Arrogant Attorney Asshats

[ivn1188]

Let’s try the socratic method here:

Stoid:

Please answer these questions, preferably in a yes or no fashion. I will put my best honest guess as to your answer.

1: Are you doing research for your own case? (yes)

2: Do you think you might be missing some research area/source that is important? (yes)

3: Have you been asking these lawyers to point you toward a possible research area? (yes, see quote)

@Stoid

Q. In your 20 years of practice, have you ever personally observed or heard about a court making an order that the plaintiff put a pancake on the head of a bunny?

4: Is the information you are asking for related in any way to your case? (Yes, or you wouldn’t be asking)

5: If they were to give you information, would it affect your actions in researching your case? (yes, or you wouldn’t be asking)

Now, let’s look at question 3. Let’s do it like law students and continue this bunny hypothetical.

You obviously have some interest in bunnies and pancakes. If not, you wouldn’t be going around asking lawyers about them. We know, and I am sure the people you asked know, that you aren’t writing a research paper. So the logical implication here is that you are asking a lawyer to give you pointers to a research area that might prove important to your case.

And that, my young proseduhwan, is why you are asking for advice. Because if the lawyer is wrong, and you rely on it, the lawyer might be liable. Even if he is not, he might still have to deal with the time and effort of showing why he is not. He gains no benefit from helping you, and would be at risk, however small, of being slapped with a lawsuit.

Let me ask you three more questions with a yes or no answer.

1: Do you think that you are a better lawyer than every one of the lawyers who have replied to you in this thread, and every one you have spoken to in person, in that we all have gotten the question of advice vs “information” wrong but you have not? (yes)

2: Could you just possibly be wrong? (yes)

3: Do you think that one of the jobs of a lawyer is to clearly state the issue and the arguments supporting their side? (I hope yes)

You have posted over 50 times about your case, but have failed to even state what you are trying to do. I ask you to demonstrate how well you understand the law, and boil this whole Bleak House saga into two or three relevant, concise, and clear points.

[Bricker]

@Stoid

I know exactly what I’m asking for, and it is not advice.

You don’t, and your absolute unwillingness to listen to the several thousand people that are explaining to you that you don’t know is simply further evidence of your lack of stability. If I were a practicing attorney confronted with a client like you, I’d be so afraid that any words from me spoken in your presence might form the basis of a malpractice claim from you (after having lost your original case because everyone but you was wrong) that I would hide in my locked office and pretend to speak only aborigine click language until you went away.

[Sauron]

@Bricker

I would hide in my locked office and pretend to speak only aborigine click language until you went away.

Mom?

[ENugent]

@Bricker

If I were a practicing attorney confronted with a client like you, I’d be so afraid that any words from me spoken in your presence might form the basis of a malpractice claim from you (after having lost your original case because everyone but you was wrong) that I would hide in my locked office and pretend to speak only aborigine click language until you went away.

This brings up the point that I was coming in to make. Your characterization of your trial attorney, if accurate, would make me wonder why you are bothering with an appeal instead of suing the hell out of your trial attorney for irrevocably losing your case. I suspect there must be details that are getting left out that shift the context. Thus, I have a substantially heightened awareness of the possibility of malpractice claims lurking around here, and I want nothing to do with you or your legal problems.

[bobkitty]

@ivn1188

Let’s try the socratic method here:
{snip}
And that, my young proseduhwan, is why you are asking for advice.

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!

[Billdo]

Stoid, I’m not sure you realize that the term “legal advice” is itself a legal term of art that has been interpreted by courts, bar associations and other relevant authorities. In general, something becomes legal advice when it is given to an individual for her individual situation. Although a lawyer may write to educate the general public, whether via a website or otherwise, when the lawyer provides individual information to a person about her particular situation, it bears the significant risk that a court or ethics tribunal will consider that an attorney-client relationship has arisen and the lawyer could be liable for malpractice if the information is not actually relevant and complete.

Association of the Bar of the City of New York Formal Ethics Opinion 1998-2 discusses some of these issues:

Ethical Consideration 2-5 is also pertinent to an Internet discussion area:

A lawyer who writes or speaks for the purpose of educating members of the public to recognize their legal problems should carefully refrain from giving or appearing to give a general solution applicable to all apparently similar individual problems since slight changes in fact situations may require a material variance in the applicable advice; otherwise, the public may be misled and misadvised. Talks and writings by lawyers for non-lawyers should caution them not to attempt to solve individual problems upon the basis of the information contained therein.

The dynamics of written legal discussions on the Internet are different from those of oral public discussion, in part because the written word is generally given more weight, and may benefit from longer retention and study, than the oral word. Accordingly, if Law Firm does establish a discussion area, substantial caution and vigilance are advised.

Law Firm has noted that “if specific legal advice is sought, we will indicate that this requires establishment of an attorney-client relationship which cannot be carried out through the use of a web page.” While this Committee does not opine on matters of law, we note that this disclaimer may not necessarily serve to shield Law Firm from a claim that an attorney-client relationship was in fact established by reason of specific on-line communications. Caution particularly given the multi-jurisdictional reach of the Internet is again advised in this area. See, e.g., Ethics, Malpractice Concerns Cloud E-Mail, On-Line Advice, 11 ABA/BNA Laws. Man. Prof. Conduct 3 (1996).

It might be argued that almost any question and answer may in fact constitute legal advice, even if the questioner does not appear to be seeking “specific” legal advice.

As such, most lawyers are rightly gunshy about answering specific questions posed by an individual about their particular legal situations.

Although you might not consider something to be “advice”, the more specificly related to your particular situation the question is, the more likely the law of legal ethics is to consider any question and answer “advice”. Further, most lawyers are reluctant to take the risk of getting into the grey areas of whether or not something is or is not “advice” when dealing with particular situations. Even the question of whether a lawyer has encountered any cases with a particular bunny/pancake result could well be considered legal advice, whether or not you think it to be merely a request for non-advice “information.”

[incidental]

@Malacandra

No, I don’t take it as one-uppish - it’s seldom enough these days I get to talk about Prolog with anyone…)

I quietly love how there appears to be a subset of people talking about some obscure computer program in the background of this thread. This is why I love the dope.

With regards to the actual topic of the thread - I’ve got nothin’ Except that I agree that the OP appears very hard to understand, especially in the first thread ivn1188 linked to. Well, that and I am determined to avoid a lawsuit in the future - it is way too hard to read with my eyes crossed all the time…

[Frank]

@bobkitty

I just wanted to wade into this mess …

Yeah, but now you, the farmer, the goat, and the wolf need to wade back out. With only two pairs of boots and without getting the goat eaten.

[Jodi]

And to state explicitly what Billdo, Bricker, and ENugent have alluded to, in case it isn’t yet sufficiently clear:

Getting a Bar complaint lodged against you is a Big Fucking Deal, nevermind the nightmare of a malpractice case. Most lawyers will not do anything that looks like, smells like, or sounds like legal advice without first having a clear understanding that an attorney-client relationship exists – precisely because they don’t want to wander, in ignorance, into an attorney-client relationship, with all the duties it entails, with someone who “only wants information” but may be perfectly willing to bitch about the quality of the “information” after the fact – potentially to the attorney’s very clear professional detriment.

So are they gun-shy? Hell yes. And I’ll never be one to say that lawyers aren’t motivated by money – as is every professional trying to make a living at anything – but wanting to soak you for fees is not in fact the only reason to avoid precisely the sort of “informal” interaction that you are seeking. There is no up-side for them and there is at least the small potential for a HUGE down-side.

It’s like asking a doctor to explain, hypothetically, how to do an appendectomy, while you stand there with a scalpel in your hand and iodine all over your stomach. Only a fool woult “help” you under those circumstances, even if all you want is “information.”

[ivn1188]

@Jodi

And to state explicitly what Billdo, Bricker, and ENugent have alluded to, in case it isn’t yet sufficiently clear:

Where’s the love, Jodi? Where’s the love?

[Linty_Fresh]

@stoid

But the law is a whole different kettle of fish. When I started looking closer, I realized that it made perfect sense to me. In fact, I loved it. I can spend an entire day in a law library, following the leads from one case, idea, law to another, chasing down every branch into new territory, seeing the underlying reasoning of how this fits into that.

No you don’t. You really, really don–GAHH, I give up!! :rolleyes:

@Bricker

. . . I would hide in my locked office and pretend to speak only aborigine click language until you went away.

Not only would I pay you a retainer just to do that, I would come to your office to freak you out every fucking day.

(Knocking on office door) “Yo Bricks, I’m thinking of trying to legally marry Achmed and moving his whole family from the Sudan to come work here. You’ll love them, man, they’re all explosive experts and crop-dusting pilots. As a lawyer, whaddya think?”

“Sounds like a plan, click click click”

[Hamlet]

@Sauron

Mom?

Tic. Click click. Tok. Ticki Click Ticki. Clik Toc. Click.

[Jodi]

@ivn1188

Where’s the love, Jodi? Where’s the love?

Well, (a) you weren’t really talking about the potential malpractice angle, and (b) I’m not sure I love you yet. Give a girl some time.

[ivn1188]

@Jodi

(b) I’m not sure I love you yet. Give a girl some time.

Insert (heh) penis joke.

[bobkitty]

@Frank

Yeah, but now you, the farmer, the goat, and the wolf need to wade back out. With only two pairs of boots and without getting the goat eaten.

Oh, well, that’s easy- the farmer and I wear the boots, and carry the wolf and the goat on our backs. As long as we use a shirt as a blindfold for the wolf, he won’t be able to see where the goat is and we should all make it safely.

Wait, we have a shirt, right?

[Richard_Parker]

@bobkitty

Oh, well, that’s easy- the farmer and I wear the boots, and carry the wolf and the goat on our backs. As long as we use a shirt as a blindfold for the wolf, he won’t be able to see where the goat is and we should all make it safely.

Wait, we have a shirt, right?

In any hypothetical, always assume everyone is naked. This is doubly true of legal hypotheticals.

[VinylTurnip]

@Stoid

But the law is a whole different kettle of fish. When I started looking closer, I realized that it made perfect sense to me. In fact, I loved it. I can spend an entire day in a law library, following the leads from one case, idea, law to another, chasing down every branch into new territory, seeing the underlying reasoning of how this fits into that.

Finding a curious number of interlocking coincidences in seemingly random events, are you? All of them with you at the epicenter, and you’re the only one who can see how it all fits together?

You’re right: you don’t need a lawyer.

[Malacandra]

@bobkitty

Oh, well, that’s easy- the farmer and I wear the boots, and carry the wolf and the goat on our backs. As long as we use a shirt as a blindfold for the wolf, he won’t be able to see where the goat is and we should all make it safely.

Wait, we have a shirt, right?

Not if you’ve had to engage a lawyer you don’t, no.

[InkBlot]

So, outside observer here, what I’m getting is kind of like the Doctor’s Advice thing:

If I ask a Doctor here if penicillin is sometimes used to treat a staph infection, although that’s simply information (a yes/no kind of question), a practicing physician would decline to answer it directly on the odds I might be using this information for my own practical application?

Even though I’m not asking if I have a staph infection, the concern is if I use that information to treat myself or another and cause more harm than good, I might point at the original Doctors here and say, “but he told me it would work!”

So, the Doctors might say, “it’s been used that way before, but it’s better to have a Doctor examine the hypothetical patient and decide if that, or a different treament, is the best way to go.” The equivalent of the Lawyers here saying, “get a lawyer for yourself.” Is this it?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Dear ivn1188:

This was my favorite part:

@ivn1188

“I go to the law library all the time and read Winning a Lawsuit You Already Lost for Morons”

Bravissimo.

Very truly yours,
Kimmy Gibbler