Lawyer Charles Carreon had a rough 2012. After tangling with webcomic The Oatmeal last summer, Carreon found himself widely criticized online by people "wishing me an ill fate, including that my career would collapse, that I would be raped to death by a bear, and other unpleasantness," as he recently told a federal judge.

The insults—some of which Carreon posted to one of his websites—caused Carreon to flip his lid and sue Matt Inman, creator of The Oatmeal, for some violation of "professional fundraising" rules. Carreon then tried to drag everyone from the American Cancer Society to Indiegogo to the National Wildlife Federation to 100 unnamed "Does" into the case. Carreon separately threatened an anonymous critic known as Satirical Charles, warning that "I have the known capacity to litigate for years" and saying that a lawsuit might seek "the maximum cybersquatting penalty of $100,000." He then said he would sue Register.com unless it revealed the name behind the Satirical Charles account (one Christopher Recouvreur), then sent a long letter (PDF) to Recouvreur's employer demanding that it preserve everything from the Internet history of Recouvreur's work computer to telephone records and text messages that he might have sent using company equipment. Carreon even threatened to subpoena Ars Technica and Twitter to expose other critics.

The freakout was something to behold, coming as it did from a man who had been on the "free speech" side of previous free speech cases. Carreon spent the next few months trying to back out of the whole Pandora's box he had opened. He soon dismissed the entire case against Inman, but his pointed threats to Recouvreur's lawyer led Recouvreur to file suit of his own against Carreon, seeking a declaratory judgment that Recouvreur's website was legal.

Carreon was also quite interested in not being a part of this litigation, which took place far from his Arizona home (a tactic he threatened to purposely use against Recouvreur). So he went out of his way to avoid receiving legal papers in the case, returning them through the mail, unopened. When a process server was eventually sent to Carreon's house, "the server announced himself and was told 'No, thank you,' and left with the papers," wrote the judge overseeing the whole ridiculous matter. "On the second and third visits, nobody answered. The process service company then tried to serve the summons and complaint by certified mail, but the package was never claimed." Finally, an opposing lawyer found Carreon in the hallway after a court appearance in an unrelated case and served him.

In a recent court filing, Carreon finally comes up with an explanation for this behavior. Turns out the Internet had been so mean to him that he simply couldn't trust himself not to say something intemperate in court.

As explained by defendant in his declaration, he did not waive service in large part because he had been so vilified on the Internet that he genuinely doubted his ability to maintain a professional demeanor in Court filings and in person. Quite far from intending disrespect for the Court by his silence, he tenders his sincere apology for the inconvenience to the Court occasioned by his inaction.... I knew that everything I filed with the Court would be dissected by unsympathetic critics, and I questioned whether I would be able to “keep my cool” and respond in a professional manner in Court papers... The Court will not be able to understand the intense psychological pain engendered by such a brutal onslaught from a public that really knows nothing about me... I am a hardy soul, thank heavens, and did not give in to the destructive self-hatred that has caused many victims of cyberbullying to injure themselves and others, but I will say this—I felt their pain deeply, and I will never inveigh against anyone in the public forum by deriding their character as others have mine.

The ironies of the case are remarkable. Carreon, for instance, has repeatedly inveighed against people's character in public forums. More brazen, though, is his new claim in court documents that "I not only had no desire to litigate this case, I found it hard to believe it was really happening" even as he sent out so many legal letters directly related to Recouvreur. And the "cyberbullying" charge is a little hollow after all the lawyering and litigation that Carreon had unleashed against others.

Still, one can see in the whole sorry story just how disturbing and isolating concerted online criticism from hundreds or thousands or people can be; both Carreon and his wife have complained publicly about the pile-on.

Nothing—or $40,115

The real problem now is the Recouvreur case may end up costing Carreon money. In late December, Carreon backed down completely and agreed to settle the case with a complete admission that Recouvreur was within his rights. But there is still the small matter of attorney's fees. Carreon says they should be zero—or, if some amount has to be paid, $750. Recouvreur's lead lawyer, Paul Levy of Public Citizen, on December 31 asked the court for something a little larger—$40,115—in part because of the extra time and effort it had taken to actually serve Carreon with the court papers.

Levy has no patience for Carreon's complaints that he has been harassed by the Internet, telling the court that "it is understandable that his [Carreon's] own conduct provoked some public criticism... As an officer of the Court, Mr. Carreon should have known better when he began his course of abusive conduct."

The wrangling over fees continues, but the material issues raised by Carreon this summer have all been laid to rest—none of them in Carreon's favor.