# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/141 "2009-05-12T20:08:49Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Pray tell, F-P, what do you understood those cases to have dealt with? What was the remedy being sought? There were a variety of cases. Some wanted to bar the attorneys from working for the other side in the dispute after their initial consult. There was at least one case of someone suing over bad advice, but that too was a case of someone who consulted an attorney in a professional capacity, i.e. as someone looking to hire an attorney, not a message board/cocktail party situation. What are you claiming? ---
**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, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/142 "2009-05-12T20:11:10Z")
Here’s one: [one](http://www.gfactorconsulting.com/Online%20Practice/PALMER..pdf). Note that being sued isn’t the only risk here. A more palpable (and less avoidable) risk is that of censure or other sanctions from one’s bar association for the unlicensed practice of law. For example, any of the lawyers giving **Stoid** advice could get in serious trouble with their own bar associations if they’re not licensed in California. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/143 "2009-05-12T20:39:38Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > There were a variety of cases. Some wanted to bar the attorneys from working for the other side in the dispute after their initial consult. > > There was at least one case of someone suing over bad advice, but that too was a case of someone who consulted an attorney in a professional capacity, i.e. as someone looking to hire an attorney, not a message board/cocktail party situation. > > What are you claiming? To consult an attorney in her professional capacity is merely to consult her as a lawyer because she is a lawyer. It has nothing to do with being ready to cut a retainer check. It has nothing to do with meeting in an office with many leather-bound books and smelling of rich mahogany. To make it perfectly plain: > [@](#): > > A relationship of client and lawyer arises when: > > (1) a person manifests to a lawyer the person’s intent that the lawyer provide legal services for the person; and either > (a) the lawyer manifests to the person consent to do so; or > (b) the lawyer fails to manifest lack of consent to do so, and the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the person reasonably relies on the lawyer to provide the services; or > > (2) a tribunal with power to do so appoints the lawyer to provide the services. > > RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS § 26 Notice, there is nothing about being a paying client. There is not even anything about an intention to create a lawyer-client relationship. It is the asker’s intent to receive legal services from a lawyer that opens up the possibility of a lawyer-client relationship. In Stoid’s case, she sought advice, a legal service. Moreover, a disclaimer would be of doubtful effectiveness. If the lawyer knows/reasonably should know that any disclaimer will be disregarded and the information provided will be relied upon, there is a colorable claim that a lawyer-client relationship exists. The bar association takes a dim view of the efficacy of rote–and situationally incongruent–disclaimers. Moreover, malpractice claim are just one hazard. The relationship, and even proto-relationships, give rise to issues of conflicts of interest and confidentiality, among other things ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/144 "2009-05-12T20:45:12Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Here’s one: [one](http://www.gfactorconsulting.com/Online%20Practice/PALMER..pdf). > > Note that being sued isn’t the only risk here. A more palpable (and less avoidable) risk is that of censure or other sanctions from one’s bar association for the unlicensed practice of law. For example, any of the lawyers giving **Stoid** advice could get in serious trouble with their own bar associations if they’re not licensed in California. This guy got in trouble with the bar for unauthorized practice of law for: > [@](#): > > (1) activities on his web-site, [amoralethics.com](http://amoralethics.com), which purports to offer “free legal advice”; (2) representations on his letterhead for the committee that he was “now offering free legal advice,” and affixing the letters “J.D.” after his name; and (3) his 1988 filing of a brief in the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Sixth District on behalf of a corporation of which he was president. despite not being a lawyer. I think that’s a lot more egregious than a lawyer offering up some advice on a MB accompanied by a disclaimer. (Note that even this guy beat the rap - this does not relate to RNATB’s point, but is an aside to the rest.) **Kimmy\_Gibbler** , my remarks here were about the _actual likelihood of being sued_, so your comments about other issues are irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/145 "2009-05-12T20:58:24Z")
Christ almighty, you want a figure? Okay, the likelihood is three. It is three likely that someone will be sued by **Stoid**. Three. Now would you pay attention to all these nice people who are explaining to you in small words why legal advice is legal advice? ---
**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, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/146 "2009-05-12T21:02:36Z")
I three hope there’s an election or something coming up so we can be done with these goddamn attorney threads. And that child-hater one. Fuck that too. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/147 "2009-05-12T21:05:06Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > **Kimmy\_Gibbler** , my remarks here were about the _actual likelihood of being sued_, so your comments about other issues are irrelevant. Sorry, I forgot that you’re retarded. In fact, your post suggested that there could be no malpractice suit because there would be no attorney-client relationship. That’s what your talk about “consulting in a professional capacity” was about. You asserted that because your implicit claim was “it is unlikely, because there is no basis in law for a such a suit.” As we’ve endeavored to show you on multiple occasions, you are incorrect. Your modus operandi is to make the assertion that there is no legal basis for a malpractice suit, for us to show you cases that do establish such a legal basis, followed by your complaint that this does not show the likelihood of such suits and ask us for examples of such lawsuits, and then claim the lawsuits are not sufficiently analogous and therefore no legal basis exists for the suit. It is a neat parlor trick, but not one that I am falling for again. ---
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/148 "2009-05-12T21:21:40Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > But the argument that “I’m afraid I might get sued” is unconvincing if actually getting sued is so rare that no one can come up with a single instance. Oh, no – you find the argument “unconvincing”? Why, exactly, should anyone give a shit what your opinion is in that regard? Again, several attorneys have said that ITO it is an argument with some weight. Why should your single layperson’s opinion to the contrary outweigh the opinions of multiple professionals in what is, after all, the heart of their profession? The mistake being made here is that people are actually attempting to respond to you in good faith. Instead, IMO they should be just shrugging off your “unconvinced” opinion as completely irrelevant to a professional reality you know nothing about and therefore are in no position to judge. And in case you were wondering, Exhibit A as to your personal ignorance is your apparent belief that no attorney could possibly get in hot water professionally unless there’s a published case out there that says so. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/149 "2009-05-12T21:26:42Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Well, my posit about the corollary to Gaudere’s Law has just born further fruit. \ > > **mswas** , you don’t know what you are talking about. Stop, now, before you confirm something. 😉 Really? A bunch of primadonna lawyers are bitching about people asking questions they are not obligated to answer and _I_ am the stupid one? Riiiiggghhht. You poor lawyers no one has a sympathy for your plight. I think the lawyer persecution complex is by far the most comical. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/150 "2009-05-12T21:29:23Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Ethics violations are not matters of law requiring evidence. You are at the mercy of the CPA ethics committee to determine whether you did or did not give that advice. And the complaint will go on your record even if its decided in your favor, so too many complaints regarding you to the ethics committee, and you won’t have a CPA any longer. So all it would take to screw you over is claim we had a conversation at a cocktail party. It would be irrelevant if we’d ever even been at that cocktail party? It would be consequenceless for me and you’d be censured for it? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/151 "2009-05-12T21:29:26Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > In fact, your post suggested that there could be no malpractice suit because there would be no attorney-client relationship. That’s what your talk about “consulting in a professional capacity” was about. You asserted that because your implicit claim was “it is unlikely, because there is no basis in law for a such a suit.” If you get to make up the other side’s arguments, it’s a lot easier to argue. I’ve not claimed any of those things, either explicitly or implicitly, in this particular discussion. RNATB pointed out that even if you were to win any lawsuit it’s a hassle to get involved in one to begin with. I pointed out that if such lawsuits (later extended to bar sanctions) are so rare that no can come up with a single instance of one in an analogous situation, then it’s not a real concern. What you’re trying to argue is that from a legal standpoint there is no difference between a lawyer offering advice to a friend at a cocktail party and a lawyer offering advice to a potential client at an initial consultation in his office. Now you may be right and you may be wrong, but if _as a practical matter_ no one has apparently ever been sued in the former situation while people have been sued in the latter situation, then there would appear to be a _practical_ difference, whether or not there is a legal one. Since RNATB was commenting on the practical fear of having to deal with a lawsuit, and not on the merits of such a lawsuit, what’s significant is whether there is a realistic chance of being sued, not whether from a legal standpoint it’s analogous to some other situation in which people have been sued. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/152 "2009-05-12T21:30:25Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You do realize that you’re now attempting to give legal advice to a whole bunch of lawyers, right? > > Anyway, as I’ve pointed out to, gosh, 500 people in these threads now, _having a defense does not mean you won’t get sued. It just helps you win a suit. Lawsuits are fucking expensive and inconvenient whether or not you win. Ergo, the trick is not to get sued in the first place._ Well what I am seeing is a bunch of lawyers bitching and moaning about how put upon they are. If you don’t want to answer a question on a message board, then don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/153 "2009-05-12T21:30:59Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Really? A bunch of primadonna lawyers are bitching about people asking questions they are not obligated to answer and _I_ am the stupid one? > > Riiiiggghhht. > > You poor lawyers no one has a sympathy for your plight. I think the lawyer persecution complex is by far the most comical. Don’t you have “massage quandaries” (If I’m having sexytime with my special lady, should I use sandalwood oil or patchouli?) that you should be “counseling” people about? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/154 "2009-05-12T21:34:08Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > And in case you were wondering, Exhibit A as to your personal ignorance is your apparent belief that no attorney could possibly get in hot water professionally unless there’s a published case out there that says so. I don’t actually believe this. But I do think if there was any reasonable risk that such a thing might actually happen, it would probably have actually happened by now. A statistical and not a legal argument, and not something that lawyers have any expertise about. But one simple enough that they probably understand it. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/155 "2009-05-12T21:34:09Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Don’t you have “massage quandaries” (If I’m having sexytime with my special lady, should I use sandalwood oil or patchouli?) that you should be “counseling” people about? Why do you keep asking me questions about prostitution? What does sex have to do with Massage? ---
**Author:** ![Tenebras](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tenebras](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tenebras)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/156 "2009-05-12T21:34:47Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This guy got in trouble with the bar for unauthorized practice of law for: > > > [@](#): > > > > (1) activities on his web-site, [amoralethics.com](http://amoralethics.com), which purports to offer “free legal advice”; (2) representations on his letterhead for the committee that he was “now offering free legal advice,” and affixing the letters “J.D.” after his name; and (3) his 1988 filing of a brief in the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Sixth District on behalf of a corporation of which he was president. > > despite not being a lawyer. > > I think that’s a lot more egregious than a lawyer offering up some advice on a MB accompanied by a disclaimer. (Note that even this guy beat the rap - this does not relate to RNATB’s point, but is an aside to the rest.) It helps to actually read the whole thing. I will excerpt some of the more pertinant parts for you. First, there’s the part that you may have read, but I’ll put it here because it matters. > [@The part F-P may have read (page 4)](#): > > The burden of proof rests upon the relator “to prove > its case by a preponderance of the evidence.” > Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(A). The board finds that the relator > has failed to prove by a preponderance of the > evidence that the respondent has engaged in the unauthorized > practice of law, and therefore the complaint > is dismissed. Hmmm… I wonder what the board considers to be the unauthorized practice of law. Let’s read on, shall we? > [@The part F-P didn't read (page 5)](#): > > **It is fair to say that Palmer’s web-site offers a > type of general advice on legal matters, but his > comments are little different from what can be > found in any number of publications found on > newsstands every day.** Books and magazine articles > offered for sale in Ohio contain legal advice from > authors not licensed to practice law in this state, yet > the Supreme Court has never found those publications > to constitute the unauthorized practice of law. > **One key element of the practice of law is missing in > published advice offered to the general public: the > tailoring of that advice to the needs of a specific > person. The practice of law involves the rendering > of legal advice to an individual.** Legal publications > offering general advice or opinions do not purport > to customize the advice to the particularized needs > of the reader. > > \*\*720 [3] The publication of general legal advice > on Palmer’s web-site, good or bad, is not of itself > the unauthorized practice of law. More troubling is > the offer to respond to “any questions about your > rights” and “provide you with guidance and/or advice.” > **If Palmer actually gave legal advice in specific > response to a question from one of his readers, > he would have engaged in the unauthorized practice > of law. Thus, if the evidence established that > Palmer responded with legal advice to specific inquiries > from visitors to his web-site, the relator > would have established its case.** I have bolded the parts that I think are of particular import. In summary: Palmer got sued for posting advice on the internet. The type of advice that he was demonstrated to have dispensed was the type of generic boilerplate you can find pretty much anywhere. If he had been found to have given specific advice to individuals about their particular legal issues, he would have been in deep shit, indeed, because that would have been unauthorized practice of the law. As it is, he’s just a sleazebag who’s pissed off at lawyers. So there you have it, **F-P** , a person was sued and he won. The people in charge of deciding whether he was guilty or not more or less said straight out “If you give people advice about their particular legal problems on the internet, that’s practicing the law.” ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/157 "2009-05-12T21:44:46Z")
One useful bit of legal advice I learned from this thread is to never take legal advice from someone who doesn’t know the difference between a licensed medical profession and an illegal sex worker. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/158 "2009-05-12T21:49:30Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Why do you keep asking me questions about prostitution? What does sex have to do with Massage? Someone having sexytime with his (or her! we live in enlightened times, after all) special lady is not prostitution. Well, unless the special lady is a whore. On behalf of my friends who do that sort of thing (sexytime with ladies, not hiring prostitutes), I rather resent the insinuation. Also, some people incorporate massage into their sexytime, so I thought you might have some wisdom to share. I didn’t know you were going to get all Mordant Masseur Mofo on me just for asking a simple question. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/159 "2009-05-12T21:50:38Z")
> [@Tenebras](#): > > In summary: Palmer got sued for posting advice on the internet. The type of advice that he was demonstrated to have dispensed was the type of generic boilerplate you can find pretty much anywhere. If he had been found to have given specific advice to individuals about their particular legal issues, he would have been in deep shit, indeed, because that would have been unauthorized practice of the law. As it is, he’s just a sleazebag who’s pissed off at lawyers. > > So there you have it, **F-P** , a person was sued and he won. The people in charge of deciding whether he was guilty or not more or less said straight out “If you give people advice about their particular legal problems on the internet, that’s practicing the law.” I don’t know if anyone ever questioned that a non-lawyer offering specific legal advice over the internet is performing unauthorized practice of law. Certainly I didn’t. My point was that this guy got sued because he had a website that promised people “free legal advice”, which naturally attracted attention from the authorities, since this is exactly what he was not allowed to do (and what he, in his defense, had to deny actually doing). (The fact that he was generally opposed to lawyers as a class probably didn’t help him either.) That’s not the same thing - _in terms of likelihood of being sued_, if not legally - as a guy who offers advice in a more informal setting, with a disclaimer. ---
**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, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/160 "2009-05-12T21:52:09Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Why do you keep asking me questions about prostitution? What does sex have to do with Massage? Why do you confuse sexy time with prostitution? Is your sister number four prostitute in all of Kazakhstan? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115.md?page=9)