Arrogant Freeloading "Information" Seeking Asshats!

The BBQ Pit
81

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) 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.

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.

82

You have totally forgotten about the exception made for bloviating Mandlebrot sets covered in the Uniform Condescending Code. :mad:

83

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. <snort> Probably doesn’t think Attorney General opinions are worth a damn, either.

84

They are lawyers. You can’t trust them.

85

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.

86

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:

(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.

87

It appears that you are correct. I’ll concede that specific point.

88

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.

89

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.

90

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.

91

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.

92

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.

93

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.

94

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.

95

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.

:smiley:

96

Ten volumes of OBSOLETE esoterica. :smiley:

97

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…

98

Why do lawyers make awful witnesses?

99

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.

100

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.

Hamdan could not have gotten better representation for any money, and I stand by that statement.