# Arrogant Freeloading "Information" Seeking Asshats! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 12, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115 "2009-05-12T00:39:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/81 "2009-05-12T10:21:42Z")
> [@nyctea scandiaca](#): > > That’s from an opinion of the Illinois State Bar Association - a professional association - not a lawmaking/legislative body. Nor is it case law. I was looking for actual statute or case law showing that information given in an online message board such as this constitutes a legitimate client/attorney relationship that would be upheld by a court in a lawsuit. I believe you may not appreciate that attorney professional regulation uses some sources of law which are broader than those used in other legal areas. Because the bar is, to some degree, a self-regulating profession, ethics opinions of bar associations and rulings of disciplinary committees are given great weight when courts eventually are called upon to rule on questions of malpractice or professional conduct. As a practical matter, this often makes researching ethical questions very difficult. In the other thread, I linked to and [quoted] ([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11082452#post11082452](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11082452#post11082452)) a Formal Opinion of the New York City Bar Association. A Formal Opinion comes about when an attorney asks the ethics committee for advice about a particular situation that he or she is facing, and after full and detailed research and consideration, the committee issues a ruling on what the attorney should do. (Informal opinions can usually be obtained more quickly but are considered somewhat authoritative.) Formal Opinions are given great weight by courts and disciplinary bodies, and are frequently applied outside the jurisdiction for which they were issued. > [@Arrogant Attorney Asshats](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-attorney-asshats/494476/86): > > Association of the Bar of the City of New York Formal Ethics Opinion [1998-2](http://www.abcny.org/Ethics/eth1998-2.htm) 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. Translating this just a bit, what it says to the law firm that thought about giving “information” on a web page was that they’d be idiots to do it because there was a great risk that it would be considered giving legal advice that could establish an attorney-client relationship. Another point to consider is that, although there may be little chance of ultimate liability for giving legal advice over the internet (either from malpractice or attorney discipline), the pain and disruption caused by an individual who thinks he or she has been wronged and files a bar complaint or lawsuit in the matter, even if totally meritless, can be substantial. In either event, the lawyer will likely have to hire his or her own ethics counsel to fight the matter, which is expensive. It’s really just not worth it. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/82 "2009-05-12T11:05:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Derivated brachiopiling only applies in the case of incorporeal hereditament. At common law, it never comes up except in cases of a suit against a supranational government and/or deity, and of course in those cases you’ll be much too busy trying to sort out whether declarations of war and angelic manifestations constitute hearsay to worry about morchivating your exponentials. You have totally forgotten about the exception made for bloviating Mandlebrot sets covered in the Uniform Condescending Code. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/83 "2009-05-12T11:08:10Z")
In reading last night’s exchanges, I think there must be some corallary to Gaudere’s Law which can be stated thus: In any post or series of posts by non-lawyers castigating lawyers will be found a statement definitely proving why non-lawyers shouldn’t try to practice law. Illinois Bar Association opinion isn’t good authority. \ Probably doesn’t think Attorney General opinions are worth a damn, either. ---
**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:** [May 12, 2009, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/84 "2009-05-12T12:25:32Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Illinois Bar Association opinion isn’t good authority. \ Probably doesn’t think Attorney General opinions are worth a damn, either. They are lawyers. You can’t trust them. ---
**Author:** ![blanx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f04885/32.png) [@blanx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blanx)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/85 "2009-05-12T13:10:44Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > In reading last night’s exchanges, I think there must be some corallary to Gaudere’s Law which can be stated thus: > > In any post or series of posts by non-lawyers castigating lawyers will be found a statement definitely proving why non-lawyers shouldn’t try to practice law. > > Illinois Bar Association opinion isn’t good authority. \ Probably doesn’t think Attorney General opinions are worth a damn, either. Swear to Jebus, the next time I handle a legal malpractice action I’m insisting that Bar Association opinions aren’t law. In a more serious vein, there is a fascinating disconnect between lawyers and non-lawyers. I have a case where another party wants to add a lawyer as a witness, and I have been doing everything save throwing feces (although that’s next) to indicate that this is a BAD idea. Lawyers make horrible witnesses, and people already hate them, even prior to saying anythng. ---
**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:** [May 12, 2009, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/86 "2009-05-12T13:17:14Z")
> [@nyctea scandiaca](#): > > That’s from an opinion of the Illinois State Bar Association - a professional association - not a lawmaking/legislative body. Nor is it case law. I was looking for actual statute or case law showing that information given in an online message board such as this constitutes a legitimate client/attorney relationship that would be upheld by a court in a lawsuit. [QUOTE=BrightNShiny] This is beyond ridiculous. If you’re this uninformed about how lawyers are regulated, why do you think you have enough of a command to post in this thread about lawyer malpractice issues? The bar isn’t a professional organization like the Kiwanis club. It’s a quasi-governmental organization that has the ability to set rules for lawyer conduct. And clients can complain to the bar, and the bar can discipline you and disbar you, and if they disbar you, you can’t practice law. This opinion can and will be cited in any malpractice claim covering internet opinion, and your hand-waving dismissal of it is nothing more than silly argumentation. [/QUOTE] In fairness to **nyctea scandiaca** , it doesn’t look like the Illinois Bar Association is the professional disciplinary body for lawyers in Illinois, according to their [website](http://www.isba.org/about/index.html): > [@](#): > > About the ISBA > > Founded in 1877, the Illinois State Bar Association is the premier legal association in the state. As a voluntary organization, the Association’s primary focus is to help Illinois lawyers practice more effectively and efficiently by providing time and money-saving services. > > We also engage in many important activities on behalf of the profession – among them proposing and shaping legislation, educating the public, and supporting the courts and the rule of law. (My emphasis) However, as others have commented (and I gave an example from the Canadian Bar Association in the other thread), the formal opinions and model codes of conduct of bar associations are given great weight from the courts and disciplinary bodies in determining the extent of a lawyer’s ethical and professional obligations, even if a particular bar association is a voluntary organisation, not a professional disciplinary body. With respect to **nyctea scandiaca** request for a statute that expressly addresses the issue of advice over the internet, I’d be very surprised if there is one, for the reason that ethical and professional obligations are normally defined by general principles in Codes of Conduct. Those general principles are then applied on a case-by-case basis to the facts of individual cases. The reason for this approach is that it simply wouldn’t be possible to define all of the possible sets of facts where lawyer might be giving legal advice - it’s better to set out the general principles, which lawyers then follow and apply on a day-to-day basis. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/87 "2009-05-12T13:36:14Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > In fairness to **nyctea scandiaca** , it doesn’t look like the Illinois Bar Association is the professional disciplinary body for lawyers in Illinois, according to their [website](http://www.isba.org/about/index.html): (My emphasis) It appears that you are correct. I’ll concede that specific point. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/88 "2009-05-12T14:07:31Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > …And finally, yeah, sometimes people cause you a harm and they get away with it, because you can’t afford to sue them. This happens to the richest corporations too, except we say “it’s not worth it to sue them.” I have several clients who didn’t sue when they had a right to, because the guy who caused them harm is a deadbeat, and even if all the attorney services were free, the court fees alone would make suing uneconomical. It’s not fair, but it happens. … While I’m generally sympathetic to what you’ve been saying in this thread, making such a statement makes me wonder what planet you’re on. It is outrageous to equate “can’t afford to sue” with “not worth it to sue”. If you don’t understand the difference between the two, well, being the big articulate lawyer you are, you can proably imagine better words of contempt than I have available to me. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/89 "2009-05-12T14:13:16Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Because this thread will appreciate it… I just made SUCH A SCORE!! Congratulations! Seriously. But let me also just mention that IMO given your tendency to drill down to the molecular level on one or two points instead of presenting a broad and more unified argument, ten volumes of Civ Pro esoterica may not be the greatest resource for you in particular. I’m not being bitchy, honest. Don’t over rely on an exhaustive resource just because you have it, is all I’m saying. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/90 "2009-05-12T14:19:54Z")
> [@Billdo](#): > > Another point to consider is that, although there may be little chance of ultimate liability for giving legal advice over the internet (either from malpractice or attorney discipline), the pain and disruption caused by an individual who thinks he or she has been wronged and files a bar complaint or lawsuit in the matter, even if totally meritless, can be substantial. In either event, the lawyer will likely have to hire his or her own ethics counsel to fight the matter, which is expensive. It’s really just not worth it. Not to mention that an ethics complaint will remain on the lawyer’s 10-year discipline history even if it turns out to be unfounded in most states. ---
**Author:** ![Caffeine.addict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f475e1/32.png) [@Caffeine.addict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caffeine.addict)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/91 "2009-05-12T14:21:04Z")
> [@nyctea scandiaca](#): > > I’ve read through this and the cites in the other thread and I’m still not at all convinced that this type of suit is common and successful often enough to pose a legitimate risk. > > I don’t believe that Stoid or anyone could convince a judge that she was “reasonable” in relying on an attorney’s casual comment on a message board and be successful in such a lawsuit. Define successful. Enough to prevail and win a judgment? Enough to survive a motion to dismiss (demurrer)? Enough for a few rounds of discovery before dismissal? Just because they don’t win at trial doesn’t mean it won’t cost you time and money. Being in the process of litigation is time consuming and draining. Its one thing to point someone in the right direction, with a recommendation of what type of attorney to speak to. However, figuring out which cases apply in a matter is a bit more tricky. You need to find out more details about the situation. You need to ask questions, clarify things. At some point, an attorney client relationship has been formed and you are screwed. ---
**Author:** ![Aangelica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Aangelica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aangelica)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/92 "2009-05-12T14:32:34Z")
I know that it won’t do any good, but I’m going to point out that the vast majority of practicing attorneys (and a goodly number of _non_-practicting attorneys) have _contractual_ obligations (notwithstanding any ethical obligation that may or may not be based in case law and/or bar association regulation) to avoid giving legal advice outside of certain fairly rigidly controlled circumstances (formal client relationship, mandatory engagement letter, etc). Every malpractice insurance policy I’ve ever seen pretty clearly spells out the conditions under which they’re going to be willing to provide coverage. Why in the thousand private names of God would _any_ competant, reasonable, responsible professional deliberately act outside the protections of their very, very expensive malpractice insurance? Every lawyer in the world knows that the world is full of the crazy, and they pretty much all have insurance as a buffer against the crazy. Why go to all the trouble of getting a buffer just to start acting in a fashion that you know perfectly well isn’t covered by your buffer? That’s… illogical, irresponsible, stupid, short-sighted, unreasonable, incompetant, twitter-headed - pick your own freaking adjective. Just on a lark, I actually contacted the ethical hotline provided to attorneys in my state (NY if anyone’s curious).\* I had the nice lady who answered my query check Stoid’s recent OPs on this matter in order to see if responding in a substantive fashion would constitute offering legal advice such that potential liability on my part would be triggered. The answer, according to the New York State Bar Association Ethics Hotline is “Clearly, it does.” I had thought it might, which is why I failed to respond substantively to those posts (also, her issue is nowhere near my area of speciality (IP) when I still practiced, which I no longer do). If I had responded substantively, I am informed that an attorney-client relationship would have been entered into for purposes of attaching liability for potential malpractice on my part. \*To my knowledge, all states have a similar service. A number (or website, etc) that practicing attorneys may contact at need should they have an ethical question that needs clearing up. The theory is, if there is an iffy ethical call to be made, public policy favors having a method by which an attorney can get a quick and definitive response from the proper authorities. It took me less than two hours to get a response to my query on this matter, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/93 "2009-05-12T14:33:15Z")
> [@nyctea scandiaca](#): > > That’s from an opinion of the Illinois State Bar Association - a professional association - not a lawmaking/legislative body. Nor is it case law. I was looking for actual statute or case law showing that information given in an online message board such as this constitutes a legitimate client/attorney relationship that would be upheld by a court in a lawsuit. But you don’t know what might be upheld in a lawsuit until you find yourself on the losing end of a case. Why would an attorney want to put themselves in that position? And I get really impatient with people who think it’s “unjust” that legal services are not free for all. No one talks about the “injustice” of having to pay a plumber to avoid flooding your basement, or a mechanic to fix your car, or a dentist to fill your tooth – not even though the flood will seriously devalue your house, without the car you can’t get to work, and until the tooth if filled you’re in serious pain. There’s still an expectation that you’ll make due, make payment arrangements, or do without. And if you can’t afford it: sucks, truly, but it’s not an “injustice.” You’re not being screwed by “the system,” or by the plumbers, mechanics, or dentists. In fact, the legal profession makes more of an effort to provide their services at low-cost or no-cost to those who need them, than virtually any other profession in the U.S. In most states, the interest attorneys earn from their trust accounts goes to support low-income legal services. In many states, attorneys have an ethical obligation to at least _try_ to provide _pro bono_ (no cost) services to indigent clients. (These goals are aspirational, granted, because the various Bars do not have legal authority to _make_ lawyers give away their services for free.) And of course, if you a charged with a serious crime and cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you at taxpayer expense, as a constitutional entitlement. But the demand for free or low-cost civil legal services of course exceeds the supply. So there are guidelines that must be met before you can access those services: If you’re not at risk of losing your housing, your support, or your kids, maybe there won’t be a service available – because those basic life needs are deemed more worthy of dedicating limited resources to protect. If you don’t fall below the Federal poverty guidelines, maybe you won’t qualify for services – because the services will be reserved for those who honest to God cannot afford them, not ever, no matter what they do. Not poor enough? Not in the right type of legal trouble? Then I’m sorry, but maybe the harsh reality is that you _will_ fall through the cracks. That’s not an “injustice” visited upon you by “the lawyers.” That’s just life, in all it’s occasional suckitude. I have no problem with **Stoid** asking for legal guidance or information. If we’re fool enough to provide it (as I have in the past), then any risk is on us, and it’s our own time we’re wasting. It just bugs me that she doesn’t listen to what people say anyway if it’s not what she wants to hear. But we know this – I know this – so again, if we engage that’s hardly her fault. ---
**Author:** ![Caffeine.addict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f475e1/32.png) [@Caffeine.addict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caffeine.addict)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/94 "2009-05-12T14:35:28Z")
Regarding the issue of representation not being affordable for a lot of people. You are right, it can be an issue. A lot of attorneys do pro bono work either on their own or through non profit organizations and donate their time. These services are patchwork and don’t cover everyone and every situation. I don’t know how this can be improved. Attorneys are like everyone else and need to make a living which is why they charge for their time. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/95 "2009-05-12T14:40:03Z")
Reminds of the old joke about a doctor and a lawyer at a party. They were standing there talking to each other and the doctor was complaining about people always wanting free advice on medical issues. As he was complaining, someone came up and asked for some advice. The doctor looks at the lawyer and says “SEE! Do you think I should charge for this?” The lawyer says “Yes.” 3 days later the doctor gets a bill from the lawyer. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/96 "2009-05-12T15:00:59Z")
> [@](#): > > ten volumes of Civ Pro esoterica may not be the greatest resource for you in particular. Ten volumes of OBSOLETE esoterica. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/97 "2009-05-12T15:32:38Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > i dunno about massage but people ask about plumbing, electricity, electronics, computers, cars, home improvements, etc all the time in the hopes of saving a penny. It seems to me fiddling with some of those things if you do not know well what you are doing is more dangerous than fiddling with court papers. My understanding is that lawyers are like CPAs. I don’t know much about lawyers, but I know something about CPAs. CPAs have a LONG list of professional and ethical obligations. As I recall, You can’t own stock in a company you audit (nor can your mother). You can’t have a mortgage with a bank you audit. You can be held responsible for a bad tax return you prepare. An audit gone bad. Misleading preperation of financial statements. The list of things CPAs cannot do or can be held responsible for is long - got longer after Enron and looks to get longer still as the finance scandals overflow into accounting. You can loose your license. Get fined. Even go to jail. In Minnesota, you can not incorporate as a CPA - which means you are putting your own personal assets on the line as a partner or an individual practioner. CPAs cover their butts by excessively documenting. Make a decision about a client’s taxes - write down why you did it, what the relevant section of code is, or IRS guidence. Make a decision on treatment - document. Decide on a statistical model for audit, document. Then, at least, if someone accuses you of behaving unethically or illegally, you have the paperwork to say “this is the decision I made, this is why we made it” - chances are it isn’t going to say “because we didn’t think we’d get caught” (although Arthur Andersen might have…) So when you ask a tax question to a CPA at a party, they really can’t scribble down their advice to you on a cocktail napkin to cover their butt for when the IRS hauls your ass into tax court. You are asking, in a very real way, for them to expose themselves. And what if they give you a good answer, but after two martinis you misunderstand them, then go home and deduct the home office you have that in no way qualifies - then blame them. You get the exposure, none of the reward (payment), and a reduced ability to CYA. I’d imagine attorneys have similar ethical and legal responsibilities. And I majored in accounting, but am not a CPA… ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/98 "2009-05-12T15:39:22Z")
> [@blanx](#): > > Swear to Jebus, the next time I handle a legal malpractice action I’m insisting that Bar Association opinions aren’t law. > > In a more serious vein, there is a fascinating disconnect between lawyers and non-lawyers. I have a case where another party wants to add a lawyer as a witness, and I have been doing everything save throwing feces (although that’s next) to indicate that this is a BAD idea. Lawyers make horrible witnesses, and people already hate them, even prior to saying anythng. Why do lawyers make awful witnesses? ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/99 "2009-05-12T15:49:38Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Because this thread will appreciate it… I just made SUCH A SCORE!! > > The full 10 Volume 10th edition of Witkin’s California Civil Procedure with all supplements and updates through 2007. > > Guess. > No, really… guess how much. > C’MON~! GUESS! > > FIFTY BUCKS. > Nope, not lyin’. And that’s not $50 per book, that’s fifty total. For everything. That’s like…free. the same set through 2004 on Alibris is $245. > > SCORE!!! Awesome. Congrats! You’ll surely win your case now. If I can give some advice (sigh…I mean, information…), you’ll want to double check the 2007 information against the 2008 and 2009 supplements. And then triplecheck that against Westlaw’s updates since the 2009 supplement. And then quadruplecheck that the day or week of your appeal to ensure no recent contrary opinions. And if you don’t have access to Westlaw you can call them up and ask for a free login. They’ll probably give it to you when you explain that all they’re doing is taking information that’s already free to the public and just organizing it a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/100 "2009-05-12T15:49:41Z")
> [@nyctea scandiaca](#): > > Can you honestly say that I would get outcomes as positive as the ones I got without being represented by an experienced high-paid (or in other words, not a free legal aid) attorney? On behalf on Legal Aid attorneys everywhere and all those in the not-for-profit sector, screw you. Yes, I can absolutely and honestly say that. In some cases, you will get a better result. Two of the clients in my immigration defense clinic had paid, experienced attorneys who screwed them over (one of whom ended up in Federal prison). In both cases, lowly unpaid students and their lowly lowpaid attorney supervisors picked up the scrambled pieces of the case and WON. In one case that meant getting the Federal Court, the Bureau of Immigration Appeals, AND the DHS to all sign on and agree to reopen the case. That is just one snapshot of one clinical program at one not particularly notable law school. If you want to see some real whiz-bang free-of-charge lawyering, check out the [Yale Law students who argued Hamdan v. Rumsfeld all the way to the Supreme Court and won](http://www.law.yale.edu/ylr/pdfs/v53-2/hamdan.pdf). Hamdan could not have gotten better representation for any money, and I stand by that statement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115.md?page=6)