Can't copy/paste but that lawsuit says that he admitted to writing software that stole information and for trying to hire others to do the same when confronted about it with evidence.
As a layman, that seems pretty damming to me, but who knows, it may not mean anything. I wonder if he had an opportunity to speak with a lawyer before admitting that he did that.
Being that this is a civil suit, he has no right to counsel so anything he said can be used against him. Admitting anything was a dumb if he was planning on defending against a lawsuit.
he has no right to counsel so anything he said can be used against him
That's actually more a matter of the rules of evidence. Generally extrajudicial statements are considered inadmissible hearsay for trial purposes unless one of a number of exceptions applies. In this case, the statement against (self) interest exception would likely apply. (Other exceptions to hearsay might also apply.)
AKA the statement against self-interest exception...
I wasn't trying to give a lecture on the meaning of hearsay. But if you want to get didactic, the statement must be made by an opposing party and offered against them (i.e., is against their interests). A statement that is offered in support of an opposing party is, oddly enough, still hearsay. I have actually dealt with that issue in district court. This can happen in multi-party litigation, where you have cross-claims. For example, X, Y, and Z are parties to a lawsuit and have claims/counter-claims, cross-claims against each other. A statement by Y entered by X against Y would be admissible, but a statement by Y entered by Z could not be used in support of Y.
Right, no law can prohibit use of legal counsel (pro-bono or paid by the client) in any context.
... well, any context involving American citizens under American court jurisdiction. (Cases involving incidents in the armed forces comes to mind as an exception -- that's under a separate armed forces court jurisdiction, where the rules are different. No asking to speak to legal counsel when your Sergeant yells "go!" :-) )
You generally don't have a right to a court-appointed counsel in a criminal case, either. That only applies if you cannot afford one.
Although the parent was referring to the fact that you have a right to have an attorney present for any police questioning. But again, that does not apply here, since the police presumably weren't the ones doing the questioning.
As a layman, that seems pretty damming to me, but who knows, it may not mean anything. I wonder if he had an opportunity to speak with a lawyer before admitting that he did that.