It’s an email variety I have come to dread, though EA has received very few of them over the 15 years of this blog’s existence.

“We are reaching out on behalf of our client,” the missive read, “regarding the URL posting mentioned below. We kindly request [its] removal… [Our client] has experienced significant distress and negative consequences in both his personal and professional life. The damage caused by this article has affected his relationships, employment opportunities, and overall well-being….”

The article at issue was posted in 2012. Naturally, I didn’t remember it. I reviewed the post and found it well-sourced and reasonably stated. (Gee, I wasn’t as swashbuckling back then!) The episode I had focused on from an ethics perspective indeed had some embarrassing features: it involved a dentist who had dismissed an assistant because her pulchritude was causing domestic problems at home. (I’ve been watching “Bombshell,” the movie about the sexual harassment scandal at Fox News. The story I posted on would be the equivalent of one of the Fox News blondes suing because she had been fired in the wake of rumors that she had slept her way to a prime time show when nothing of the kind occurred. )

In the past, individuals using “reputation repair services” are represented by bullying lawyers who threaten defamation suits with no valid grounds to sue at all. That’s unethical legal conduct, and I’ve told the lawyers involved my professional assessment of their sleazy work. On one occasion, I capitulated to the extortion because I knew the viatical settlement company threatening me had a reputation for using litigation as a cudgel, and I was not (and am not) in a financial position to fight over what I regarded as a niche post. I also was able to make the same points without naming the company.

On another occasion, I received valuable pro bono advice from then-fellow blogger Ken White (before he became Trump-Deranged) because Ken is one of the nation’s authorities on SLAPP suits (SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and refers to lawsuits filed to intimidate, harass, and silence critics or opponents by burdening them with the costs of legal defense).

As some long-time readers here know, I was once sued for defamation by a ticked-off Ethics Alarms commenter. The lawsuit was garbage and I won (the case was discussed at the Volokh Conspiracy), but it still cost me many hours and plane fare to Boston and back. All of these past experiences went through my mind as I read the latest letter, except that this letter was different. The company explained that it was not a law firm and the writer was not a lawyer. The letter did not threaten or attack my work. It simply said that the episode was long over, and the object of my post wanted to get on with his life without this incident haunting him online (it is clear that Ethics Alarms was not the only web locale that includes a reference to it). Most important of all, the message was polite, restrained, reasonable, and nice. Oh, it contained a few tricks of the trade, with “first request” in the subject line and it ended with a request for my “amicable assistance in  the resolution  of this matter,” which could be taken as a veiled threat that future requests would not be so amicable. Heck, I’ve used those tactics myself in some of my other career stops; I’m not going to hold a little gamesmanship against someone else.

I checked the traffic on the post. It’s had over a thousand views in total, but only a handful in the last five years; none in 2023. It’s not an essential part of the Ethics Alarms archive, and the topic—a woman being fired for being too attractive—is dealt with in another post.

I took down the essay.

I then called the company and spoke to the staffer who sent the letter, telling him that I appreciated the letter’s tone and moderate approach. He was thrilled to have someone call who wasn’t reaming him out. We chatted for 20 minutes. What a nice guy.