what if you did act like my lawyer?

[The_Great_Philosopher]

@brianmelendez

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.

I find that very hard to believe.

[brianmelendez]

@The_Great_Philosopher

I find that very hard to believe.

Here is the statute from my jurisdiction, Minnesota. Most states have a comparable statute. I lived in Florida in the 1970s and remember a woman from my area being prosecuted for giving advice about divorces and wills and the like, even though she very clearly told her customers that she was not a lawyer.

[Northern_Piper]

@YogSosoth

I think you guys who are lawyers should take a chance Better to try and fail to help someone than not try at all.

Without knowing all of the facts of a person’s case, offering legal advice is not likely to be of much help, and if followed, could actually harm that person’s legal position. That’s why it’s drilled into us in all the legal profession classes that we don’t give legal advice unless we’re sure that we have the full picture.

@YogSosoth

Seriously, I can’t imagine a BAR of any state with a stick so far up its ass that it’ll do more than verbally reprimand a lawyer for giving out advice on a message board.

In my jurisdiction, to get to a verbal reprimand, you’ve already been hauled up in front of a discipline investigation committee and possibly an ethics committee and a discipline adjudication committee of the Law Society. The fact of a verbal reprimand is published to the courts and to all lawyers practising law in the jurisdiction, which affects your reputation. Accepting a verbal reprimand stays on your file at the Law Society forever, and could affect your future career. And, you normally have to pay the investigation costs of the Law Society in investigating the complaint against you, which can run into the thousands of dollars.

So no, I won’t be leaping over any tall buildings in the near future in breach of my professional obligations.

@YogSosoth

And though some might say this is unethical, if the question is “Who else have you discussed this case with?”, why bother telling them about the Dope? How’s the other lawyer going to find out, magic? Telepathy?

Making a false statement to the Law Society about a discipline investigation is a very serious offence and could get the lawyer in more trouble than the original complaint. Richard Nixon had it right about the cover-up killing you…

And, do you know how many accuseds start out with the idea “How’s anyone going to ever find out?” It’s usually followed by a conversation with their defence lawyer that begins: “I still can’t figure out how they discovered it!”

[astro]

@Northern_Piper

Astro, I think stoid’s threads on her legal dispute with her ex would meet your test.

Doh! I said even sven and & meant stoid. Now stoid’s case s bit different, IIRC she was not looking for run of the mill “layman advice” so much a consultation with a fellow legal professional, although she was worried that most of you might be a little too obtuse to appreciate the intricacies of her multi-layered arguments.

[YogSothoth]

@Northern_Piper

Without knowing all of the facts of a person’s case, offering legal advice is not likely to be of much help, and if followed, could actually harm that person’s legal position. That’s why it’s drilled into us in all the legal profession classes that we don’t give legal advice unless we’re sure that we have the full picture.

I understand the issue, but wouldn’t that be a case of “their problem”? For example, people hold back information all the time, in matters of law, medicine, or crime. If professionals base their answers on the information they know, I don’t understand why they’d be liable or feel ethically responsible. This person asked for help based on a set of information and help was given. If he didn’t want to mention something else, that’s his fault

@Northern_Piper

In my jurisdiction, to get to a verbal reprimand, you’ve already been hauled up in front of a discipline investigation committee and possibly an ethics committee and a discipline adjudication committee of the Law Society. The fact of a verbal reprimand is published to the courts and to all lawyers practising law in the jurisdiction, which affects your reputation. Accepting a verbal reprimand stays on your file at the Law Society forever, and could affect your future career. And, you normally have to pay the investigation costs of the Law Society in investigating the complaint against you, which can run into the thousands of dollars.

Then my question would be, I can’t believe a state BAR would haul someone up in front of an investigation for something they said in a message board. Didn’t some mom trick a girl into committing suicide through Myspace? Lori Drew was aquitted for that! I seriously doubt that any lawyer would get in trouble offering free help on a message board. I think you’re all a litle paranoid honestly

@Northern_Piper

Making a false statement to the Law Society about a discipline investigation is a very serious offence and could get the lawyer in more trouble than the original complaint. Richard Nixon had it right about the cover-up killing you…

And, do you know how many accuseds start out with the idea “How’s anyone going to ever find out?” It’s usually followed by a conversation with their defence lawyer that begins: “I still can’t figure out how they discovered it!”

Ok, don’t lie about that. But really, message boards?

[Northern_Piper]

@YogSosoth

@Northern Piper

Without knowing all of the facts of a person’s case, offering legal advice is not likely to be of much help, and if followed, could actually harm that person’s legal position. That’s why it’s drilled into us in all the legal profession classes that we don’t give legal advice unless we’re sure that we have the full picture.

I understand the issue, but wouldn’t that be a case of “their problem”? For example, people hold back information all the time, in matters of law, medicine, or crime. If professionals base their answers on the information they know, I don’t understand why they’d be liable or feel ethically responsible.

It’s because experience has shown that a person with a legal problem may not understand or appreciate which facts are relevant to the legal issue. So, before giving legal advice, we are required to do our best to make sure we have all the relevant facts. If we don’t do so, we are in breach of our professional obligations, opening ourselves up to a potential malpractice suit and / or professional discipline. And, if I get a feel that a client is not being forthright with me, my obligation is that I don’t give legal advice. If I were to do so even if I thought the client was holding something back, I’d be in breach of my obligations, because I’d be giving legal advice knowing (or strongly suspecting) that I didn’t have the full picture.

So no, it’s not just “his problem”. Failing to gather enough information before giving legal advice would be my problem, if I did it.

And this is not just related to internet issues. It’s not the medium which is relevant, but the actual exchange of information, however that occurred. I’m bound by the same professional obligations, whether I’m talking to the client in my office, or by video-link around the world, or at a cocktail party, or on a message board. The medium doesn’t change my professional obligations.

[md2000]

@brianmelendez

Here is the statute from my jurisdiction, Minnesota. Most states have a comparable statute. I lived in Florida in the 1970s and remember a woman from my area being prosecuted for giving advice about divorces and wills and the like, even though she very clearly told her customers that she was not a lawyer.

IANAL but… “Customers”? Once you start taking money for anything close to including legal advice - why would you NOT expect to be prosecuted for practicing law without a license?

I guess the problem is that - especially in the USA, thanks to lawyers - anyone can sue anyone over anything. They may not have a case, they may not win, but they can sue… One of the points I have often heard is that in Canada, if you sue and lose you generally stand a very big chance of paying the other side’s legal bills; whereas in the USA, groups like the RIAA rely on the fact that they can extort by threatening to run up your legal bills, then walk away with impunity if they don’t like how the case goes. I assume this is also why many groups like insurance companies tend to offer a moderate settlement amount even if they could win the case on it merits.

I assume it’s even more trivial for someone to file a complaint with a law society, baseless or not…

So the whole discussion thread here is based on the rare but real chance that trying to be a nice guy and a lawyer at the same time can turn out to be dangerous to your wallet and career.

After all, so many doctors are sued over what is essentially not a medical mistake, only because either the relatives see an opportunity to lash out, or to recoup some of the medical costs from someone else… Why should lawyers escape that trap?

[Stoid]

@Northern_Piper

Not that I recommend re-reading these train wrecks in any detail, although they do have the notable statement by Bricker which still makes me giggle:

Which was indeed notable, in that it was an excellent representation of attorney paranoia, because it was based on absolutely nothing except Bricker’s presumptions: I was the defendant, I never sued anyone, although my second attorney never stopped telling me I should sue my first attorney. He wasn’t telling me that because he was volunteering to represent me in such a suit, he made it clear he wouldn’t, he just believed I had an excellent case for doing so. But I declined, because I wasn’t interested in creating more legal nightmares to act out some pointless vindictiveness, especially against someone who was trying to help me, however poorly they did so in the end.

And it’s because lawyers think like that that getting advice from them is so difficult, both in terms of Bricker’s assumptions and presumptions, and my second lawyer’s encouraging my filing such a suit. That’s what they do, after all.