I Object to the Closing of This Thread

The BBQ Pit
1

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=173753

Traditionally, people have asked for legal advice in the GQ forum, and I don’t see anything wrong with that.

Yes, the OP could have provided more info, but it’s common for people who are seeking legal advice to be unaware of what facts are important and what facts are irrelevant.

**

The first question is whether you can prove any of this. Because if you can’t, it’s probably not worth the bother. Trust me, the people who wronged you will lie lie lie.

Next, what exactly was done to YOU? In other words, were you the victim of this conspiracy, or were you simply punished for refusing to partake? I’m not an expert on antitrust law, but I believe that one needs STANDING to bring an antitrust suit. Thus, if a group of buyers is rigging bids, the seller might have a cause of action, but another buyer might not. I don’t know the answer, but it would help if you gave a little more detail about what exactly was done to YOU.

Next, what are your damages - how much business have you lost, how much extra have you had to pay, etc. If your damages are small, it’s probably best to walk away from the whole thing.

(standard disclaimer about legal advice)

2

Note to David B: I concede in advance that this one is too stupid to count toward my total.

Note to the OP. I don’t give a flying fuck what you object to. Buy a fucking email client someday. What, every objection to every call has to be a Pit thread? Or are you just an attention-seeker?

In the meantime, go to IMHO and respond to the OP, please, where you’ll see that s/he has already declined, in advance, to share more information unless a response is ‘good enough’ to justify it. Go ahead, go a few rounds with the OP. Then come back and tell me about my judgement skills.

3

And there I have my first experience of what everyone talks about. RE: manhattan’s temper.

4

You left out the critical bit that makes the thread an IMHO:

There is no GQ here. Period. The OP was seeking advice.

Don’t bother with manhattan’s advice. Buy a clue instead. It will prove infinitely more useful.

5

Heck Q.E.D. You’ve overtaken me on post-count:eek:

6

Not at all. In fact, I’m sipping on a yummy pear nectar right now, and earlier today I had my most productive golf lesson in about two years – there’s no hope for my slice, of course, but perhaps I can compensate for it. And I made good progress on getting a steep angle blasting out of sand traps.

I just decided a while ago that if someone is going to open a Pit thread where email would easily have sufficed, they’re gonna get the Pit response rather than the email response. Exceptions for a) newbies and b) sometimes in situations where the Pitizens have already delivered a Pit resonse.

7

My upright status is accurate.

Sorry manhattan]

8

The thread was relocated here in IMHO.
And I locked it.

9

Holy crispy crap on a cracker! Over 2300 posts in three months?!? How is this possible?

10

Asking for legal advice in a public forum is generally not against the law, but it is usually very foolish, and can lead to unexpected and unfortunate consequences–both for the ones asking and for the ones answering. The SDMB does not go far enough in discouraging it, IMO. When you are suing someone or thinking about suing someone, or especially if you are getting sued, the wisest course is seeking prompt and confidential advice from a qualified lawyer who practices in your jurisdiction. The lawyer will know the law, can render competent advice, and can do so under the protection of the attorney-client privilege.

Asking a general or hypothetical question about the law is fine, and seldom dangerous. But asking for particular advice about specific facts can be very dangerous. It can be dangerous for the member asking the question because, if the case does get litigated, the opposing party’s attorney will usually ask whom else (other than his or her attorney) the member has discussed the case with. The member must then disclose the SDMB thread, in which case a good opposing attorney can have a field day. Whatever the member said may reveal knowledge or strategy that the opposing attorney can use against the member in litigation–and no matter how harmless the comments may seem on the boards, a good attorney will use them in litigation in whatever way helps his or her client’s case. The member will presumably have read the thread that he or she started, and will thus be burdened with notice of every wild-ass guess or theory posted in the thread, so that the opposing attorney can inquire into why the member did or did not act in accordance with the suggestion once it was posted. If some answering post suggests the legally correct course, and the asking member did not immediately adopt it, then a court can easily infer that the member was acting with reckless or willful disregard for the law from that point forward. Even if the information posted on the board was not inherently harmful, the mere act of posting it in a public forum probably waives any claim of confidentiality that the member may otherwise have enjoyed, and may even void the attorney-client privilege with respect to any subject in the litigation that was the subject of the public disclosure. The opposing attorney can then invade even otherwise privileged conversations between the member and his or her attorney.

Answering a question asking for particular legal advice about a specific case can also be dangerous. If the member answering the question ventures a guess about the law, but is not a lawyer, then he or she may be practicing law without a license–a crime in most jurisdictions. And while prosecutors and bar associations are probably not scouring the SDMB looking for potential defendants, a disgruntled opponent who learns about the thread can wreak havoc for the SDMB and for the Chicago Reader, Inc., by simply bringing it to the attention of a prosecutor–because even if no prosecution results, an investigation will. I am surprised that it hasn’t happened yet (assuming that it hasn’t).

If the member answering the question is a lawyer, but is not licensed in the member’s jurisdiction, then he or she may still be practicing law without a license–in which case a prosecution is much more likely if the opposing party instigates a complaint, since a lawyer ought to know better. And if the lawyer is properly licensed in the member’s jurisdiction, then simply answering the question may establish an attorney-client relationship–hence the disclaimers that so many lawyers post in their answers that “I am not your lawyer and you are not my client” as a result of posting an answer. Whether such a disclaimer is effective is debatable: some jurisdictions are extremely liberal about finding an attorney-client relationship from even casual communication between an attorney and someone seeking legal advice. And if an attorney-client relationship is established, then rendering legal advice in a public forum–thereby waiving the attorney-client privilege–is almost certainly malpractice.

There is a significant downside risk for everyone who asks or answers a question asking for legal advice about an identifiable case. manhattan may have just saved agent little and everyone else from a bigger headache than they realize.

11

He’s fast, he knows a lot, he likes to joke and welcome people, and he seems to live here. :wink:

12

Hey leave Q.E.D. alone! He’s a nice guy, he just likes posting here is all… that’s not a crime. He likes helping with a lot of GQs aswell, so it’s not unreasonable to have a high post count really.

13

Hell, once upon a time I was averaging around 20 ppd, which came out to a little more than 500 or so a month. And I wasn’t posting late at night (much) or in many fora, either.

In my experience, people tend to slow down. There’s also the factor, that starts to build up in some people, of “Oh, I don’t need to post this” and such things. I’ve had that happen to me more than a few times this past week. Probably accounts for why I haven’t hit 10K posts yet.

14

Dear Sir,

I object strongly to the last post. I also object even more strongly to the following post. For the record, I also object to apples, Mongolia, and the little boy who does the washing up in Auntie Marjorie’s bed-and-breakfast.

Yours with the deepest etc.,
Air Vice-Brigadier Sir George Podgorny Frog, [Mrs.]

P.S. Lemmings do not wear bicycle helmets.

15

Assuming the post above by brianmelendez is mostly accurate(and I have NO reason to think that it ISN’T), it would be one of the more informative posts about this continuing debate about posters/legal matters/and the SDMB/Reader, Inc.

Thanks, brian.

16

I have nothing against Q.E.D. posting at a rate similar to the having of babies by horny rabbits. It is obvious that he knows a lot. I wish I could post that often. 28 bloody posts a day!

17

(damn)

I have been Here for exactly a year and 13 days.

18

My post was slightly alarmist, in that the likelihood of the worst-case scenarios is remote. But like any risky behavior where the risk is slim but real, eventually the odds turn against you. My views are based on experience as a former bar-association president, and every scenario that I mentioned was based on my (admittedly not necessarily perfect) recollection of some actual case.

19

**

The thing is, people ask for advice in GQ all the time. I don’t see a problem with it.

For example, I asked in GQ about a month ago how to deal with the gnats in my shower. I got a few good suggestions. If I should have posted somewhere else, then so be it – my understanding of the scope of the GQ forum must be incorrect.

**

Well, as you say later, your post was a bit alarmist. I don’t see the big deal if people ask general questions about whether they should sue someone.

And I don’t see the big deal if a few attorneys share general thoughts, as long as they emphasize the usual disclaimers.

It’s true that once in a while, this sort of thing could lead to disaster, but the same is true about questions about any sensitive issue.

Moreover, there is a decent possibility of getting useful advice, such as to preserve evidence; not to talk to the police before getting an attorney; not to make a mountain out of a molehill, etc.

20

I don’t disagree. As I wrote, “Asking a general or hypothetical question about the law is fine, and seldom dangerous.” It is when the question gets into the facts of a particular case that the risk shoots up.

You can make the same points about medical advice. If you are looking for advice about dealing with a hangnail or a sore throat, then asking a bunch of amateurs on an online message board is fine. But if your baby just ingested poison, then it is mighty stupid. You need professional advice.

Likewise, asking a bunch of nonlawyers on an online message board about some basic garden-variety legal issue–for example, some common landlord-tenant issue, or a small-claims dispute–is probably not too risky. But the thread in GQ that prompted this thread in the Pit was about antitrust litigation, a highly complex, statute-specific, and thorny area of the law. And while “there is a decent possibility of getting useful advice,” there are always a few well-meaning but less-than-fully-informed members eager to prove the adage that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and when those members start guessing then the nonlawyer asking the advice has no way of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

I agree that “this sort of thing could lead to disaster,” but I disagree that “the same is true about questions about any sensitive issue.” Bad medical or legal advice can have much more serious consequences than bad answers in most other, more academic areas. There are good reasons why every jurisdiction in the United States (and every other nation that I know of) requires a license for practicing law or medicine. And there are good reasons why practicing law (or medicine) without a license is a crime. Sure, sometimes you can do it and get by without hurting anyone. But eventually somebody will shoot an eye out, and then we’ll all be sorry.