early in my career, taught to me by my mentor. When you’re wrong apologize quickly and sincerely. Fix it and save the explanations for much later. Carl David Ceder will be lucky if he survives his ego.

    Canuck from Ottawa

  12. Bruce Coulson

    I’m sure the NSA is quite capable of sorting all the ‘Green-xxxx’s’ out. And I think you’re right; dirt would have quite an issue with being compared in any way with Mr. Ceder.

  13. Pingback: Not every wrong act violates a black-letter ethics rule | Law Office of Bruce Godfrey

  14. skeptic

    Apart from his swiping somebody else’s blog language, what has Ceder done to deserve the name-calling?

    [Ed. Note: Balance of comment by rep. mgmt deleted. Nice try, Carl.]

  15. ThatLibraryMiss

    Poor Carl David Ceder: thanks to the power of the internet people all over the globe are pointing at him and laughing. And making a mental note to let their friends in Texas know about him so that they can avoid like the plague any firm that employs someone as rude, immature, unethical and downright dumb as he is.

  16. Carl Ceder

    Mr. Hull –
    You should be happy to know that I took down your content that has caused so much consternation. Again, I feel this got way out of hand from my perspective. Frankly, I was shocked when I read the blog post for the first time this past Saturday, and even more shocked at the continued posting by the owner of blog.simplejustice.us again, this time in regards to the message I sent directly to you. I tried to write you as quick as possible, because it seemed everyone on the internet had negative things to say when I didn’t respond immediately. So I did so on my way to court, again on my i-Phone, but later was commented upon, and lied about, when saying I was doing so while I also driving my car (my assistant drove me to court today which gave me time to write, although it is hard to do so in a grammatical fashion from just an iPhone).

    Regardless, this entire affair has been libelous (not on your part, but on behalf of the person maintains the blog.simplejustice.us). I tried my best to explain what happened to him, to you, and to Mr. Tannebaum (who has written an E-Book that I hold in very high regard), and each time I did so, I was harassed along the way by many parties. Just for your information, I received numerous hate e-mails through my website over the last 24-48 hours in my response to the message I personally sent to you, that the owner of blog.simplejustice.us felt compelled to post on his blog.

    You should please note I was only made aware of this entire situation (with regards to the posting of the 12 Rules), whether you and/or he chooses to believe so or not, this past Saturday when it was brought to my attention by another individual. It was then, upon reading its contents, that I first wrote a comment back to him. My only mistake in doing this was not waiting until I was properly at a computer and had time to simmer down – I did so immediately when reading it on my iPhone and responded accordingly – which I tried to convey should account for any grammatical errors that did result (try writing anything at length, and of such serious nature, from an iPhone!). At first, upon reading the blog post and seeing my picture, I honestly did not even know what he was referring to. I tried to promptly respond to your e-mail that you sent on 1/20/14 when it was forwarded to me by another staff member on the morning of 1/21/14. I get plenty of spam and so much does get disregarded, but I was forwarded your e-mail and I wanted to do my best to give you the quick response you wanted. When I did so, and after it was re-posted by the owner of blog.simplejustice.us, I was then made fun of when I said I was writing from my iPhone while driving (one of my assistants was driving to court for me when I was typing the message to you – like I stated previously). This was sent to YOU, and YOU ONLY, via an e-mail message, and now it has been posted again on the blog of blog.simplejustice.us.

    Again, whether you both choose to believe so or not, I was not made aware of this, or why it was such a big deal, until this past Saturday. I just had to contact my web manager to change the HTML on the site, but it was holiday (Martin Luther King Day, so on Monday there was no one available at my office). And again, in my message to you, and in my first comments on the blog, I said something along the lines of how I never intended to plagiarize, or send to clients or other colleagues, as if the 12 Rules were my own. I would swear on anything dear to me that this is the truth. They were presented to me, probably around a year or two ago, by a law grad (who was waiting on her bar results) who was helping me write and edit web content. In reality, I was trying to help her out because she needed work. I did not know where it came from, and I didn’t think to ask. But recently, as I look further into your rules, what confuses me, perhaps the most of all, is that on your page – when you originally wrote about the 12 Rules, and you mentioned it was “set out to write a rule-by-rule ’12-step’ program for lawyers, professionals, and executives….etc.” And then you mention “The Rules are not perfect, and can be improved. But this model works — if you work at it. If you follow these rules by building a disciplined culture at your shop where they are enforced and kept alive, your clients and firm both benefit as you go along….etc.”

    Now that I finally see your page where you have it, I would think you first did so to aid and help other attorneys. I still haven’t read deeper into each Rule, as it seems you have a more in-depth page for each, which I am sure delve more deeply into what each means and how it is applicable to you, and your practice. I wrote you in my e-mail message that, in actuality, the only Rule that I particularly liked, was the Rule about bombarding the client with e-mails, most specifically because at the time someone cut and pasted the Rules and showed them to me, I was having trouble with a paralegal not communicating enough with clients (she was doing a great job otherwise).

    I have said numerous times people have stolen my content over the years in numerous ways, and in numerous fashion, especially most of the content I have written regarding the laws in Texas on Driving While Intoxicated, which is my main focus. An attorney here in the Metroplex, it was mentioned on the blog initially, said a lawyer stole some content from my website and didn’t even change my name to his! If this had been brought to my attention, I would not have cared. I have been asked plenty of times, with my permission and without it, if people could publish my content, specifically everything written I have for DWI laws. If anything, and I never gave it much thought before, I would have not cared much either way, because I believe what matters the most is how the lawyer practices, as a person, and not what is written on some website. Regardless, if anything, I take it knowing someone wanted my material so badly that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Maybe that is just me – and because I am not a “master blogger” that I take pride in knowing that it is read by many, even non-lawyers (to me, again, this is useless – what matters most is how successful an attorney is, not what is written on a website).

    Again, I am just at a loss as to why this is such a big deal. And just an FYI – as I looked at the page where the content used to be, there was not any place on there, ANYWHERE, where I tried to pawn the content off as my own, or that they were exclusive “Ceder Law Firm” rules. I said in my message to you via e-mail, that if I truly intended to disseminate it to clients, I would have done so elsewhere. Again, I was ridiculed for this, and my words were taken out of context. Numerous people called me a thief and took everything I wrote completely out of context, and chose to use my words as they saw fit, in an attempt to disparage me, my intellect, and my ability to practice as an attorney. What I meant, when trying to convey this, was I would placed your content, if I found it useful to convey to those I cared to read about it, on one of my sites similar to the following links, all of which content was written by me many years ago, and I hope clients do read still (these are all under a tab indicating “About Me” or “About Our Firm” on my websites:

    http://www.carlcederlaw.com/a-message-from-carl-the-defender

    http://www.carlcederlaw.com/why-hire-carl-david-ceder

    http://www.thedallasdefender.com/what-can-you-expect-from-ceder-law-firm

    At any rate, I am sure people will take this message, as well, and again, out of context. I rarely, if ever, maintain the actual “blog” portion of my website. Honestly, I hadn’t updated any of my website content in well over a year, until recently. And again, just to be clear, I never, not even once, tried to pawn your material off to another, whether it be a client or another attorney, as if it were my own.

    As of now, and this is true, I plan to sue the owner of the blog who has disparaged, and impugned, my character and intellect, in such a way. I suggest that he read and review about how one can be sued for writing libelous content in such a way, especially when it is promulgating information that he did absolutely no research on before posting (about me, about my ability to practice as an attorney, about my character, my integrity, etc. Nor did he even try to contact me to clear anything that bothered him up, in a more professional manner (rather than by writing a libelous and lashing blog post railing against me professionally). Perhaps the most baffling to me, however, was how he wrote information that he had absolutely no knowledge of, that was false, which eventually led to other comments that are also libelous (because he manages the content of the website, he is also liable for the comments posted by others). Aside from all of this, most recently, because of his self-proclaimed monitor of the internet, and his perceived freedom to bash others whenever he sees fit, is the flaring backlash that it has already caused me in the last 24 hours (or less), specifically relating to how many hate messages I have received from people who prefer to hide behind a computer, rather than say rude and blasphemous things in person, so one can identify them. Again, this all came because you sent him the e-mail message, he read it, then felt the need to write disparaging comments again about me, and my practice. This alone baffles me completely. You forwarded to him, without even giving a response to me, one way or the other.

    Again, you can see that your content, of which was posted 12 very simple rules, that again – I never took credit for, even on my own website, has now been changed to the following:

    http://www.carlcederlaw.com/Essential-Rules-for-Excellence-in-Client-Service

    And it was changed from the URL:

    http://www.carlcederlaw.com/12-rules-for-client-service

    I apologize if you took offense to anything that was written. Again, I was not trying to plagiarize or steal your content. The fact that the owner of blog.simplejustice.us finds himself to be the moderator and self-proclaimed “bouncer” of the entire internet, is beyond me. Aside from that, what he has posted about me has resulted in the following hate messages sent to me, accusing me of being an anti-semite, a racist, among other many very disrespectful and untrue things. In respect to this, it should be noted, for the record, that my main paralegal is Jewish, all of my best friends (since childhood) are Jewish, I have been to Israel and am a staunch supporter of it as unified nation, and have been to many meetings of AIPAC, and am a supporter of what it promotes, and have donated to it as a contribution. (http://www.aipac.org/)

    I would think that he would not want to have made this as messy as he has, because it certainly did not have to be this way. The easiest way to contact me is via the number on all of my websites, and/or an even easier method would be by writing in one of the contact boxes on them, as have about 25 people today accusing me of being everything under the sun in a very negative fashion, of which I can clearly say that I am not. I find this offensive, libelous, and something that, I would think at least, the owner of blog.simplejustice.us would tread on sensitive ground with, in that he is promoting very pointed, very damaging, and very hurtful material, that hurts and damages, very badly, my reputation, my character, and my integrity, both as a lawyer and as a person. To this, I would direct him to the following regarding internet defamation laws, what constitutes being able to sue a blogger for libel, and being the moderator who is responsible for not only posting the material, but all the comments that stems as a result from it (these are just a few articles I would peruse if I were him relating to this, I have many more I could send him, but I doubt he would heed my advice, as I’m sure he would only write more disparaging remarks, in some way, because this seems to what he is prone to do:

    http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/bloggers-sued-libel-124300372.html
    Most notably the section: “Further, the blogger must have known that the statement was false or should have known by exercising reasonable care in their work.”

    https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124287328648142113

    Again, I hope this clarifies anything you were concerned with. You can be expecting a call from me this week, as can the owner of blog.simplejustice.us. I consider this a very serious, and a very offensive issue. I think you would too, considering what I have attached, as just a mere sample of what I received today. And this all came from a confidential message I sent directly to you, that I did invite you to share with the owner of blog.simplejustice.us, but again, he found it, for reasons to me beyond any comprehension, necessary to post yet another blog impugning my reputation. I found your message respectful, and I was trying to return one as respectful in-kind. I don’t know if the miscommunication lies with owner of blog.simplejustice.us, or with you, but I do intend to try and get to the bottom of this – because this has become a very serious, offensive, and a very legal issue. One glance at the libel and defamation laws for the owners of internet blog sites would seem to make this very clear and evident.

    Thank you, and I hope to put this behind us very soon, if at all possible.

  17. william doriss

    Irregardless!?!
    WRONG: What matters most is what’s written on the blawg site, not how “successful” an attorney is. Otherwise–if success were your true concern–you would not be threatening a libel lawsuit from the Great State of Texas. Verbal Diarrhea and a barrel full of inconsistencies, contradictions and non-sequitors. The Beat goes on. Well, we straightened out the driving-while-texting issue. I was right as rain on the Texas Plain.

  18. Mark Draughn

    tl;dr

    But I tried three times before I gave up. I know, I blog as Windypundit, so I don’t have a lot of room to criticize, but at least if you get bored and stop reading my stuff you don’t have to worry that you’ve missed something important. Reading stuff like that…it’s part of a lawyer’s professional skillset, isn’t it? I mean, as a software developer, I have to wade through a lot of boring documentation, but at least I know there really is a pony in there…

  19. Pingback: Texas Attorney Carl David Ceder Makes Bogus Libel Threat Against Scott Greenfield of Simple Justice | Popehat

  20. Amy Alkon

    The guy is incredible, telling Hull he’ll take down Hull’s stolen content if that GreenJewperson takes down his blog post. My 8-year-old neighbor has a clearer idea of the First Amendment than BigTimeTexasLawyer Carl David Ceder.

    Oh, another Carl David Ceder “Best of”: “I can assure you I was not trying “steal” you content or pilfer anything from you.” No, his words escaped from the Content Zoo and hid out on his website under that big picture of his head.

    And what is this, 1985? This bigtime lawyerman Carl David Ceder, for over a month, apparently couldn’t find anyone anywhere to take down the stolen content on his website?

    The reality: My neighborhood mailman, the stay-at-home-mom next door, and the homeless guy who sleeps on the grass across the street can all write HTML and make edits in a website.

    And yes, Scott, like me and a number of the people commenting here (Mark Bennett, for example), has a strong sense of justice and when he spots wrong done, is all over it like…heh heh…a Jew on a bagel. (I am post-Jewish so I have a special Jew-girl license to say these things without greenschmuck…uh, greenveiling them.)

  21. Pingback: Cage Fight | Popehat

  22. andrews

    As of now, and this is true, I plan to sue the owner of the blog who has disparaged, and impugned, my character and intellect, in such a way.

    Carl David Ceder, meet Joseph Rakofsky.

Comments are closed.