Please Stop Giving "Legal Advice"

The BBQ Pit
1

I will not refer to a particular thread as that would be pointing the finger at an individual who is only part of the problem…

I have made no bones about it–I’m a lawyer. Please commence bashing now :slight_smile:

As we all know there are some threads that are essentially requesting legal advice. We get some IANAL responses, and those are fine…unless they start quoting complicated statutes and determining the meaning behind them. However, sometimes we lawyers or even law school students decide to chime in with a disclaimer and then expound on what they believe the law to be.

Believe it or not, some people with little or no legal training respect and believe our opinions reagrding legal issues. Sometimes people believe that we have some expert knowledge on legal issues. Therefore, let’s try not to expound on legal matters that we have little experience with. And for you students, unless you know the real-life practical answer to a legal question, just stop. You’ll note that I say “we” as I have been guilty of this before though, I think, not on this board.

I’m not saying that you should be an expert on something before you discuss it, just don’t guess or harken back to law school or quote damn statutes unless you know how they work in the real world. Stating you DO know what would happen in the state you are licensed in is OK as long as you mention what state and that your state’s law could be VERY different than theirs… Let’s face it, there are rules against this stuff and sometimes folks skirt the edges…

For instance: I am licensed in 2 states and my run-of-the-mill cases are personal injury, medical malpractice, some federal employment law and recently defamation and malicious prosecution.

I know the some of the law in the 2 states I practice in and I am familar with some of their “quirks.” I am very familiar with the type of law that I practice and feel comfortable dispensing advice in those areas–and some related areas. But, if you asked me about oil and gas law or property law of any sort I would be VERY unqualified to discuss these issues desite the fact that I took classes on these types of law.

So, if you ask me about wills or a mortgage or mineral rights, I can’t answer because I have no idea…in fact, a layperson would probably have a better idea about this stuff due to actual experience.

BTW, I skirt this issue with medical stuff as I need to have a basic knowledge to do med mal and I sometimes talk about medical issues I have only a working knowledge of…I’m going to try to be more careful in the future.

As for Minty this is certainly NOT for you. I never did get to try to argue your “defamation” arguement re damages for my MSJ–we settled :frowning:

2

That thread title should be “giving” had to repost due to gerbil lunchtime and did it in a hurry :slight_smile:

3

After further research, I’ve decided to name someone.

Pravnik, STOP.

Many of your posts are law related. Fine, bany on about Con-Law but just fucking stop throwing out rules like you know what you are talking about!

I know you’re studying for the bar, I’ve looked at your posts. It seems that you now think you are a LEGAL WHIZ. Bar-Bri or PMBR or whatever the fuck you are reading DOES NOT make you competant to expound on legal issues. It gives you rules and excpetions such that you can pass the bar, not so you will be an expert on every legal subject. Trust me, actual practical application of the law is not what those authors had in mind. In fact, having had to take the Texas bar after practicing in another jurisdiction was pretty hard as I had to suspend all the “what would happen in real life” answers so I could pass.

You may be a brilliant law school student. You may end up being a great lawyer. But, you are not licensed ANYWHERE right now, and when you say things like [paraphrasing]I am not a lawyer yet but here’s my opinion…[/paraphrasing] you are giving the impression that everything you say is accurate.

Rules are great, but try practicing for a bit…do you think that because you are not licensed yet that there are no limitations on what “legal” information you dispense?

4

I kind of thought the same thing, glad a lawyer said it. The law is complicated enough without a million “opinions” coming in.

5

Hrm.

Well, I’m an attorney as well and I’m not sure I feel the same way. I don’t think I’ve given out any kind of legal advice on this forum because of liability issues. If I have (my memory is poor), I’d wager that I qualified it quite a bit.

I don’t really see the harm of a non-lawyer offering up some nuggets of information. My sister is a PharmD and knows quite a bit about FDA laws regarding New Drug Applications (NDA). She could definitely offer some advice to me on that. And sometimes, people have a fair amount of legal information because of their experiences. I can appreciate that.

I do, however, think that people who ask for specific legal advice are best off going to an attorney in their area (both geographically and in law) to best answer their questions - and they should take responses here on the board - lawyer or not - with a grain of salt.

Tibs.

6

Would it be wrong of me to say I think this thread should be part of “About This Message Board” (unless something like this is in there already)? I think people should be aware enough not to treat what they read on message boards as gospel, but I think we all know how good people are at thinking for themselves. A little reminder might not hurt.

7

Well, we’ll just have to see what the court of appeals says about that defamation question then, won’t we? :wink: (Actually, it’s only a minor point, and I kind of doubt they’ll address it at all.)

I understand your frustration, Jeanie, but I would say that I haven’t really seen very much legal “advice” on the Boards, especially not from the resident attorneys. If a lawyer responds to a direct request for legal advice around here, it is usually to advise the poster to consult with a competent attorney in the poster’s jurisdiction. You might also see some general advice about preserving evidence, getting the names of witnesses, etc., but that’s about it. When it comes down to the nitty gritty of an individual’s actual or potential litigation, the interpretation of a contract, or the enforcement of a child custody order, the professionals stay away from anything that could be construed as a legal opinion.

Case in point: There was a GQ thread some time ago (may have been lost in the crash) in which a poster was asking about his buddy the army deserter, who was hiding out in Germany. The poster wanted to know whether the buddy was going to be extradited, prosecuted, etc., so he could tell his friend. :eek: A few laypersons chimed in with questions, thoughts, etc., on an issue where it was obviously crucial that the guy get serious, personal, professional legal advice. As soon as I saw the thread, I posted that message and emailed the GQ mods, and Jill was kind enough to shut it right down. It’s truly frightening that somebody could even think of requesting anonymous legal advice in a situation as serious as that.

Now, the preceding observations are definitely to be distinguished from generalized legal pontificatin’, which is all over the place in GD and fairly common in GQ. If it’s something about Bush v. Gore, or the First Amendment, or tort reform, or the equity of child support, there’s no reason why a lawyer shouldn’t opine to her heart’s content. We’re entitled to our opinions too. Plus, most of us know a heck of a lot about how the law works, and we can often offer fairly definitive answers to the questions posed. If the law says X, it harms nobody to inform readers of that fact. The only difficulty is when somebody wants you to apply X to their own, real-life case, which simply cannot be done with any professionalism without first doing a heck of a lot more factual inquiry than is possible on a message board. Even the Greatest Message Board Ever.

As to Pravnik, I’ve not come across the guy yet. Do you have any examples?

Anyway, I hope that makes sense. And now, back to my regularly-scheduled Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request for X, Y, and Z.

8

Tib

I have no problem with non-lawyers throwing ideas out there, I tried to make that clear–experienced laypersons win out over lawyers with no experience in that area…

My problem is with people who are lawyers or who have some degree of legal training who expound on something they are not familiar with. The fact that they are not a layperson can make them appear more knowledgeable about that subject when they may not be…they may be just spouting a rule they recall from school.

feather I agree that you shouldn’t take what you read on the boards as gospel; however, if someone has legal training and they are discussing the law, as a layperson, I would more likely than not believe that he/she knows what he/she is talking about… And now that I’ve drug Pravnik into this, I think it belongs in the pit…

9

Let me try this…

Here is a good example of ** pravnik ** throwing out rules to a legal question

Guess it might work on the bar exam :rolleyes:

10

That’s a close one, Jeanie. No pending or threatened litigation on the matter, but an OP who seemed to genuinely need legal advice on a personal matter, where the proper answer very much depends on the applicable state law, the facts of the case, etc. On the other hand, he stated that he was only speaking in general rules, and there wasn’t anything that struck me as immediately wrong about his post. Still, greater restraint in such matters is probably appropriate. One would hate to have real people relying on a general rule and then get screwed on an exception.

11

Legal advice, like medical advice, should only be taken with a “grain of salt” when it comes to the Internet. When it comes down to it, how do we really know you are indeed a lawyer? You could be a law student or layperson yourself, because we have absolutely no way of checking your credentials. For all you know, I could be a Supreme Court Judge (which I am not, not even an attorney).

Do you honestly think someone from SDMB is going to enter a courtroom and honestly tell a judge that he received legal information from “minty green” or “BottledBlondeJeanie” and insist the judge rely on that information?

BottledBlondeJeanie you did a rather piss-poor job of defending your position in either this post or the previous post regarding confidentiality between a therapist and client. You have failed to justify that Prav is indeed wrong. Your only argument seems to be that you are a big bad lawyer practicing medical malpractice cases, and he/she is a lowly student. Are we to take your word over his just because you claim to be an attorney?

If Prav is indeed wrong, we would appreciate some facts relating to why he is wrong, and he should be given the opportunity to give his facts in kind. Isn’t that what our legal system is about anyway? How else do you expect students to learn if they are not corrected in their misinformation with correct facts?

I think Prav did an excellent job explaining at the beginning of the post that he was only a student, and stated he wasn’t to be a substitute for a licensed attorney in the OP’s state. However he did not provide any relevant facts either, just his opinions.

12

Rainbow

There something called the unauthorized practice of law–not saying that prav did it–it’s a close call, but why come close? Get licensed and discuss something you understand the real-life implications of. As a lawyer, reading his posts, it becomes clear that there is NO PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE behind the rules. As such, get some, then talk…

Prav not only quoted a rule in that case, but he interpreted it, too saying the physician/patient relationship is

Really? How? What states? It’s pretty damned tough to beat in the states whose laws I am familiar with unless you put your physical/mental health at issue… In fact, there’s all sorts of fun state and federal laws designed to protect patient medical records if there’s not a lawsuit…the ramifications of breaking these laws are daunting.

Then he says:

That is patently untrue! While there is no federal privilege, in cases where state law controls and if the state has such laws (most of them do) then there is a privilege recognized by the federal courts.

Oh, and because I put a disclaimer “I am not responsible for killing my boss” and then kill my boss does not mean I am safe from prosecution… pretty words, little meaning given what comes after it…

13

Well, I think it’s sort of a gray area (and ain’t the law often that way?).

I think that what many lawyers fail to remember is that many non-lawyers do not understand that in America, 50 states = 50 different legal systems (plus the Federal system, plus courts of limited jurisdiction, etc. etc.). They think they can just ask “what’s the maximum penalty for assault with a deadly weapon?” and someone will say “25 years” and that’s just The Answer – here, there, everywhere. But there are few absolute Answers in the law, and a layperson cannot IMO be told too often that (1) this may not be the law in your jurisdiction; and (2) this should not take the place of legal advice from an actual lawyer in your jurisdiction.

That said, I think the refusal to answer general legal questions based on the fact that the details may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction leads people to conclude that lawyers won’t tell laypeople what the law is (even generally), without making the people pay for it. They (laypeople) think this is a “lawyers helping lawyers” racket and a concerted effort to keep Joe Citizen from understanding the law.

So I think there has to be some middle ground. I don’t think the law is some totemic thing that only the legally educated ought to understand or approach. On the other hand, I think lay people need to understand that it is extremely unlikely that anyone can give them a single answer that will be right in every jurisdiction, under any set of facts.

And I must say, given this philosophy, I think PRAVNIK’s post in the thread linked to is okay. He or she identifies him/herself as not a lawyer and rightly notes that the law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and correctly notes that generally there is no Federal physician-patient privilege. If I would quibble with the post, it would be only because it doesn’t really say anything, not because what it says is wrong. It doesn’t tell AMP what PPP is, but merely notes that it may or may not exist in his/her state. I’m not sure how helpful that is, even as an informational matter, but it’s not IMO a bad thing.

I agree that lay people should not assay WAGs about legal issues without clearly indicating their opinion is a WAG only. I further agree that lawyers should never assay WAGs on legal issues – if the best you can do is a Wild Ass Guess, shut up. But I think that attorneys who can defend their legal opinions should feel free to post them, regardless of the jurisdiction in which they practice and so long as the reader understands that the law varies by jurisdiction and so that opinion is not The Answer.

I occasionally answer legal questions here. I try to be careful to limit my explanations to general legal principles and, when I’m discussing specific jurisdictional law, I always say where it’s from and explain that this may not be the law elsewhere. I see nothing wrong with that. But I identify myself as a lawyer and I absolutely refrain from answering questions by pulling a guess out of my ass, which I consider both irresponsible and professionally stupid.

14

Yeah, this is true. While there is no federally-recognized physician-patient privilege, Federal courts applying state laws (in diversity suits, for example) may well not only “recognize” but apply state-created physician-patient privilege. So one must be extremely careful is the explanations one gives, and this is a great example as to why: PRAV, attempting to make a point that is essentially correct (there is no federal privilege) phrased it in a way that is absolutely incorrect (federal courts don’t recognize such privilege).

So, yeah, I’m all for a “tread carefully” reminder.

15

Hee…there’s something formulating in my head about either suing for injunctive relief against Prav, or brining a class-action lawsuit against Jeanie on behalf of all SDMB law students and lawyers… :smiley:

16

Whoa, dude…don’t start throwing that around. You’re aware, I’m sure, that Our Hosts get very nervous when anyone says anything even remotely like “I’ll sue!”, even if they don’t really mean it. Please, please don’t do it, it’s one of the shorter roads to Bansville.

Anyway. Not being a lawyer just yet (taking the bar exam in July), I try my damnedest to stay the hell away from those threads on subjects I know little about, but then, that’s a good general rule anyway, for everyone. The only threads I pull out the “cite cases and statutes” guns for are gun-related threads and copyright threads. Those were my areas of greatest interest in school, and they’re the areas in which I’m currently desperately searching for a job (anyone? anyone?). I sure as hell don’t give specific advice about specific problems, that’s just asking for trouble.

Now, when someone asks, “Wasn’t there a case about…?”, I don’t see a problem with linking to the text of the case or providing a cite; keeps everyone informed, ya know?

17

BottleBlondJeanie said:

Tib

I have no problem with non-lawyers throwing ideas out there, I tried to make that clear–experienced laypersons win out over lawyers with no experience in that area…

My problem is with people who are lawyers or who have some degree of legal training who expound on something they are not familiar with. The fact that they are not a layperson can make them appear more knowledgeable about that subject when they may not be…they may be just spouting a rule they recall from school.

Well, I certainly do think that being a law clerk or an attorney in general often does give people the false impression that the individual knows more. I agree with you fully there, BottledBlondJeanie - it often creates a trusting relationship that may or may not be valid and one that should be reserved for attorneys and clients.

I read Prav’s post on the linked thread. There is one thing that popped out at me. I think Prav did an good job of pointing out that there was no attorney-client relationship and that none was to be created by the communication. That is good ethics. And so best of luck on the MPRE, Prav! :slight_smile:

However,…and this is in no way picking on you, Prav - it’s just my impression and something that I have probably done myself in the past…

The qualifying statements only covered Prav’s ass. Don’t get me wrong - attorneys, accountants, doctors…we all learn that from the get go. CYA. The only thing that made me flinch a little was that the qualifying statements only qualified Prav - not the information - and I see a difference here.

Prav said, “Hey, listen to me at your own risk…but here are the facts…” He didn’t say, “Hey, listen to me at your own risk because all the information I have may not be correct.” I may be splitting hairs here. Anyway - my point is that you can qualify yourself all you want but as a law student, most people will assume you know more than they do about the law. If you are more careful to also qualify your information, that would be helpful in reminding people that a qualified attorney in their area will best be able to give them current and accurate information.

So…(attorneys are so long winded, aren’t they?) - My only thoughts to Prav are: You probably have a good heart and wanted to help someone out by giving them more information on a topic they were curious about. That is a fantastic trait in a future attorney. Make sure you not only CYA but extend those qualifications to your information to really drive home the message that your information can not possibly substitute for an experienced and knowledgable attorney - not for your benefit but so that the individual asking for advice will fully understand how important this is.

The frustration felt by BBJ is probably pretty common of people who have been in a field for a long time and know details of a topic. They naturally flinch at someone who spreads general information. Thus the phrase: “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Law students, in particular, illustrate this quite well! :wink:

Tibs.

18

Max Texas Tech, hmmm are you interested in moving to Dallas or Austin? To me, copyright = intellectual property and there are some good firms with mucho mula in those cities.

I think there’s a BIG difference between lawyers spouting off
versus law students giving borderline advice. Law students are not allowed to give legal advice…they are UNLICENSED…they are ethically forbidden from offering advice whether it’s right or wrong although if it’s right there will be fewer chances of repercussions. Disclaimers be damned if you are actually giving out advice which is probably not be the case with Prav

Citing a case or a rule is fine–it’s not advice unless given as such…but when you start using your own interpretations or mislead someone with it especially in a circumstance where an individual is seeking help with a specific problem they have–not hypothetically–then you get really close to giving legal advice.

Yeah, I get frustrated sometimes when I see suppositions by lawyers and law students on these boards. It especially bothers me when I see a law student doing it as they think they know so damn much about the law when they are in school and then they hit the real world and they realize they know NOTHING. Law school isn’t anything like practicing law. I, too, was once in this boat.

** Res ** I hope you were doing nothing but joking as that’s an inflammatory remark. Cautioning you law student types isn’t meant to hurt you, rather remind you that YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER and even if you were it’s a good idea to speak about what you know…

Studying for the bar exam makes you alternate between thinking you are a legal god(dess) and an imbecile. Try to realize that your PMBR your BarBri, your Emanuels, your Gilberts, you Lewis and Davis outlines are FOR THE BAR ONLY, not for real-life.

Prav hope I wasn’t too hard on you, you’ll probably make a fine lawyer. And, my thoughts are with all of you who will become July victims of THE BAR…Remember, in Texas you can tank on the oil and gas and still pass (I did :slight_smile: )

19

I guess I don’t draw the distinction of law student versus lawyer, because I don’t think answering questions posted to an anonymous message board constitutes practicing law. And at least in my jurisdiction, unlicensed attorneys are not prohibited from giving legal advice; they are prohibited from practicing law. Sure those two things overlap, but they are not necessarily the same. Besides, a person who just took a course in, say, Federal Tax, undoubtedly knows a heck of a lot more about the subject than I do. Again, I do agree that all lawyers, paralegals, and near-lawyers should be extremely careful about giving specific advice, because it’s a difficult and professionally dangerous thing to do.

I would also suggest we cut people a bit of a break because almost everyone wants to show what they know or do, by confidently answering questions they think they know the answers to. And lawyers and law students new to the board tend to leap at the chance to do so (not surprisingly), without stopping to think about whether it’s actually a wise thing to do. They also tend not to realize (as PRAV did not) that lawyers are actually pretty thick on the ground around here, so the expert-sounding dead-confident answer you post had better be, in fact, as expert as it sounds. But the eagerness to post to show what you know – I think most of us are guilty of it and it’s IMO understandable. But a timely reminder as to why it should not be done is probably not amiss.

20

OK, kidding about the class action…I figured the big smiley should have been enough of a signal.

But back to the OP, exactly what is the logical limit of doling out advice? I can understand as a practical matter not giving legal advice in order to avoid liability or just steering someone in the wrong direction. BUT…we get a horde of questions on these boards from all kinds of disciplines, and honestly, I see the same kinds of flaws in those subjects as well.

Example: lots of theological questions pop up in GD. Can only priests, ministers, rabbis, and laypersons with theology degrees answer them? Do I get in trouble for citing a piece of scripture I know to be on point? How about giving medical advice, automotive, historical, etc.?

I guess my point is that I see a difference between someone parading out generalized knowledge as if they know everything, versus someone who might actually know what they’re talking about. For example, I know that the bulk of my law studies are an artificial, self-contained universe which is only a general survey of the state of the law across the country.

On the other hand, I’ve spent all semester writing a mammoth paper on assisted reproduction and the legal repercussions involved. I’ve completely lost track of the hours I’ve spent on this thing, but I do think I’ve got an excellent grip on the subject. Am I precluded from talking about that?

Second, I feel like there’s been some stereotyping going on. In writing a brief, I’d never cite to an Emanuel’s or Gilbert’s or anything of the sort. (I’ve got a year until the bar, so I haven’t even touched any BarBri stuff.) Again, I realize that the information they provide is very self-contained. But, I am presently working as a law clerk, as I did last summer, and I feel like I’ve been getting some of that real-world experience you’ve been talking about. Limited, yes, but more will come in time.

If I could reiterate some of Jodi’s points, I see the SDMB as a discussion forum. People ask questions, and other people answer with what they know, and people who are wrong get corrected. If Prav or myself or anyone else says something legally incorrect, then by all means correct us: it’s better for everyone in the long run.