Just Blue
Senior Member
I forget Lee...Are you an attorney?
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Difficult Heir
- Thread starter CharlieW
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
Well, allow me to try and satisfy your curiosity.
One particular problem created by a user of the forum asking legal questions on behalf of someone else has to do with the questionable accuracy of the data presented which is by nature second or third hand.
Also the inability of the user to respond to questions from a contributor. And the debatable ability of the third party to comprehend and accurately convey the information sought.
____________
BUT that doesn't appear to be a problem with this thread as it seems that the officious hubby "Charlie" has taken complete charge of something he has no business of being in charge!
And the only advice Charlie needs is that he keep his meddlesome, layperson's nose out of it and let the attorney for the estate call the shots.
Furthermore, I fail to see why a thread that is written entirely in first person with the use of the plural pronouns "WE", "US", "OUR" and his singular "I" and "I'M" and "I'LL" a TOTAL OF 24 BLOODY TIMES should be prompting your question!
______________________
Now perhaps you can clear up an oddity by explaining what motivated you to chose to appear in here under the first and middle name of the abominable assassin of the nation's 35th President. Personally, I find its use scandalously appalling.
You counted???
Go light a sparkler or something...you seriously have way too much time on your hands!
LeeHarveyBlotto
Senior Member
That it offends pompous blowhards with large sticks inserted into a particular cavity is reason enough.
tranquility
Senior Member
Let's face it, even an attorney is practicing without a license if they answer in any state they do not practice in. The only one I believe an attorney who adheres to this is Cavemanlawyer who does not seem to post outside of Texas criminal issues. Still, even though I believe her an attorney who does Texas criminal law as her practice, because of this being over the internet, I think she could be in violation of ethical rules with her answers. (Even though they are the best answers in the forum. From a practicing attorney in the state and area and all that. Still, there are time I argue. Go figure.)
"Practicing law" is a fuzzy thing at best. If you tell your buddy, while you are in shotgun, they are driving too fast (as they are going 50 in a 30 zone); are you practicing law? In many respects, yes. You criminal, you.
I came here many years ago, not with an answer, but a question.
On the doorstep of my house, my (then) wife was being questioned by a police officer about something and I told her she did not have to answer. She stopped talking.
Was I guilty of interfering with an officer in the performance of his duties?
You may answer as you will, but was I practicing law without a license?
"Practicing law" is a fuzzy thing at best. If you tell your buddy, while you are in shotgun, they are driving too fast (as they are going 50 in a 30 zone); are you practicing law? In many respects, yes. You criminal, you.
I came here many years ago, not with an answer, but a question.
On the doorstep of my house, my (then) wife was being questioned by a police officer about something and I told her she did not have to answer. She stopped talking.
Was I guilty of interfering with an officer in the performance of his duties?
You may answer as you will, but was I practicing law without a license?
quincy
Senior Member
This is incorrect, tranquility.
Almost every state Bar has issued an Ethics Opinion on this, as has the American Bar Association (an ABA link and one state Bar link for you to read are provided below).
The common conclusion (with some variations on the theme) is that an attorney can provide legal information and general answers in response to legal questions asked on real-time or interactive social sites on the internet without violating any professional rules of conduct or ethical codes (even if the question comes from a different state than the one where the attorney is licensed).
Where an attorney needs to be careful is with advertising and in soliciting clients, and in ensuring that the person whose question is being answered understands that no attorney-client relationship has been formed. On a public forum, the latter may not be too difficult. And the Terms and Conditions of this site and the Disclaimers posted on every page also help with both the former and the latter - although online disclaimers alone are generally insufficient to protect users, but this has always been the case with any sort of disclaimer.
In addition, most who respond here do so anonymously and most do not identify themselves as attorneys, even if they are. It is hard to form an attorney-client relationship when both parties remain anonymous.
American Bar Association:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/services/ethicsearch/ethicstipofthemonthaugust2013.html
South Carolina Bar Association (which speaks of several states/click on 12-03):
http://www.scbar.org/MemberResources/EthicsAdvisoryOpinions/OpinionsList/smid/1237/opinion/12-03.aspx
Last edited:
LeeHarveyBlotto
Senior Member
My issues tend to be with laymen giving (mostly) correct advice on the law itself, while not understanding that knowledge of the law is only a part of the practice of law. For example, a poster that I would readily acknowledge knows their stuff in one area of the law makes statements like "you have no case, you don't need a lawyer". These statements are not equivalent, and unless the person is a member of the bar in any state, is completely unqualified to make the second part of that statement. I wish the moderators would take posters to task when they make such incorrect statements.
tranquility
Senior Member
This is rather a mistatement of the ethics rules. Compare and contrast the money quote:This is incorrect, tranquility.
Almost every state Bar has issued an Ethics Opinion on this, as has the American Bar Association (an ABA link and one state Bar link for you to read are provided below).
The common conclusion (with some variations on the theme) is that an attorney can provide legal information and general answers in response to legal questions asked on real-time or interactive social sites on the internet without violating any professional rules of conduct or ethical codes (even if the question comes from a different state than the one where the attorney is licensed).
Where an attorney needs to be careful is with advertising and in soliciting clients, and in ensuring that the person whose question is being answered understands that no attorney-client relationship has been formed. On a public forum, the latter may not be too difficult. And the Terms and Conditions of this site and the Disclaimers posted on every page also help with both the former and the latter - although online disclaimers alone are generally insufficient to protect users, but this has always been the case with any sort of disclaimer.
In addition, most who respond here do so anonymously and most do not identify themselves as attorneys, even if they are. It is hard to form an attorney-client relationship when both parties remain anonymous.
American Bar Association:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/services/ethicsearch/ethicstipofthemonthaugust2013.html
South Carolina Bar Association (which speaks of several states/click on 12-03):
http://www.scbar.org/MemberResources/EthicsAdvisoryOpinions/OpinionsList/smid/1237/opinion/12-03.aspx
With a specific ending of:
But, practicing law without a license applies to everyone similarly if the person is not licensed in the state, attorney or no.
quincy
Senior Member
That is not the "money quote," tranquility. Please do not take quotes out of context to prove whatever point it is you are trying to make.
Do you seriously believe that "Caveman Lawyer" has formed an attorney-client relationship with "Mr.UserNamefromIdaho" if he answers a question on this forum, whether the question is from someone in Texas or otherwise? You think Mr.UserNamefromIdaho's belief that an attorney/client relationship has been formed with an anonymous poster on an internet forum would be a reasonable belief?
tranquility
Senior Member
I claim you were incorrect in how you characterized the cited sources and pulled out quotes from the main section to show why. Coming to a general conclusion based upon your legal reading of the law and ethical issues and are applying the specific facts of this forum that answering questions is not practicing law or is not an ethical violation is problematical.
commentator
Senior Member
LeeHarvey, if you are talking to me about the "you have no case, you do not need a lawyer" (which I have frequently told people concerning unemployment questions) then you can go whistle.
When people are not dealing with a court of law but with an agency, and they are dealing with a situation which is set up to be completely user friendly and in which people do not ordinarily need an attorney, or in cases where they have have not been accused of, say for example, fraud or any sort of legal misconduct, and they do not need an attorney to deal with the agency, and it will not help them to have and pay for an attorney to deal with said agency, I feel quite comfortable with telling them this. I have years of experience dealing with the inner workings of these agencies.
I have had many dealings with attorneys and people who were going to law school to become attorneys, and I know of no point at which they are given some secret knowledge about every aspect of every social program in the country that no layman could possibly posses!
Of course if they want to run my advice past an attorney, they are certainly free to do this. I hate to see people who don't have much disposable income do this when it really won't help them. And I am a big believer in getting an attorney for all sorts of issues when one is really needed. I am not a fan of self-representation in any sort of court action.
But I came here primarily because during the years that I dealt with certain agencies and issues, I was so frequently amazed and appalled at the terrible misinformation that people were receiving about the programs I was so familiar with on the internet. After I retired, I looked at a couple of sites, and found people busy misinforming people about this "grey area" legal issue, and could not resist putting in some genuine experience based advice.
I am not an attorney, and have never claimed to give legal counsel, just to speak to my own personal areas of expertise. I think most people who've come on this site that I have worked with have found that my advice isn't faulty. Telling someone they do not need a lawyer when they do not isn't bad advice.
In employment issues particularly, people tend to labor under the delusion that they have a great many rights and legal protections that they do not have. They come here and ask, and there's absolutely no sense in us sending them to an attorney to be told exactly what we know quite enough to tell them, that there has been no law broken, they have no case and they will not be able to sue their former employer, their co worker, or the person who didn't hire them, etc.
When people are not dealing with a court of law but with an agency, and they are dealing with a situation which is set up to be completely user friendly and in which people do not ordinarily need an attorney, or in cases where they have have not been accused of, say for example, fraud or any sort of legal misconduct, and they do not need an attorney to deal with the agency, and it will not help them to have and pay for an attorney to deal with said agency, I feel quite comfortable with telling them this. I have years of experience dealing with the inner workings of these agencies.
I have had many dealings with attorneys and people who were going to law school to become attorneys, and I know of no point at which they are given some secret knowledge about every aspect of every social program in the country that no layman could possibly posses!
Of course if they want to run my advice past an attorney, they are certainly free to do this. I hate to see people who don't have much disposable income do this when it really won't help them. And I am a big believer in getting an attorney for all sorts of issues when one is really needed. I am not a fan of self-representation in any sort of court action.
But I came here primarily because during the years that I dealt with certain agencies and issues, I was so frequently amazed and appalled at the terrible misinformation that people were receiving about the programs I was so familiar with on the internet. After I retired, I looked at a couple of sites, and found people busy misinforming people about this "grey area" legal issue, and could not resist putting in some genuine experience based advice.
I am not an attorney, and have never claimed to give legal counsel, just to speak to my own personal areas of expertise. I think most people who've come on this site that I have worked with have found that my advice isn't faulty. Telling someone they do not need a lawyer when they do not isn't bad advice.
In employment issues particularly, people tend to labor under the delusion that they have a great many rights and legal protections that they do not have. They come here and ask, and there's absolutely no sense in us sending them to an attorney to be told exactly what we know quite enough to tell them, that there has been no law broken, they have no case and they will not be able to sue their former employer, their co worker, or the person who didn't hire them, etc.
Last edited:
quincy
Senior Member
What is problematic is what I have quoted above from your earlier post, tranquility.
It shows a misunderstanding of the code of ethics under which attorneys operate, and your subsequent posts indicate you have not understood the opinions I linked to (and the difference between a site like Just Answer where attorneys are identified by name and are paid for their answers, and the FreeAdvice forum where members are anonymous, attorney and non-attorney alike). Please re-read the links.
LeeHarveyBlotto
Senior Member
Yet in a decent number of such cases, an attorney could quite possibly negotiate a settlement, regardless of the fact that should the case go to its conclusion in a court of law, the company would almost without doubt prevail. Happens every day.
The real world isn't a mock trial competition where one side wins and the other loses. The truth is some amount of money changes hands in such disputes quite often. This is why "you have no case" and "you don't need a lawyer" are often not the same, not even close. Sometimes it is, but when it isn't, those giving that advice is doing a disservice to the OP.
BTW, I wasn't thinking about you. You're correct of course that remedies outside the legal system were designed to handle many disputes between parties and should be (or often must be) utilized first.
tranquility
Senior Member
[snippy answer replaced]
You misunderstand my capability to understand opinions I have taken courses on understanding.
Last edited:
quincy
Senior Member
Interesting. Your answer is the same as mine (including the "snippy answer replaced" part).
Last edited:
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">