Well, “aborigine” can refer to any indigenous people.
Let’s try this:
Stoid, can you provide us a concise summary (say, 12 sentences or less) of the case, where it stands now, and what steps you’re trying to research/take? Let’s drop all this nonsense about bunnies and pancakes and airline pilots and vacations. That does nothing but confuse the issue with irrelevant information. Take your actual case, and boil it down to the salient points for us.
Well, Westlaw’s version is called “Keycite.” Lexis uses Shepards, though AFAIK Shepards also still publishes books. (Can’t be arsed to check that, though, so I could be wrong.) But among the practitioners I know, the practice of checking for others cases citing your case, and whether it has been distinguished, overruled, etc., is generally called “shepardizing.”
Thanks, Noel Prosequi!
Because in many U.S. jursidictions (most? all?) an attorney may not require a client to contract away his or her right to assert malpractice, unless the client is independently represented by another attorney when agreeing to that contract. (Check Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8 in most American jursidictions.) So aside from the question of whether such a disclaimer would be enforceable, it is unethical without independent representation of the client.
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.
I have noticed several references to methods used for finding and comparing pertinent legal information that perhaps the OP doesn’t use. Perhaps if you wanted to be truly helpful (no snark intended) you might give some general information on how to implement or learn about those legal research techniques. Yeah, yeah, it takes years to do it in law school, but it looks like the OP is spending plenty of time anyway.
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.)
He arguably is also exposing himself to potential liability and/or ethical issues, in the event either you or the Court decide to make the argument that you lost your case because he did not zealously and diligently represent you. AND since you have repeatedly demonstrated that you believe that all lawyers are incompetent, liars, or both, and that you personally are never wrong about anything – it is especially dangerous to serve in this sort of informal capacity for a client such as you, because you are exactly the type who might bite him in the ass if things don’t go your way (because if you lose, it’s not your fault, therefore it must be his).
In short, he’s arguably skated onto some very thin ice for you, and I personally stand by my assessment that he’s very likely a fool for having done so.
Gfactor linked to lots and lots of resources for doing just that in the first thread.
You youngsters, with the long hair and the rock music…
I was popping in here to say just that to Kimmy Gibler, but I’d add that most of the Westlaw users I know refer to it as “Keyciting.” Most larger firms are doing away with the Shepard service (it’s quite expensive and nowwhere near as up to date as Lexus or Westlaw), so checking your law “on the books” is becoming increasingly less common.
Unfortunately, I sort of see it the other way. I don’t want to accuse this attorney of anything, since who knows the completeness of Stoid’s reporting, but $2K for a two hour intake-consult, the opportunity to IM him every now and again with “Wotz trover? LOL” and for him to sign the petition for stay that she prepared, if this indeed is all that he is doing, sounds like a fleecing to me. Meantime, Stoid is pleased as punch, thinking “Look at me! I’m Ally McBeal!”
Yup, you’re still not getting it. It’s not about whether they think you’re going to go after them, it’s about avoiding the possibility of a malpractice complaint, which has serious consequences no matter how far out in loony-land it comes from. In the normal case, a lawyer might discount the risk quite a lot, but in your case decide not to risk it because you’ve already demonstrated that a lack of money and an inability to retain a lawyer is no impediment to pursuing a case on your own long past the point when someone else would have given up.
It doesn’t matter that you think it’s “information, not advice”; from the perspective of the attorneys you’re asking, it’s advice, and giving it to you has serious possible consequences that they likely don’t want to risk, more so because pro se litigants like you aren’t restrained by realistic appraisals of legal outcomes or a lack of resources. You’re obviously motivated by a raging sense of injustice, and they don’t want to risk even the small possibility that you’ll blame them if you continue to lose, fueling your rage and leaving you looking for targets.
If someone gives you such “information” in a situation where it’s foreseeable that you will use that information in order to make a decision then it is advice. And a lawyer is legally responsible for the advice he gives you.
Pro se litigants can be crazy (and stubborn), good grief!
Arrogant Asshat, Attorney at law
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.
(1) How likely is it that a reasonable person presented with (a TV show/“information” about the law) is going to make critical decisions based on that information?
(2) How likely is it that a disclaimer will dissuade someone from acting to his or her detriment?
If you are a person with an importantlegal matter consuming your life and you ask “information” about the law, it’s quite reasonable to assume you’re going to apply that information to your case. The calculation doesn’t work out the same for a TV show.
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. Problem was, he’d say, that they’d either concentrate on one area (say, criminal law) to the exclusion of the others; or that they would read one source only (say, the Harvard Law Review); or they would try something else that had the end result of never seeing the big picture. Because in order to think like a lawyer, our professor would say, you had to see the big picture. You had to know how all the parts fit together. He’d continue on and say that that was the reason that the law library didn’t contain just one book–the Big Book of Law, he called it–and that autodidacts who arrived in the law library asking for the equivalent of the Big Book of Law wouldn’t learn much from what they had to use as substitutes. There was far too much and you needed the guidance of a scholar/lawyer to help you learn.
He was crusty and opinionated and occasionally coarse; and he terrified some members of our class. And he was one of my favourite professors at law school. I learned a great deal from him, both in the classroom and in informal chats in his office and over coffee. But he made sure that we all saw the big picture; and just as importantly, that we saw the need to understand the big picture.
Not sure if this post contributes much to the thread, but I hope that it helps reinforce what Noel Prosequi is saying–that learning the whole subject is necessary, and that a lawyer must necessarily have studied the big picture. Because learning just one part of it leaves one with an incomplete legal education. Nicely said, Noel–my old professor would agree with you.
I quote this because it seems to be another in a long line of complaints about how people misunderstand your conversations, your SDMB posts, advertisements you place online, etc. You seem to have a history of people not understanding you to your satisfaction.
Looking over this chain of frustrations, you might consider the possibility that your discourse is simply not as clear and logical as you’ve assumed.
Fuck you Westlaw people. 
Back in law school I couldn’t find stuff on there even if I knew exactly what I was looking for. Those of us using Lexis still get to Shepardize because Lexis bought them out.