# Ianal-but Here's My Legal Advice; Legal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 4, 2006, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ianal-but-heres-my-legal-advice-legal/347046 "2006-03-04T15:14:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ianal-but-heres-my-legal-advice-legal/347046/1 "2006-03-04T15:14:22Z")
I think that I can give legal advice all day long, and as long as I stay out of the court system, and don’t make any charge for my services, I am not breaking any laws, in re: practicing law w/o a license. Am I correct? thanks, hh ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ianal-but-heres-my-legal-advice-legal/347046/2 "2006-03-04T15:41:31Z")
If you’re not holding yourself out as being qualified to give such advice, yes. The main problem with amateur legal advice is acting on it, rather than giving it. If you do something based on amateur advice and it turns out to be wrong, you’re SOL. If you do something based on incorrect professional advice (given to you under a valid retainer), you can sue the lawyer who gave it. This is why real lawyers will never give out detailed advice on-line; it’s possible that a court would decide that, by giving a “client” specific advice about a case, they accepted a retainer and opened themeselves to liability. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ianal-but-heres-my-legal-advice-legal/347046/3 "2006-03-04T16:20:58Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > If you’re not holding yourself out as being qualified to give such advice, yes. > > The main problem with amateur legal advice is acting on it, rather than giving it. If you do something based on amateur advice and it turns out to be wrong, you’re SOL. If you do something based on incorrect professional advice (given to you under a valid retainer), you can sue the lawyer who gave it. This is why real lawyers will never give out detailed advice on-line; it’s possible that a court would decide that, by giving a “client” specific advice about a case, they accepted a retainer and opened themeselves to liability. Ah, but I DO hold myself as qualified, and expert in all affairs legal, metaphysical and moral. Have I now broken any laws, under the parameters that I gave? thanks, hh ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ianal-but-heres-my-legal-advice-legal/347046/4 "2006-03-04T16:26:26Z")
Looks like you could be in trouble in South Carolina, at least, and probably in other states if they follow the same guidelines as they probably do. [http://www.scbar.org/public/upl/default.asp](http://www.scbar.org/public/upl/default.asp) > [@](#): > > What is considered the “practice of law”? > The practice of law is more than just appearing in court on behalf of a client. Though no concise definition of practice of law exists, certain characteristics make it more likely that the Court will view certain conduct as the practice of law. An early South Carolina case, cited by other jurisdictions as well, stated that the practice of law includes “the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and in general all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law. ”In re Duncan, 65 S.E. 210 (S.C. 1909).The practice of law “extends to activities in other fields which entail specialized legal knowledge. ”South Carolina v. Buyers Serv. Co., 357 S.E.2d 15 (S.C. 1987). > > Additionally, whether an individual is paid for his or her services is irrelevant. The reasons for prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law are not to protect licensed attorneys from losing business to unlicensed individuals. Rather, the purpose is to protect the public from consequences resulting “from the erroneous preparation of legal documents or the inaccurate legal advice given by persons untrained in the law. ”South Carolina v. McLauren, 563 S.E.2d 346 (S.C. 2002). Also check the court decisions quoted on that page. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2006, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ianal-but-heres-my-legal-advice-legal/347046/5 "2006-03-04T16:46:56Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > Ah, but I DO hold myself as qualified, and expert in all affairs legal, metaphysical and moral. > Have I now broken any laws, under the parameters that I gave? > thanks, > hh In what state have you done so? Each state’s unauthorized practice of law statutes vary. In California, for example, UPL is a misdemeanor. Your next question ought to be, “what is the practice of law?” I.e., does one who holds himself out to be qualified in the law but not a lawyer, and who has no economic interest in the advice he gives, engage in UPL? In California, perhaps, yes. > [@](#): > > As early as 1922, before the passage of the modern State Bar Act, the Supreme Court adopted the definition of “practice of law” used in an Indiana case: “`[A]s the term is generally understood, the practice of the law is the doing and performing services in a court of justice in any matter depending therein throughout its various stages and in conformity with the adopted rules of procedure. **But in a larger sense it includes legal advice and counsel** and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured **although such matter may or may not be depending in a court**.’” (People v. Merchants Protective Corp. (1922) 189 Cal. 531, 535 [209 P. 358], quoting Eley v. Miller (1893) 7 Ind. App. 529 [34 N.E. 836, 837].) \*[Baron v. City of Los Angeles\*](http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/cal3d/2/535.html#A0827), 2 Cal. 3d 535, 542 (1970) (other citations omitted, emphasis added). So the answer is “it depends” – on your jurisdiction, and on what, specifically, you’ve done. The above, of course, is not legal advice. Nor am I your lawyer. You should not rely on the above, but should instead consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction if you have questions about whether your conduct is, in fact, legal or illegal. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ianal-but-heres-my-legal-advice-legal/347046/6 "2006-03-07T18:21:02Z")
Every lawyer knows that “It depends” is one of the greatest, most useful, least-provably-wrong things you can ever say when asked for your legal advice. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ianal-but-heres-my-legal-advice-legal/347046/7 "2006-03-07T18:44:47Z")
> [@Elendil's Heir](#): > > Every lawyer knows that “It depends” is one of the greatest, most useful, least-provably-wrong things you can ever say when asked for your legal advice. 😉 It is also often the correct answer. 😃 [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/2002/02/01/sinrod.htm:](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/2002/02/01/sinrod.htm:) > [@](#): > > The Board acknowledged that Palmer’s Web site “offers a type of general advice on legal matters.” Still, the Board found that “his comments are little different from what can be found in any number of publications found on newsstands every day.” > > Most importantly, the Board found that “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.” Indeed, “the practice of law involves the rendering of legal advice to an individual.” Apparently, you’d be ok in Ohio as long as you didn’t give individualized legal advice. The court said that the proprietor of the website, [amoralethics.com](http://amoralethics.com) could give general legal advice, but “if the contents of [amoralethics.com](http://amoralethics.com), and other web-sites like it, stray into the delivery of legal advice so specific and individualized that readers could be misled to their detriment into substituting that advice for sound counseling by a qualified attorney, this state and others may have no choice but to intervene.” _Id._ ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ianal-but-heres-my-legal-advice-legal/347046/8 "2006-03-07T20:30:40Z")
Let me just say that I would be very disappointed if Hunter S. Thompson’s Samoan companion were ever to have been sanctioned by the ABA for his statements like, “As your lawyer, I advise you to have another drink.” Carry on.