Dude, they’re just not into you. I’m talking about entrepreneur Neil Parsont’s unrequited love for Florida Atlantic University (FAU) that culminated in Florida Atlantic University v. Neil Parsont in the Southern District of Florida. The case centers around computer hacking, but Parsont’s MacBeth-like covering up of his deeds teaches us a broader lesson as practitioners.
Neil Parsont was a business student at FAU who admirably built a tutoring business while enrolled, which he continued after graduating. The trouble started when he was caught using the FAU email system to promote Owl Tutoring. Still a student, he entered into an agreement stipulating that he would no longer use the school’s database in order to promote his business.
Once he had his diploma he continued the tutoring service — and once again he dreamed of reaching the students of FAU through their inboxes. This time he gained access by offering special perqs to clients who provided him the credentials of their FAU email accounts.
Armed with that capability, Parsont had the idea to use it to circulate a Change.org petition — a medium often used for promoting laudable social changes — that urged the president of FAU to “make Owl Tutoring free.” The petition is noteworthy not for the points it makes, but rather for how creepy it would be if it were about a person:
Current Situation
Parsont wants to work with FAU but the feeling does not seem mutual. In fact, FAU recently filed a lawsuit against Owl Tutoring (Dec. 2019) alleging trademark infringement. Settlement negotiations failed and Owl Tutoring was forced to fight back and defend its right to support education.
FAU made a motion for preliminary injunction to immediately stop Parsont from accessing its computer system without authorization, a violation of both federal and Florida law, as well as for trademark infringement.
As promised in the online petition, Parsont did fight back. Unfortunately he did so with fraudulent affidavits — one of which was the product of overt racism. He asked for the help of one client who was a Chinese immigrant. After having her sign an affidavit that she wrote in perfect English, Parsont altered it to make it appear to be in the broken English he imagined a Chinese person might use.
Another tutoring client claimed she signed an affidavit without knowing what it was. She was told she “would not be bothered,” if she just signed it. After receiving a subpoena, she recanted the affidavit.
When parties have done things like breach agreements, get people to lie, and then falsify someone else’s affidavit, it’s not going to end well. Indeed, the court preliminarily enjoined Parsont from accessing or using any FAU computer systems, confidential information, or passwords; ordered him not to alter or destroy any information; and ordered him to give FAU access to his computers to make “mirror images” of them for discovery purposes. As part of any preliminary judgment, the judge also determined that FAU was likely to succeed on the merits — an unfortunate start for Parsont.
Attorneys (and their clients) should heed the lesson that if one is ever caught red-handed, one should not assume that the facts can be changed, the adversary outsmarted, or the judge fooled. When the evidence appears to be so stacked against a defendant — such as clear evidence of violating a previous settlement — perhaps the client should be counseled to try to resolve it, simply because it’s more likely to be a controlled rather than crash landing.
Some people come to attorneys and want an aggressive shark to represent them. K&K can do that, but we also feel we are more responsible practitioners because we try to manage the expectations of our clients — even if it means telling them they might lose, and settlement might be advisable.
