[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula That seems like a really exagerrated and apocalyptic example to me. 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 can easily think of some very realistic examples of the problems raised by providing legal advice on a forum like this.

For example, this thread is about an employment issue. What if I gave the original poster advice that, based on his situation, it seems like he has a case. (Note: this is a hypothetical.) So he sues his employer, and it turns out that the employer is a client of my firm. That would create a conflict of interest and there are ethical rules against conflicts of interest that are taken very seriously by state disciplinary boards.

As another example, what if I say that it doesn't sound like he has a case, and as a result, he decides not to pursue the cause of action further. But in fact, there are critical facts that I do not know and did not find out, and he does have a case. In fact, assume that two years later, a similarly situated co-worker is successful on an identical suit, but the person to whom I gave "simple" advice is now barred by the statute of limitations from pursuing his claim.

I am reasonably comfortable discussing the law generally in a forum like this, with appropriate disclaimers, but I am not at all comfortable giving legal advice about any specific legal problem.

 

[Jahn]

See? Febs said the same thing as my doctor-tumor analogy!

Oh forget it- I stink at analogies.

 

[Genetic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn See? Febs said the same thing as my doctor-tumor analogy! Oh forget it- I stink at analogies.

Yes but I have the tumor on the phone and it want to sue you...

From an health law non lawyer, non academic, and so on.....

Amicalement

 

[Blitzula]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs I can easily think of some very realistic examples of the problems raised by providing legal advice on a forum like this. For example, this thread is about an employment issue. What if I gave the original poster advice that, based on his situation, it seems like he has a case. (Note: this is a hypothetical.) So he sues his employer, and it turns out that the employer is a client of my firm. That would create a conflict of interest and there are ethical rules against conflicts of interest that are taken very seriously by state disciplinary boards. As another example, what if I say that it doesn't sound like he has a case, and as a result, he decides not to pursue the cause of action further. But in fact, there are critical facts that I do not know and did not find out, and he does have a case. In fact, assume that two years later, a similarly situated co-worker is successful on an identical suit, but the person to whom I gave "simple" advice is now barred by the statute of limitations from pursuing his claim. I am reasonably comfortable discussing the law generally in a forum like this, with appropriate disclaimers, but I am not at all comfortable giving legal advice about any specific legal problem.

I'm not disputing that it can be a problem to give an overview of the law or some limited thoughts, I'm disputing the concept that it's categorically wrong. I think some of the lawyers and Jahn are making this too complex.

All this hypothetical talk is just that, hypothetical (and in my opinion, with some generous logic assumptions). I could point some of the hypothetical flaws in your examples, but that's just more theory.

Let's deal with some real life practicalities, shall we? If someone could link to some examples of where lawyers ran into problems because of online postings, I'd be very interested and that would be more useful. I'll bet you examples found where posters got into trouble are egregious errors, not simple things like giving an overview of the law and the general things that could be considered.

I think this whole issue is much ado about nothing, given some professional common sense.

 

[Jahn]

Bah, that's why I'll never hang up my own shingle - for the fear of getting sued by cancerous masses

 

[Genetic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula Let's deal with some real life practicalities, shall we?

Yes indeed like regular people realy willing to help others in a specific case and in doing so flirting with the illegal practice of law....

Amicalement

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula Let's deal with some real life practicalities, shall we? If someone could link to some examples of where lawyers ran into problems because of online postings, I'd be very interested and that would be more useful. I'll bet you examples found where posters got into trouble are egregious errors, not simple things like giving an overview of the law and the general things that could be considered. I think this whole issue is much ado about nothing, given some professional common sense.

I think it is unlikely that you will find examples, but I, too, would be interested. But I think your proposed analysis starts at the wrong end. I'll pm you my non-legal reasoning.

 

[acs236]

Your example simply illustrates the danger of foolishly relying on advice that you shouldn't rely on and/or presenting basic advice as ultimate truth.

Replace the lawyer in your example with an auto mechanic. Suppose I ask a mechanic on an online forum: "Whenever I hit my break kind of hard the breaks slip a bit and the car jerks. It still stops fine, what's wrong?" And the mechanic tells me "Oh, that's probably just the break pads wearing in -- I wouldn't worry about." The next week I hit my breaks, they fail, and smash my car. Is the online mechanic liable? Probably not. What if he said "It's definitely the break pads wearing in. It will fix itself." Probably still not.

But the difference is that lawyers are regulated by law in a way that I assume mechanics are not. However, I don't think it's to the extent that some people seem to believe. And if it is, I don't think it should be.

Anyone getting advice on a online forum should know he can't rely (to the extent of being able to hold the advice-giver liable) on the advice. The best practice for the advice giver is to say: "You really should see your mechanic/lawyer/doctor/insurance agent/banker/etc., before doing anything." But I think lawyers do a disservice to the profession by refusing to participate informally in forums, chat rooms, etc. They may do because they legitimately feel ints unethical or are very risk averse, but I'd think society would be better off if lawyers spoke up more often in these situations than less, notwithstanding the many disasterous examples we could concoct.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs I can easily think of some very realistic examples of the problems raised by providing legal advice on a forum like this. For example, this thread is about an employment issue. What if I gave the original poster advice that, based on his situation, it seems like he has a case. (Note: this is a hypothetical.) So he sues his employer, and it turns out that the employer is a client of my firm. That would create a conflict of interest and there are ethical rules against conflicts of interest that are taken very seriously by state disciplinary boards. As another example, what if I say that it doesn't sound like he has a case, and as a result, he decides not to pursue the cause of action further. But in fact, there are critical facts that I do not know and did not find out, and he does have a case. In fact, assume that two years later, a similarly situated co-worker is successful on an identical suit, but the person to whom I gave "simple" advice is now barred by the statute of limitations from pursuing his claim. I am reasonably comfortable discussing the law generally in a forum like this, with appropriate disclaimers, but I am not at all comfortable giving legal advice about any specific legal problem.

 

[Genetic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acs236 But I think lawyers do a disservice to the profession by refusing to participate informally in forums, chat rooms, etc.

Seconded

Amicalement

PS

c. B-1, r.1
Code of ethics of advocates
An Act respecting the Barreau du Québec
(R.S.Q., c. B-1, s. 15)
Professional Code
(R.S.Q., c. C-26)

2.10. The advocate must promote educational and information measures pertinent to the field in which he practises.
R.R.Q., 1981, c. B-1, r. 1, s. 2.10.

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genetic Seconded Amicalement PS c. B-1, r.1 Code of ethics of advocates An Act respecting the Barreau du Québec (R.S.Q., c. B-1, s. 15) Professional Code (R.S.Q., c. C-26) 2.10. The advocate must promote educational and information measures pertinent to the field in which he practises. R.R.Q., 1981, c. B-1, r. 1, s. 2.10.

Model Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 2-5:

"A lawyer who writes or speaks for the purpose of educating members of the public to recognize their legal problems should carefully refrain from giving or appearing to give a general solution applicable to all apparently similar individual problems, since slight changes in fact situations may require a material variance in the applicable advice; otherwise, the public may be misled and misadvised. Talks and writings by lawyers for laymen should caution them not to attempt to solve individual problems upon the basis of the information contained therein."

 

[Jahn]

Darn it! No one likes my poor doctor analogy! What's up with the mechanic analogy, and now you're bringing out the big guns - REAL LAWYER LANGUAGE! Noooo!

 

[acs236]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn Darn it! No one likes my poor doctor analogy! What's up with the mechanic analogy, and now you're bringing out the big guns - REAL LAWYER LANGUAGE! Noooo!

I should be shot.

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acs236 I should be shot.

I'll come to your hospital bed after chasing your ambulance and try to represent you.

 

[Genetic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey Model Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 2-5: "A lawyer who writes or speaks for the purpose of educating members of the public to recognize their legal problems should carefully refrain from giving or appearing to give a general solution applicable to all apparently similar individual problems, since slight changes in fact situations may require a material variance in the applicable advice; otherwise, the public may be misled and misadvised. Talks and writings by lawyers for laymen should caution them not to attempt to solve individual problems upon the basis of the information contained therein."

Are you «tonguing» me? LOL...your input is clearly not opposing mine. In fact it should be obvious even for the laymen among us.

Amicalement