43 ms·

General advice for legal questions: it's fine to ask these sorts of questions, but please, for the love of god, don't listen to anyone who isn't a lawyer or who

by liber8 14y ago

General advice for legal questions: it's fine to ask these sorts of questions, but please, for the love of god, don't listen to anyone who isn't a lawyer or who hasn't gone through something very similar to what you're going through. And, even in those cases, take their advice with a HUGE grain of salt. (If you disagree, please see below, where OP is variously advised to (1) commit unlicensed practice of law [serious repercussions], (2) commit fraud, (3) waste money, and (4) likely destroy his own case.) As a lawyer (who doesn't have anywhere near enough facts to give you anything close to competent advice), my advice is to find a lawyer to represent you. If you can't afford one, try the EFF or similar organizations. If they won't take you, find a legal clinic nearby. If you're in the bay area, you have have two of the best lawschools in the country within bicycling distance of you (UC Hastings isn't half bad either...). They have legal clinics, generally led by highly respected and knowledgeable faculty that are happy to have cases like this. Unless you really don't want to fight this, go get a lawyer who knows what he's doing. If you don't want to spend a lot of energy, possibly a lot of time, and likely some money, just roll over now. But, don't half-ass it and try to do this yourself. By blowing at least two deadlines, you've already shown you're not up for it.

jsprinkles 14y ago
I wish your comment was the only one, frankly, and we could really use a "you are not a lawyer, stop pretending to be one" guideline. Edit: I've made a "Ask PG" to ask for just that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055661 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055661
- nirvana 14y ago
  The idea that only lawyers can know anything about the law, and therefore nobody else can suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly elitist. Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects. You're being down voted because you are lying about what I said and attacking me for the "crime" of trying to suggest areas of investigation for this guy... who's primary problem is that he has been UNABLE to get a lawyer. So, yeah, shame on me for trying to help him get a lawyer. I won't sleep tonight.
  - jsprinkles 14y ago
    > Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects. Technical subjects do not carry the risk of legal consequences in the general case, now do they?
    - guelo 14y ago
      Sure they do, you can make technical decisions that ruin a company and that causes lawsuits (as many business deaths seem to). You can make technical decisions that get you sued for copyright, patent stuff, privacy violations, indecency laws, on and on. We all make legal decisions every day without having to consult a lawyer all the time.
      - jsprinkles 14y ago
        You skipped right over where I said "in the general case," as I am certainly aware that there are exceptions as you are pointing out. Specific legal advice is almost universally dangerous. Specific technical discussion is almost universally not.
  - ricefield 14y ago
    > Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects. Programming and law are two completely different fields, each with its own sets of requirements, regulations, practice, and repercussions. Please don't try to make them out to be the same.
    - marshray 14y ago
      It's called an "analogy". He didn't try to make them out to be the same. Personally, I feel it's an apt comparison and one that has occurred to me too many times. The fact that each field has its "own set of requirements, regulations, practice, and repercussions" is obvious to everyone. Perhaps a better way to respond to such an analogy is to explain how the similarities and differences make his analogy valid or invalid. That could be interesting and informative.
Aaronontheweb 14y ago
This is the second time in two days I've seen really great advice from a lawyer on HN. I would really like a way to a do virtual "ask a lawyer" office hours on HN. Edit: even better - do a virtual legal clinic.
nickler 14y ago
One of my lawyers put her job description quite succinctly, and it fits particularly well here. 'Lawyers are better defined as Risk Assessment. Our expertise is required so that we can give a client our best assessment of the risk entailed in any course of action the client chooses' Think about the myriad of actions you could take here...wouldn't it be wise to have an idea of where the risk lies? Get a lawyer stat.
tlogan 14y ago
I agree that it is smart to say "get a lawyer" in this situation. It does seem very hairy. But now something off topic... I noticed that these kind of answers ("get a lawyer") are used also to answer question even when people are just curious or they just want to learn something. It is nearly impossible to learn what needs to be read or investigated in order to evaluate the situation. For example, I don't need a lawyer for small claims court but where to get some advise? In other words, even the most common sense questions regarding law, health, taxes, etc are answered with "get a lawyer, see a doctor, get tax advisor, get accountant, etc". It does seems that market of legal, health, tax, and similar professionals is due to a disruption. Is there a cheap lawyer service? Something like not visiting doctor but just visiting nurse.
- cube13 14y ago
  The problem really is that all three of those fields(law, taxes, and health) are highly personal. To get to the right answer in most non-trivial situations, a lot more personal information is required. Because of that, while anecdotes are very helpful in making a person feel better about their situation, they might not be the right information that the person needs. It's better to consult with experts who should be able to assist with the specific situation.
- newbusox 14y ago
  The issue with law is that laws are dissimilar from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, in meaningful enough ways that giving advice based on the laws for one jurisdiction might be entirely useless in another. Moreover, even I were to live in that jurisdiction, unless I am intimately familiar with the aspect of law questioned about (which is highly unlikely, even extremely experienced attorneys do legal research), I will have to spend time researching. If I spend time researching, I expect to be paid, generally because the tools used to research are not, themselves, free, like Westlaw or LexisNexis. Moreover, I generally get paid to research to begin with so, in not doing paid research for other clients, I am potentially losing money I might otherwise be making. Not to say that lawyers can never give good legal advice to legal questions without researching--but the paradigm that I just described is a big reason why people, including lawyers, answer legal questions with "hire a lawyer."

by liber8 14y ago

jsprinkles 14y ago

I wish your comment was the only one, frankly, and we could really use a "you are not a lawyer, stop pretending to be one" guideline. Edit: I've made a "Ask PG" to ask for just that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055661 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055661

nirvana 14y ago
The idea that only lawyers can know anything about the law, and therefore nobody else can suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly elitist. Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects. You're being down voted because you are lying about what I said and attacking me for the "crime" of trying to suggest areas of investigation for this guy... who's primary problem is that he has been UNABLE to get a lawyer. So, yeah, shame on me for trying to help him get a lawyer. I won't sleep tonight.
- jsprinkles 14y ago
  > Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects. Technical subjects do not carry the risk of legal consequences in the general case, now do they?
  - guelo 14y ago
    Sure they do, you can make technical decisions that ruin a company and that causes lawsuits (as many business deaths seem to). You can make technical decisions that get you sued for copyright, patent stuff, privacy violations, indecency laws, on and on. We all make legal decisions every day without having to consult a lawyer all the time.
    - jsprinkles 14y ago
      You skipped right over where I said "in the general case," as I am certainly aware that there are exceptions as you are pointing out. Specific legal advice is almost universally dangerous. Specific technical discussion is almost universally not.
- ricefield 14y ago
  > Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects. Programming and law are two completely different fields, each with its own sets of requirements, regulations, practice, and repercussions. Please don't try to make them out to be the same.
  - marshray 14y ago
    It's called an "analogy". He didn't try to make them out to be the same. Personally, I feel it's an apt comparison and one that has occurred to me too many times. The fact that each field has its "own set of requirements, regulations, practice, and repercussions" is obvious to everyone. Perhaps a better way to respond to such an analogy is to explain how the similarities and differences make his analogy valid or invalid. That could be interesting and informative.

Aaronontheweb 14y ago

This is the second time in two days I've seen really great advice from a lawyer on HN. I would really like a way to a do virtual "ask a lawyer" office hours on HN. Edit: even better - do a virtual legal clinic.

nickler 14y ago

One of my lawyers put her job description quite succinctly, and it fits particularly well here. 'Lawyers are better defined as Risk Assessment. Our expertise is required so that we can give a client our best assessment of the risk entailed in any course of action the client chooses' Think about the myriad of actions you could take here...wouldn't it be wise to have an idea of where the risk lies? Get a lawyer stat.

tlogan 14y ago

I agree that it is smart to say "get a lawyer" in this situation. It does seem very hairy. But now something off topic... I noticed that these kind of answers ("get a lawyer") are used also to answer question even when people are just curious or they just want to learn something. It is nearly impossible to learn what needs to be read or investigated in order to evaluate the situation. For example, I don't need a lawyer for small claims court but where to get some advise? In other words, even the most common sense questions regarding law, health, taxes, etc are answered with "get a lawyer, see a doctor, get tax advisor, get accountant, etc". It does seems that market of legal, health, tax, and similar professionals is due to a disruption. Is there a cheap lawyer service? Something like not visiting doctor but just visiting nurse.

cube13 14y ago
The problem really is that all three of those fields(law, taxes, and health) are highly personal. To get to the right answer in most non-trivial situations, a lot more personal information is required. Because of that, while anecdotes are very helpful in making a person feel better about their situation, they might not be the right information that the person needs. It's better to consult with experts who should be able to assist with the specific situation.
newbusox 14y ago
The issue with law is that laws are dissimilar from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, in meaningful enough ways that giving advice based on the laws for one jurisdiction might be entirely useless in another. Moreover, even I were to live in that jurisdiction, unless I am intimately familiar with the aspect of law questioned about (which is highly unlikely, even extremely experienced attorneys do legal research), I will have to spend time researching. If I spend time researching, I expect to be paid, generally because the tools used to research are not, themselves, free, like Westlaw or LexisNexis. Moreover, I generally get paid to research to begin with so, in not doing paid research for other clients, I am potentially losing money I might otherwise be making. Not to say that lawyers can never give good legal advice to legal questions without researching--but the paradigm that I just described is a big reason why people, including lawyers, answer legal questions with "hire a lawyer."