Or else she wasn’t listening to a word they said.
I get the feeling that Stoid isn’t very insightful about where her views, and reality, fail to coincide.
IANAL.
Regards,
Shodan
It makes no difference. Because from our perspective we’re looking at it almost purely as a statistical matter, while Stoid herself has access to more information. So it makes no sense to tell her that she’s wrong based purely on “most cases” when she is in a better position to know what’s actually correct.
If a sports fan tells me he got a good view of a controversial play and the correct call favored his team, I might think to myself that most fans tend to see plays in ways that favor their team. But if I myself didn’t see the play at all I wouldn’t be in a position to argue with the guy about it.
No, we’re not purely looking at it as a statistical matter. We’re also seeking posts like this, which look like gibberish. She’s clearly asking for advice, but even if there were lawyers on this board willing to give advice, they wouldn’t be able to because she’s presenting her case in a manner that makes no sense.
Well that OP seemed poorly organized and rather meandering to me as well.
But I did manage to grasp that what she wanted was an explanation of how “ultimate facts/ law” might differ from “equity” in practical usage. Similarly, the practical meaning/usage of “probative facts” and “evidentiary facts”.
IANAL, but I don’t believe that no lawyers could figure this out, nor that no lawyers could explain these terms without risking sanctions by the Bar or getting sued by Stoid if she lost her appeal.
Would it be too gauche to point out that you didn’t figure it out. There were two questions: what are ultimate facts and what is the law/equity distinction.
I am almost certain neither of these issues have anything to do with an colorable grounds for appeal she may have.
Furthermore, these issues were explained to her. However, because she was asking about such obscure, technical, rarely outcome-determinative issues like ultimate facts or law/equity, it was pretty obvious she was a crank (subsequent railings on her part only further cemented the impression) and out of her depth. The lawyers on this board advised her to reconsider her litigation strategy, and proving that no good deed goes unpunished, we have not heard the end of it.
Hmm … Well I said I wasn’t a lawyer. :o
It might follow that she is not a lawyer and going overboard on tangential issues. It doesn’t follow that she is a crank.
If someone explained why such matters are not likely to be related to an appeal and she refused to accept this, then she’s a crank. Did this happen?
It’s not a matter simply of “poor organization.” The fact is that the question as it is presented is not one that can be viewed as a simple question about the law. It’s not like “what’s the difference between libel and slander” or “I always hear about ‘murder one’; what about ‘murder two’?” It’s a very specific question, one that she obviously means to apply not just to a “I might have a legal problem” situation, but to her actual ongoing legal proceeding (which she has already lost at the trial level), that makes any brings any attempt to answer this question meaningfully over the line between mere “information” and legal advice. No lawyer with even a hint of a conscience would even attempt to answer this question without full knowledge of the facts and proceedings in this case, because it would be too easy to say something that would be very misleading.
Add to it the fact that to anyone with some knowledge of the law, these questions look very strange, arcane, and possibly semi-obsolete, in the context of an appeal.
And the fact that this question is surrounded by piles and piles of gibberish sets off all kinds of alarms. The fact is that lawyers have seen a lot of things written like this and getting involved with responding to these things on their own terms is nothing but trouble.
Multiple times. Both publically and privately. This is a long-running, ongoing saga, and you might want to simply step back and keep mouth shut about it, lacking important data, rather than opening said mouth and proving something. 
What a great read this thread is! I was up late last night reading the whole thing and the previous linked thread about Stoid’s case. It’s unfortunate that she won’t even try to sum up the basis for her appeal or the original case. Waaay to complicated to lay it all out. She isn’t likely to be allowed the time to lay out the whole convoluted mess at appeal either. Probably get cut down very soon by some version of; 'get to the point, what is the appeal based on, no you are wrong. NEXT!.
And it was very clear to me early in this reading that the reason will be as Shodan puts so very clearly below:
I’m not going to get involved in the discussion, but I am a very entertained observer.
If an anecdote is not fictional it certainly can be a data point, a datum, and anecdotes can be data for the same conditions. You may now continue your regularly scheduled program.
As the author of the linked post, which discusses the historical basis of the Law/Equity distinction and a little bit on appellate advocacy, I feel I should I explain why it would not be considered legal advice.
First, the relevant code: New York Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1(r) provides: “Without affecting the right to accept employment, a lawyer may speack publicly or write for publication on legal topics as long as the lawyer does not undertake to give individual advice.”
What I consider message board posts to be is “writ[ing] for publication” , if only electronically, on this general interest message board. When doing that, I’m perfectly free to write on a legal topic so long as I steer clear of giving “individual advice.”
In my post, I very carefully discussed only what the general state of the law was, and how it developed that way. I deliberately and carefully avoided saying anything about how the law might see Stoid’s individual case. Similarly, I provided general advice on how one should brief and argue appeals, but said nothing about how Stoid might go about framing her appeal.
If you read the linked post, it is an essay directed to any interested reader about legal topics. On the other hand, for instance, several of the posts I’ve made in this thread are directly addressed to Stoid, but they do not purport to give legal advice on what she should do in her case. Perversely enough, there are times that I will avoid answering legal questions that come up which are squarely in my areas of practice and expertise because I feel that I am much too likely to veer into specific advice, rather than giving a general legal discussion.
In reading the posts of the other lawyers on this Board, they are mostly quite careful to avoid giving legal advice, but only setting out general and non-personalized discussions of legal topics.
So, have you just shown that it is in fact possible for a lawyer to give some general legal information to a person representing themselves in a trial (and who may end up using the information in their case) without that information being considered “legal advice”?
Because that would go against what so many other lawyers have said in this thread.
No, it does not contradict any of the other posters.
a) When someone asks “How does fair use work?” or “Where is the courthouse?” – not advice.
b) “Hey, can you tell me if there are any fair use cases where the infringer made a sculpture based on a copyrighted photograph*? I am currently representing myself in a case where I made a bas-relief based on a painting (which is obviously fair use), and want to know if there are cases that will help me win my appeal.” – advice.
Do you see the difference?
Seriously, this is not a difficult concept. If it’s giving you that much trouble, I suspect that you are simply unwilling or unable to understand the point that is being made.
ETA: Also, somewhat ironically, this whole thread is basically information about a legal question (namely, what qualifies as legal advice and touching upon when there is an attorney-client relationship). But it’s not advice, because it’s not related to a particular person’s malpractice suit.
I wanted to have a crack at this…
what if the Pilot regularly travels to say India, where maybe Malaria is still common.
In this case he could tell you that yes, he has travelled to such a place, and that maybe a few of his local friends there have indeed had malaria.
What he might not think to tell you is the highly pertinent information to you decision that quinine is a totally realiable defence against malaria and providing hyou remember to take it you have nothing to worry about?
The “info” he has given you is incomplete, but you are still going to rely on it. Or maybe he mentions malaria but not Dengue, which is much more dangerous…you may then hold him responsible.
I must have missed it. Where?
You might have thought of that yourself before you decided to post this. So I guess that’s par for the course on message boards. 
Actually the only difference I see is that in the second case you’ve tacked the words “which is obviously fair use” & “cases that will help me win my appeal” on to the end of the question, so that one might argue that in responding the lawyer is implicitly agreeing that the assertion is correct and saying that the discussed cases will help win the appeal. I don’t think Stoid’s request was structured in that manner, but even if it was, a simple disclaimer like “I don’t know if you are correct that your case is obviously fair use or that these cases will help you win your appeal but here are some fair use cases that may interest you” should suffice.
Well F-P, when you run the ARDC, maybe I’ll consider it. But until then, I won’t jeopardize my license on the basis of how you think the rules of professional conduct work (incorrectly, I might add; no lawyer can just disclaim away his/her professional obligations). Even if that subjects me and the rest of the profession to by now exceedingly tiresome homilies on how unfair we are to you and your ilk.
Right.
But if the “professional obligation” is “don’t give advice” (in certain circumstances), a lawyer can make clear that what their information is not mistakenly interpreted as advice.
BTW, does anyone have any examples of a lawyer actually getting into trouble by providing information that was misinterpreted as advice? Also, any examples of someone being sued for something analogous to the situation here?
Yes, but we can’t tell you about them, because that would constitute legal advice.
(FTR, IANAL, IANYL, IDKS)
No, because the meaning of the word “advice” is not theirs to redefine in a legal context, any more than I can call my boss a wanker and insist that it’s a friendly greeting.
From Chicago Lawyer