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.
