# Lawyers giving legal advice on call-in radio shows **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 3, 2009, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-giving-legal-advice-on-call-in-radio-shows/479676 "2009-01-03T04:53:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-giving-legal-advice-on-call-in-radio-shows/479676/21 "2009-01-05T15:03:24Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > I tell you what – if I were a judge, and I were to hear “on a messageboard” from the plaintiff’s mouth in a suit regarding legal malpracctice … I think I’d be inclined to summarily throw the case out. I’d be completely uninterested in any facts about the case at all. > > “On a messageboard”, “on the radio”, “on TV”, “conversation at a bar”, “shooting the breeze at the neighbor’s babrbecue”, etc. should all be ironclad and unassailable defenses against the charge of “initiating an attorney/client relationship”. But of course, they aren’t. :smack: But you can’t just have a black and white rule like that - it depends on the context, as always. Suppose a poster starts a thread asking about inheritance issues. I respond. It becomes clear that the poster isn’t asking a general question, but is asking about his own legal rights in a particular case. The more detailed factual explanations the poster gives, the more detailed my answers become, down to citing statutes and case law, and suggesting possible lines of inquiry he can try, or types of filings that he could make in the relevant probate court. That might well constitute a solicitor-client relationship, triggering my professional obligations. The fact that it happened on a message-board doesn’t take it outside the principles of my code of professional obligations. What’s important is what the two parties did, and the reasonable interpretation to put on their interaction. The medium used is simply one factor to take into account in that assessment. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-giving-legal-advice-on-call-in-radio-shows/479676/22 "2009-01-05T17:19:17Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > But you can’t just have a black and white rule like that - it depends on the context, as always. Understood – I’m only thinking wishfully. I just believe that an attorney-client relationship shoudln’t be something that can be entered into accidentally … any more than one can enter into marriage accidentally, or adopt a child accidentally. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-giving-legal-advice-on-call-in-radio-shows/479676/23 "2009-01-05T17:47:51Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > I tell you what – if I were a judge, and I were to hear “on a messageboard” from the plaintiff’s mouth in a suit regarding legal malpracctice … I think I’d be inclined to summarily throw the case out. I’d be completely uninterested in any facts about the case at all. And I think that if you were to ask actual judges you’d get approximately zero responses like this. > [@bordelond](#): > > Understood – I’m only thinking wishfully. I just believe that an attorney-client relationship shoudln’t be something that can be entered into accidentally … any more than one can enter into marriage accidentally, or adopt a child accidentally. There is a key difference between these situations and the one at issue. Here you have a (1) person seeking advice regarding consequential matters (2) from a person who seems to have the expertise to dispense such advice. It’s a consumer protection issue. The person giving the advice is in possession of all kinds of information that the person seeking advice does not have, including the question of how good the advice is likely to be. It’s incumbent upon the advice-giver, especially in a profession subject to standards of practice, to ensure that there are no misunderstandings. The same is true of health care professionals, financial advisers, and the like. It’s the person with the greater knowledge who is liable. If you simply want to avoid liabiliy, it’s incumbent upon you not to say anything that might be construed as advice. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-giving-legal-advice-on-call-in-radio-shows/479676/24 "2009-01-05T19:54:18Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > it’s pompous (Protect these morons from themselves) and invites form over function, and distrust of the profession. I’ll have you know, I was this pompous before I went to law school. > [@](#): > > Further, there is real value in getting more accurate information about our legal system to the public. There are some crazy urban-legend-type theories about the law out there, and it’s good to be able to counter them. Absolutely true, but it’s a collective action problem. I’m not going to hang my ass over the edge to educate someone when society at large isn’t willing to pay my costs of litigation when it backfires. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-giving-legal-advice-on-call-in-radio-shows/479676/25 "2009-01-05T20:01:58Z")
> [@ENugent](#): > > we have to assume that we’re dealing with that stubby-ended crayon that got wedged down in the bottom of the box and then melted in the back of the car. And given the way threads requesting legal advice tend to go by about post 10 or so, this actually seems a very safe assumption. > [@bordelond](#): > > “On a messageboard”, “on the radio”, “on TV”, “conversation at a bar”, “shooting the breeze at the neighbor’s babrbecue”, etc. should all be ironclad and unassailable defenses against the charge of “initiating an attorney/client relationship” No, they shouldn’t. I appreciate the impulse, but there’s a reason I can form a att’y/client relationship at a barbecue, and the reason is that if I’m careless, I can ruin a dude’s life by giving him five minutes of shitty advice at a barbecue. As **ascenray** says, the guy asking for the advice isn’t in a position to evaluate it. So he could rely on what appears to be thoughtful advice from what appears to be a sage and deliberate thinker in possession of the required knowledge. And if doing so ends up costing him, then it’s legitimate that I pay for putting him on that trail. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-giving-legal-advice-on-call-in-radio-shows/479676/26 "2009-01-05T22:05:18Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > Absolutely true, but it’s a collective action problem. I’m not going to hang my ass over the edge to educate someone when society at large isn’t willing to pay my costs of litigation when it backfires. Agreed. It’s a societal and professional problem, at least partly caused by the profession itself. I’m not a big fan of bright line rules unless they are appropriate; the idea of “it’s on the internet so it can’t be legal advice” isn’t a good one. The problem, as I see it, is that if we tailor communications to the least common denominator, we lessen the quality and quantity of discourse in society. However, it is still more than reasonable to lessen your own personal risk, and a disclaimer is one way to do so, and better than not participating at all. The funny thing is that a lot of the people who bitch about lawyers being lawsuit happy often seem to be the same ones that feel that someone else must be at fault and hire those same lawyers. I suspect there is some confirmation bias there. This isn’t really GQ territory, but I believe the OP’s question has been adequately answered. – I am not a malpractice lawyer, nor am I YOUR lawyer, nor am I, by this communication, forming a relationship with you. However, if you have been injured on the job by paper cuts, have patented the internet, or were the recipient of legal advice on the internet that you felt wasn’t fair, then call our law offices today to get the money YOU deserve! If you have received this post in error, please forget that you have read it, but remember this disclaimer. This post does not represent the views of anyone you know, will know, have known, or any other gamatical from of knowing, including past participle, and is confidential information that you must be authorized to view. By reading this post, you (hence “Reader”) agree to waive all rights to any television movie adaptations of this post. Further, Reader agrees that all toilet paper, paper towels, or other similar roll dispensed products (“RDP”) shall be installed in the "over the top " manner. Violation of proper RDP procedures or reading this post too seriously are strictly prohibited. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyers-giving-legal-advice-on-call-in-radio-shows/479676.md?page=1)