In this thread, NUTTY BUNNY asked whether there may be a liability issue if the company she is performing services for poaches her from the company that currently employs her. FEAR ITSELF immediately sweepingly opines “You have the right to accept any job, anywhere, any time.” On having it pointed out that this is not necessarily correct, FEAR ITSELF restates: “But I stand by my original staement; you have the right to accept any job, anywhere, anytime.” I have started this Pit thread because I can’t do justice to my response in General Questions.
FEAR ITSELF –
You complete moron. At the time you offered your “useful advice” in the linked thread, you did not know where the woman lived and worked; what she did; whether there was any sort of non-compete or non-poaching agreement in place; and/or the enforceability of those agreements in her jurisdiction. We still don’t know many of those factors – unless you’re an employment lawyer in New York State? Which, of course, you aren’t.
Any one of these factors would materially change the advice a lawyer would give and, depending on the factors, advice that might be correct in one scenario might well be incorrect in another. So please explain: How is giving “advice” that may well be flat-out wrong a “useful” thing to do? Confidently giving advice when you don’t have enough facts to understand the situation is not useful; it’s irresponsible. I also find it very amusing that you are “willing to take the risk” – what risk is that? That you might sprain a finger as you type? There is no risk to you in posting “advice” you’ve pulled out of your ass; the risk is on the person who might take that advice, wrongly believing based on the confidence with which you post that you know what you’re talking about when you don’t.
And there is more risk to me, because I am a lawyer, while you are simply some moron taking it upon himself to post potentially incorrect legal statements on someone else’s “rights.” Even if I did not consider it a bad idea to wade in on any subject, from brain surgery to how to bake a cake, if I don’t have enough information, I am professionally prohibited from making the type of WAG you cheerfully pooped in that thread. I am bound by professional ethics and subject to potential personal liability that make it a Very Bad Idea for me to give advice when I don’t have enough information to know what the advice should be. This is not risk aversion on my part; it’s common sense.
It is transparently clear at this point that your “opinion” is without any factual or legal foundation, and therefore is worth a fart in the wind. We are just fortunate in this situation that BUN appears smart enough to disregard your advice. I am not in any way threatened by other people giving sound legal advice, but I am extremely resentful of those who give bad legal advice – because it is bad legal advice.
I also am nettled by the immaturity of people who, when it is pointed out that they were wrong, or even possibly wrong, say “well, that’s what I said and I meant it,” as if they lack not only the intelligence to see their error but the emotional maturity to, if not admit it, at least let it go.
I am a lawyer. And every time I see some fool like you giving bad legal advice without the facts or law to back it up, I will call you on it. Because I feel like I have a professional obligation to make sure no one relies on what you say when the reality is you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. And I would suggest that, if you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, you should either qualify your opinion (“This what I think the law is in California, but actually I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about.”) Or, better yet, shut the hell up.