# Arrogant Attorney Asshats **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 27, 2009, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476 "2009-04-27T08:11:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/201 "2009-04-28T23:06:06Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Anyone else find it ironic that the OP is being berated for not being a lawyer, and therefore unable to fully know what information is pertinent to her case, when she is asking them for how to research information that is pertinent to her case? Mighty fine catch, there. No. She is being berated for asking lawyers for help, and when the answers aren’t exactly what she wants to hear, getting upset and telling us all that we have no idea what we are doing/are asshats/are white-liars/etc. Because, unless you’ve utterly failed to comprehend the whole thread, it should be clear by now that it’s not as easy as just “giving her some pointers and sending her on her way”, and that there are some serious consequences that attach to lawyers for even something so “simple” as giving research advice. I’d be glad to do the research for her, if I were admitted to practice in California, if she paid me, and if I wasn’t terrified that she would sue me if she loses. ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/202 "2009-04-28T23:07:20Z")
BTW is it retarded that I prefer Westlaw only because that’s what they used to research for Law and Order back in the day? ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/203 "2009-04-28T23:19:45Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > BTW is it retarded that I prefer Westlaw only because that’s what they used to research for Law and Order back in the day? Haha, and their shiny blue is much prettier than Lexis’s dull red. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/204 "2009-04-29T00:05:06Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > To make matters worse, the bunny she is seeking (And let me just say out loud that the mere fact we have to now refer to her issue as a fucking bunny just illustrates the worthlessness of this whole thing) is invariably the one case from a municipal magistrate, decided in 1904, shrouded in the mists of time, written by the then-justice of the peace illegitimate offspring of Abraham Lincoln and Jane Austen. This case, when pulled from the dusty archives ala Indiana Jones, will glow with the inner golden light of justice, and when transported, Pulp Fiction briefcase style, to the courthouse, will melt the very fucking faces off of the judge and her friends at the other table. Okay, you’re not a teenager; you’re obviously Dennis Miller. Still think there’s a good chance you live in mom’s basement, though. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/205 "2009-04-29T00:12:06Z")
**Stoid** , here’s another thought that’s occurred to me, in relation to this issue of the meaning of legal advice. (I’m not sure if anyone else has raised it, and I’ve got no intentions of re-reading 200 posts to find out.) Why are you wanting to talk to a lawyer? Seriously, why? You’ve mentioned that you’ve been attending the law library at UCLA on a regular basis. You’re doing a lot of research, and you’re satisfied that you’re finding relevant material. You sound to me like you’ve got good research skills, and are computer literate. Plus, you sound like you’re on a first name basis with the library staff and are satisfied that they’ve been giving you good assistance in your research. So what value is there in talking to a lawyer? You’ve got access to an excellent law library, the library staff are very helpful, and you seem content with your own research skills. What’s the value of then going to a lawyer? Isn’t it that you think that a lawyer can add to what the library staff and you have done, even if only to help you confirm your research, or to point you to other areas to research? That sounds to me like you’re looking for legal advice, whether you would frame it that way or not. You are hoping to get additional comfort, not from your own research, or from the research assistance of librarians, but from an honest-to-gosh lawyer, skilled in the law. That kind of comfort is exactly what legal advice is about - the comfort of knowing that a legal professional has given you some assistance. And that’s why all the lawyers in this thread are instinctively telling you that you are seeking legal advice, not just “information”. We recognise that desire for comfort as one aspect of the client relationship. Because really, if all that you’re asking for is additional research pointers, that’s exactly what reference librarians at a law library are trained to do, but without commenting on the merits of what you’re looking for, or the conclusions that you’re reaching. It’s not the job of a reference librarian to give that sort of assistance. That’s the job of a lawyer, and that’s the dividing line between the profession of a legal reference librarian and a lawyer. By your insistence that you want lawyers’ assistance in your research, in addition to the no-doubt excellent research assistance you’re getting at UCLA law library, you are implicitly saying that you want lawyers to help you. And that boils down to legal advice. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/206 "2009-04-29T00:24:53Z")
[QUOTE=Ludovic] Anyone else find it ironic that the OP is being berated for not being a lawyer, and therefore unable to fully know what information is pertinent to her case, when she is asking them for how to research information that is pertinent to her case? Mighty fine catch, there. [/QUOTE] For the reasons given in my previous post, I would respectfully suggest that you’re confusing the role of a legal reference librarian with a lawyer. Legal reference lawyers are professionals who are highly trained in helping people to find cases and statutes, but it’s not their function to comment on the law or to assist the person to reach legal conclusions. For lawyers, it’s not our function to assist others to do legal research. Our job is to assist a person to understand the law that applies to their particular situation. We will explain the application of the cases and the statutes, once we are fully informed of the underlying facts and legal issues, and only if we are prepared to enter into a solicitor-client relationship with that person. If someone truly just wants assistance in their legal research, then I would point that person to the nearest law library, where there are helpful professional reference librarians, who will do their best to assist, without commenting on the merits of the issue. But if the person isn’t satisfied with me referring them to a law librarian, and insists that they want to talk to me because I’m a lawyer, then whether they recognise it or not, they are asking for legal advice, because they are not willing to rely solely on a reference librarian. They are seeking legal advice from a lawyer, not just legal research assistance. ---
**Author:** ![Noel\_Prosequi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b19c9b/32.png) [@Noel\_Prosequi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noel_Prosequi)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/207 "2009-04-29T00:49:46Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > Professor? Is that you? 🙂 > > This is exactly what one of my law school professors would rail about. He’d talk of the autodidacts in the law library, trying to teach themselves the law. > …snip… > Nicely said, **Noel** –my old professor would agree with you. Well thank you, **Spoons**. It’s nice that we of the crusty and opinionated (occasionally course) persuasion get some recognition 🙂 No, I am not your old perfesser. I just have had my share of autodidacts. For example, I have just finished the most recent round of a fight I have been having for the last 5 years or so with an autodidact forensic scientist/DNA expert. It has been wearing, to say the least. The problem is not limited to those self-taught in law. ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/208 "2009-04-29T04:48:35Z")
I don’t know if anybody in this long, long thread has mentioned it, but a great many law librarians do in fact have law degrees. They are very good at knowing whether they are providing research assistance or legal advice. They do not provide legal advice. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/209 "2009-04-29T06:04:25Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I’ll add my two bits. > > **Stoid** , please accept that I have no ill will towards you. You’ve obviously not enjoyed your encounters with lawyers on this file, which is clearly of great importance to you. The fact that I disagree with you isn’t a response to your dislike of lawyers, but simply to try to respond to your criticisms. > > First, as others have said, with due respect, I think you are in error in your OP and subsequent posts when you say that you know what advice is and you’re not asking for advice. When a lawyer is asked for advice, the informational component is just as important as the conclusion (“therefore I recommend that you do X”). Because the reasons for the conclusion are an integral part of it, it’s all part of the concept of legal advice. > > Second, a lawyer can’t avoid professional obligations by playing cute semantic games. If I give someone a lot of legal information, pointing to a particular conclusion, but I avoid the final conclusion (“I am not recommending whether or not you should do X”), I’m still giving legal advice. “Legal advice” is a very broad term indeed. > > Third, I would respectfully suggest that you do not understand the concept of a client, in the context of a solicitor-client relationship. From your posts, I think you are assuming that you’re not a client unless there’s a formal retainer contract, with money paid to the lawyer. It sounds to me that you think that since you’re not doing that, you won’t be the client, and therefore the lawyers are playing semantic games. That’s not the case. The solicitor-client relationship is much broader than that. If a lawyer gives legal advice to another person, knowing that the other person is seeking that advice to use in a particular case, that may be enough to establish a solicitor-client relationship, with all of the professional obligations that entails. Lawyers have to be very careful not to enter into a solicitor-client relationship inadvertently. Since you are seeking legal advice, with respect to a particular legal issue currently before the courts, I would think there is a good chance that a lawyer who responded would be entering into a solicitor-client relationship. > > (And, by way of a minor digression, these wide definitions of legal advice and the solicitor-client relationship are intended to protect the public. Again, lawyers cannot evade their ethical and professional obligations by playing semantic games, such as claiming no written retainer was issued, or no conclusion was given. The issue is whether a member of the public was seeking legal advice from a lawyer, not the details of the commercial relationship, if any, between the lawyer and that person.) > > Fourth, as others have posted, law is not an abstract concept. It takes its meaning from the facts of a particular case. That’s why the lawyers you’ve contacted want to know about the facts of your case. It is a highly contextual undertaking. Without the facts, how can I know what cases or laws might be applicable? > > Fifth, you’re really not being fair in saying you’re just wanting simple answers. If you say to a lawyer, “have you ever heard of a case where Y happened?” you’re not really asking a simple question. Before I can reply, I need to know the background facts, and why you’re asking it. That’s not professional arrogance - it’s because I won’t express an opinion unless I know as much as possible about it, so I can exercise my best judgment. Are you asking about partition in the partnership sense? in a joint tenancy sense? in a domestic partner sense? in a possible fraud (and if so, civil or criminal)? I may have heard about partition of real estate in all these contexts - and before I can respond, I need to know the context. > > Sixth, the conversation won’t really end with “Have you ever heard of Y?” If I say “yes” and nothing more, you’ll just think I’m arrogant. You’ll want to know where I’ve heard about it. Implicitly, you’ll also be asking me _why_ I think that the case or statute relates to your situation. And that is the beginning of legal advice, because I’ve already filtered your request, compared it to my knowledge of the law in that area, and started to point you towards certain cases or statutes. In other words, I’ve made a professional assessment that certain cases or statutes are relevant to your case. > > Seventh and finally, this is not arrogance. Lawyers are bound by ethical and professional obligations. Lawyers take those personal responsibilities very seriously. I will do everything possible to stay on the right side of my ethical and professional responsibilities. In doubtful cases, I will decline to act or give advice, because that is the best way to ensure I am complying with my professional standards. That is the best for me in the long run, and it is also the best course in the long run for the public. This was clear, thoughtful and on target. You obviously put some effort into this and your other posts in order to be helpful to the OP. Therefore it will be ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/210 "2009-04-29T13:23:06Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > I don’t know if anybody in this long, long thread has mentioned it, but a great many law librarians do in fact have law degrees. They are very good at knowing whether they are providing research assistance or legal advice. They do not provide legal advice. That’s right - at a major law library like UCLA, I think we can assume that many of the reference librarians will be highly trained professionals, often with both a JD (or LL.B) and a Master of Library Sciences. They will be very good at helping a client find all the law related to a particular issue. But they won’t comment on the merits of the issue that a person asks them to help research, because that’s not their professional competence or responsibility. I know we’ve got librarians on this Board, so maybe some of them could comment on the professional responsibilities of reference librarians in this type of situation. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/211 "2009-04-29T13:25:31Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > This was clear, thoughtful and on target. You obviously put some effort into this and your other posts in order to be helpful to the OP. Therefore it will be ignored. {{{blush}}} ---
**Author:** ![grayhairedmomma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/47e85d/32.png) [@grayhairedmomma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grayhairedmomma)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/212 "2009-04-29T19:18:22Z")
> [@bobkitty](#): > > I just wanted to wade into this mess and say thank you to **ivn1188** for this; I have to admit I was struggling a bit with understanding why this would be advice, but now I see I was looking at it from a ‘research paper’ angle and not from a ‘point me toward previous examples so I can possibly get information for my own case’ angle. Ignorance fought over here- thanks! Just a “ditto” to this and thanks to all the other laywers who participated in this thread. It’s been enlightening. ---
**Author:** ![Flipshod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f19dbf/32.png) [@Flipshod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flipshod)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/213 "2009-04-29T19:38:59Z")
From an attorney’s standpoint, all information is advice. That’s not a lie. If all you need is information go get it yourself. You’re smarter than the lawyers and all. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/214 "2009-04-29T20:08:44Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Except he’s not a consultant, he’s a lawyer, and what he is doing for you is practicing law. He is arguably on very thin ice regarding whether or not he is acting through you (“you should do this, you should say that”) with you as a proxy, while failing to appear in court himself, because such “ghosting” is disapproved in many jurisdictions unless the assistance of the attorney is disclosed to the court and other parties. (Like many other ethical rules, this one does not have either clear margins or a bright-line test for violation.) Indeed. [http://www.unbundledlaw.org/program/9%20-%20National%20Look%20Status%20In2deep%20-%20Slanina.doc](http://www.unbundledlaw.org/program/9%20-%20National%20Look%20Status%20In2deep%20-%20Slanina.doc) [http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/238/238.F3d.1268.00-2114.html](http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/238/238.F3d.1268.00-2114.html) ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/215 "2009-04-29T21:00:57Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Indeed. [http://www.unbundledlaw.org/program/9%20-%20National%20Look%20Status%20In2deep%20-%20Slanina.doc](http://www.unbundledlaw.org/program/9%20-%20National%20Look%20Status%20In2deep%20-%20Slanina.doc) > > [http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/238/238.F3d.1268.00-2114.html](http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/238/238.F3d.1268.00-2114.html) Except, if **Stoid** is being truthful about the division of labor, there is no ghostwriting going on: she is doing the research and the writing, and using him to avoid the appearance of going _pro se_ (which, _pace_ **Stoid** , can be as much an advantage as a disadvantage and is one of of the ethical reservations about the practice of ghostwriting). My guess is that the formation of the LLC was a needless enthusiasm on her part and that this litigated breakup would have proceeded much more smoothly if it [the business] were just a common law partnership. Fancy forms and certificates can be fun, there’s no doubt about that, but these things do have business purposes and should be reserved for where they are needed. Although this wisdom can be of little avail now. Other than that, as best as I can gather, this is just a garden-variety “boyfriend and girlfriend bought a house on credit and now they broke up; what result?” scenario. Why there’s an appeal–a _consolidated_ appeal, mind you–I think we’ll never know. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/216 "2009-04-29T21:46:45Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Except, if **Stoid** is being truthful about the division of labor, there is no ghostwriting going on: she is doing the research and the writing, and using him to avoid the appearance of going _pro se_ Which subjects the lawyer to direct liability for signing the pleadings, possible contempt for not showing up at hearings, and ethical problems (and possible contempt) for fraud on the court. But yes, you are correct, ghostwriting itself would be the opposite of what’s been described. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/217 "2009-04-29T21:56:14Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Which subjects the lawyer to direct liability for signing the pleadings, possible contempt for not showing up at hearings, and ethical problems (and possible contempt) for fraud on the court. But yes, you are correct, ghostwriting itself would be the opposite of what’s been described. I didn’t mean to suggest that the situation wasn’t fraught with peril for the attorney, only that the traditional justification for ghostwriting or unbundling is that it helps make litigation affordable for dedicated and savvy _pro se_ litigants. Here the attorney has taken $2,000 but I’m not sure she’s getting even unbundled services (again, with the caveat being that I assume things are as **Stoid** describes – it could be, given the obvious satisfaction **Stoid** takes in the self-taught attorney narrative, that she has overstated her role and understated her attorney’s). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/218 "2009-04-29T22:02:30Z")
> [@Elysian](#): > > I myself am receiving the results of my bar exam today. This was posted yesterday. Well? We’re all waiting - counselor? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/219 "2009-04-29T22:05:51Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > I didn’t mean to suggest that the situation wasn’t fraught with peril for the attorney, I agree with the rest of what you said, so it looks like we’re on the same page. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/220 "2009-04-29T22:43:38Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This was posted yesterday. > > Well? We’re all waiting - counselor? > > Regards, > Shodan Well, assuming it’s good news, **Elysian** should be at least seventeen sheets to the wind right now and in no fit state to inform us. But yes, appendages crossed 'n all that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476.md?page=12)