# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 81
**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. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115)._