[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula I don't why advise couldn't be proferred on simple legal issues. If someone isn't savvy enough to see that such advise isn't perfect or an ideal substitute for speaking to a lawyer in person, that's really their issue. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

This just isn't how it works in the real world.

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acs236 I don't think there is a problem with a lawyer giving his or her opinion online in the right context. I mean, there are radio shows of lawyers giving legal advice to callers. When I respond to any question on here, I'm not giving legal advice, but rather simply stating my opinion at a very basic level. I'm not forming an attorney-client relationship. Given that, I have a hard time believing that there is an issue here.

I urge you to reconsider.

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acs236 When I respond to any question on here, I'm not giving legal advice, but rather simply stating my opinion at a very basic level. I'm not forming an attorney-client relationship. Given that, I have a hard time believing that there is an issue here.

I agree, we can always give our opinions as non-lawyers! Like when I tell someone that I think he should get a Grado for Rock, or his/her spouse sounds like a piece of work, or the Steelers are going all the way - that's not a lawyer response, hehe. My responses after he spelled out his complaint were totally not with my "lawyer hat" on - even a "layman" can tell there's no real issue here imho.

Edit- oops, forgot to quote the radio show part. Just so you know, those guys have their arse covered by the radio station for the half arsed advice they put out, so they feel a bit emboldened "putting it out there." But even those guys can get disbarred if they say something really silly, even if the radio show settles out of court. I would advise against actually wearing a lawyer hat out here and sharing legal opinions. And if you do and you get in trouble, I'll suggest you get a lawyer to help you out, like I did in my first post in this thread. =p

Edit edit - finally, this is completely different from Pundits who are lawyers commenting about the Michael Jackson case or some such thing on Court TV. Those guys are sharing legal opinions in general to the public - that's very different from an actual client posting on a board asking if a lawyer could help him with his case.

 

[amir_j]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn Actually, it's going to be no use reapplying - you're going to come up against the same people, aren't you? If you aren't happy with it, I think it's time to walk away instead of trying to beat your head against a wall here - it sounds like you're only going to end up miserable there if you start employment with them anyhow.

The job needs specialised skills. I've applied purely to embarras them further as they had no plan B. ( stated the extra things ive learnt in those 4 days or so

)- don`t particularly care bout getting it- though wouldn`t mind.

For what I was bringing to the job they took the mick and thought I would be pressured into accepting- were shocked when didn`t.

I trained the guy who did the job now (different area we used to cover then re-structured so handed tasks over).

The current guy leaves in 1 week, takes at least 4-6 weeks to train someone up- Ive advised my management that I will not be giving any training or support full stop.(not in my job role)

Only my colleague and me know the job inside out and and could hit the ground running- I designed 4 of the main reports we do myself!

Whoever takes over apart from us will need to go on training courses which will cost £5000 as week long course run by the external software company - so madness to try to rip me off.

Had off the record talks with senior management in my area who agree bang out of order to point to things not asked for in advert and try to pull a fast one- the money was signed off to pay the salary but still they tried to economise.

 

[Jahn]

Hold on, now it sounds like you work for this company NOW and this was a lateral position. Is this right? It doesn't change any advice, but adds a piece - you can talk to your internal controls, as suggested in my first post.

 

[amir_j]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amir_j within same company im at now.

as stated earlier.

been to see our internal compliance person but f'in never in!!

Plus often better to let it be- anyone read "The Caine Mutiny"

- demonstrates the point about workers v management well.

 

[acs236]

I feel like I'm thread crapping. Sorry about that.

Jahn, I wouldn't ever consider wearing a lawyer hat online, but I think that is a matter of communication. If we're clear that we're not giving legal advice or intending others to reply on it, I think we're okay.

Whenver I feel like I'm getting anywhere NEAR giving legal advice, I always like to state explicitly that I am not and sometimes even give some of the reasons expressed in this thread (e.g., not licensed to practice in your state). However, I do think we can talk about the law, about our view of the law, about potentially relevant things to think about with an issue, without crossing the line and giving legal advice.

I think, and would be intested in your opinions on this, that the issue is whether the person we're talking with could reasonably believe that we are acting as his/her attorney or giving them legal advice. And if we're careful to say that we're not, and explain that we're only giving our opinion, then ethical issues are avoided.

Otherwise, couldn't non-lawyers discussing legal issues online be the unauthorized practice of law?

Here is a DC Bar opinion on a similar issue. I think it even has links to others. http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/eth...opinion316.cfm

TheMonkey -- if there are specific issues here, please let me know.

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acs236 I feel like I'm thread crapping. Sorry about that. Jahn, I wouldn't ever consider wearing a lawyer hat online, but I think that is a matter of communication. If we're clear that we're not giving legal advice or intending others to reply on it, I think we're okay. Whenver I feel like I'm getting anywhere NEAR giving legal advice, I always like to state explicitly that I am not and sometimes even give some of the reasons expressed in this thread (e.g., not licensed to practice in your state). However, I do think we can talk about the law, about our view of the law, about potentially relevant things to think about with an issue, without crossing the line and giving legal advice. I think, and would be intested in your opinions on this, that the issue is whether the person we're talking with could reasonably believe that we are acting as his/her attorney or giving them legal advice. And if we're careful to say that we're not, and explain that we're only giving our opinion, then ethical issues are avoided. Otherwise, couldn't non-lawyers discussing legal issues online be the unauthorized practice of law? Here is a DC Bar opinion on a similar issue. I think it even has links to others. http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/eth...opinion316.cfm TheMonkey -- if there are specific issues here, please let me know.

Actually we're on the exact same page hehe! That's the approach I use here too. My followup edit was actually addressing the radio part, which might have been a bit off topic, but a topic I enjoyed discussing nevertheless - sorry about the thread crap!

 

[Blitzula]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey This just isn't how it works in the real world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey I urge you to reconsider.

Neither of these posts elaborate with any reasoning.

I think ACS236 has nicely summed up why I found it hard to believe that lawyers were violating an ethical code by posting their thoughts on an online message board.

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acs236 TheMonkey -- if there are specific issues here, please let me know.

Lol, sorry for the continued thread crap: the DC op is interesting. However, it also serves to illustrate that you could be covered in DC while simultaneously violating State X's ethics rules. Also, as the DC op hints, once the online attorney has specific facts in his possession, the danger of giving legal "advice" increases. However, I think I can agree with the basic premise that sharing legal information or viewpoints not tailored to a particular set of facts is permissible. There is another problem here in addition to the formation of an A/C relationship and that is the duty to existing clients. Who knows who the OP's employer is, but it would be problematic to be in a situation where a post could be construed as legal advice adverse to an existing client. With a large employer, this situation is not unlikely.
[/end boring blather]

 

[AlanY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula Neither of these posts elaborate with any reasoning.

Blitzula, I agree with the thrust of your reasoning, actually, but on a certain level this is beyond reason. I grew up in a family of lawyers and you have to understand the lawyer mindset: everyone's out to get you, potential liability is everywhere, be cautious, cautious, cautious, even when that caution goes beyond common sense. Part of that comes from the nature of the law -- it is often counter-intuitive, especially with regards to who is liable for a given tort -- and part of it comes from their own experience with clients and other lawyers -- both are often borderline sociopathic in behavior at times (often the result of greed or competition), and you have to be careful. A big part of it comes from the nature of the profession itself, which thrives on shadowboxing with imaginary/perceived risks and liabilities.

In reality, the chances of getting sued for giving someone advice on a public forum are probably infinitesimal. But the lawyer mindset sees "risk!!", regardless of the actual real risk.

 

[Blitzula]

Oh sure, I understand where you're coming from. I can see a lawyer not wanting to open up even the smallest amount of risk.

 

[The Monkey]

The point about risk of liability has some merit of course, but you are overlooking the fact that there are ethical rules that govern an attorney's behavior when giving anything that can reasonably be construed as legal advice. An attorney could face disciplinary proceedings as a result of violating a rule of professional conduct. Of course, the chances of this are slim, but to the risk-averse, no chance is better than slim chance.

 

[acs236]

These concerns about a lawyer getting in trouble are, in fact, often justified. It's unbelievable how easy it is to get accused of violating a rule or malpractice. An unhappy adversary can often file a complaint against an attorney and say whatever he wants without any repurcussions if his accusations are baseless.

That being said, I like the idea of making basic legal information more available to the public. Consulting a lawyer can be expensive, and I suspect it is not uncommon for people with valid issues not to consult an attorney because they don't want to bother or pay. On the flip side, I think some attorneys have trouble turning away a client who they believe does not have a good case when the client walks into their office and wants to sue. Better availability of legal information can potentially help both of these issues.

I think the public in general should have as much access too free legal information as possible. After all, these are laws that they are obligated to follow. I question whether we are erring on the correct side by restricting, to the extent we actually are, the about of legal information and advice available informally online.

 

[cpw]

If they have really redesigned the position only so they can hire you on the cheap and they have discussed the move as such, I doubt that would be looked upon favorably in a lawsuit situation. I'm not saying you have grounds for a lawsuit however.
I'd consider going to the HR dept and making your position known.
It might just be saying, "Here's what this looks like..."
If they feel they've done something that's legally questionable, that may be enough to make them think twice about their strategy. On the other hand, if they don't receive any applicants that meet their job descrip requirements, it's their option to withdraw the listing and create a new position which they have a better chance of filling. This is just my opinion and it's not a qualified one.
I am not a lawyer!
CPW