5 ms·

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

by 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.
nostromo 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. It is elitist and shitty, but also true. It's not because lawyers are smarter than the rest of us. It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines.
- larrys 14y ago
  "It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines." Dealing with these situations does not just involve legal knowledge. It also involves strategy as well as some practical examples of what others have done in the same situation. Lawyers (with obvious exceptions) tend to be pretty weak on common sense strategies and tend to frame things totally based upon their legal knowledge and training. This can be a trap that prevents them from seeing a very obvious solution to a problem that a non-lawyer can come up with.
  - nostromo 14y ago
    Right. One example strategy a lawyer probably wouldn't come up with: shame the company on HN.
    - larrys 14y ago
      Lawyers being officers of the court have to act in ethical ways. And most importantly they have something to loose which is their law license. That's a powerful motivator to not take any chances. A layman on the other hand can engage in different types of manipulation that an attorney can't do even if they had the same idea.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    Lawyers (with obvious exceptions) tend to be pretty weak on common sense strategies and tend to frame things totally based upon their legal knowledge and training. OK, one data point is just an anecdote, but I saw a good example of a lawyer using some basic strategy a while back. I had a legal situation of my own, hired a lawyer and went to court with the lawyer. The situation wasn't settled the first day, so my lawyer looked at the court schedule, figured out that if we asked for a continuance we'd come back to court when a different judge was presiding, who he believed - based on his knowledge of the judge's personal life - would be more favorable to our position. We came back two weeks later, sat in front of the new judge, and the judge came down pretty clearly on our side, and the situation was resolved amicably. Had we tested our luck with a different judge, things might not have turned out so well (then again, maybe they would). But, anyway, is struck me as a fairly subtle, but effective technique. That said, I understand that - in general - the courts don't like it when lawyers try to "pick their judge" to YMMV.
detst 14y ago
Yeah, this is like using Wikipedia as a starting point in researching an unfamiliar topic. It might be poorly written and do more harm than good but likely you'll get enough from it to pursue further. "Don't trust stuff you read on forums", as PG said; use your head and maybe you'll find something worth pursuing.
ColinWright 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. My personal experience is that disclaimers such as you gave have very little legal standing, and that what you said can be regarded as legal advice, regardless of the "if"s, "but"s, "possibly"s, and "maybe"s that you so carefully sprinkled throughout. You certainly can share what you know about these things, but advice given to me in the past about similar situations is that by doing so you can be regarded by some as taking some of the responsibility for the advice you think you haven't given. The law is complicated, and while you may share what you know, doing so can put you personally at serious and considerable risk. Further, it doesn't always make sense to those who have not studied it (and sometimes even to those who have), so while what you have said may seem perfectly sensible, a lawyer may disagreed strongly with several of your suggestions, and following them may put the person you are trying to help in more trouble. So despite the fact that you are trying to help, and despite the apparent soundness of your advice, you are not a lawyer, and there are very likely to be implications of which you are unaware. I applaud your willingness to take on the personal risk of what you said, but I am concerned that you are not helping, and may be making things worse. Edited for clarity
- guelo 14y ago
  > you can be regarded by some as taking some of the responsibility for the advice you think you haven't given That sounds bogus to me, has anyone heard of any lawsuits of that type? That is, someone who is not a lawyer and is not presenting themselves as a lawyer being sued for giving bad legal advice?
  - ColinWright 14y ago
    > Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, > for you are crunchy, and taste good with > ketchup. I am passing on, almost verbatim, the advice I was given most strenuously. Included in that advice was the comment that not everything in legal circles passes the "That sounds right" test. Certainly in this case, no, I can't quote cases where this has happened. But, you know, like, I'm not a lawyer. There are things that happen in legal circles that I don't know about, but which I have been given legal advice about. So feel free to ignore it all and take a chance that you're right, and the advice given to me was misplaced. Heaven forbid that you should think I'm advising you.
guelo 14y ago
I agree. I have received plenty of awful advice from lawyers, especially when I only have a couple grand to spare, which this guy might not even want to spend considering it's a hobby. The idea that some cheap inexperienced lawyer is going to give better advice than HN which is full of experienced entrepreneurs with tons of business related legal experience is ridiculous.
malachismith 14y ago
And it's ridiculously elitist that only brain surgeons get to cut people's brains open. I mean come on! Is this a democracy or not?!?!

by nirvana 14y ago

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.

nostromo 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. It is elitist and shitty, but also true. It's not because lawyers are smarter than the rest of us. It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines.

larrys 14y ago
"It's because the legal code in the US is ridiculously complicated, vague, and fraught with landmines." Dealing with these situations does not just involve legal knowledge. It also involves strategy as well as some practical examples of what others have done in the same situation. Lawyers (with obvious exceptions) tend to be pretty weak on common sense strategies and tend to frame things totally based upon their legal knowledge and training. This can be a trap that prevents them from seeing a very obvious solution to a problem that a non-lawyer can come up with.
- nostromo 14y ago
  Right. One example strategy a lawyer probably wouldn't come up with: shame the company on HN.
  - larrys 14y ago
    Lawyers being officers of the court have to act in ethical ways. And most importantly they have something to loose which is their law license. That's a powerful motivator to not take any chances. A layman on the other hand can engage in different types of manipulation that an attorney can't do even if they had the same idea.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  Lawyers (with obvious exceptions) tend to be pretty weak on common sense strategies and tend to frame things totally based upon their legal knowledge and training. OK, one data point is just an anecdote, but I saw a good example of a lawyer using some basic strategy a while back. I had a legal situation of my own, hired a lawyer and went to court with the lawyer. The situation wasn't settled the first day, so my lawyer looked at the court schedule, figured out that if we asked for a continuance we'd come back to court when a different judge was presiding, who he believed - based on his knowledge of the judge's personal life - would be more favorable to our position. We came back two weeks later, sat in front of the new judge, and the judge came down pretty clearly on our side, and the situation was resolved amicably. Had we tested our luck with a different judge, things might not have turned out so well (then again, maybe they would). But, anyway, is struck me as a fairly subtle, but effective technique. That said, I understand that - in general - the courts don't like it when lawyers try to "pick their judge" to YMMV.

detst 14y ago

Yeah, this is like using Wikipedia as a starting point in researching an unfamiliar topic. It might be poorly written and do more harm than good but likely you'll get enough from it to pursue further. "Don't trust stuff you read on forums", as PG said; use your head and maybe you'll find something worth pursuing.

ColinWright 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. My personal experience is that disclaimers such as you gave have very little legal standing, and that what you said can be regarded as legal advice, regardless of the "if"s, "but"s, "possibly"s, and "maybe"s that you so carefully sprinkled throughout. You certainly can share what you know about these things, but advice given to me in the past about similar situations is that by doing so you can be regarded by some as taking some of the responsibility for the advice you think you haven't given. The law is complicated, and while you may share what you know, doing so can put you personally at serious and considerable risk. Further, it doesn't always make sense to those who have not studied it (and sometimes even to those who have), so while what you have said may seem perfectly sensible, a lawyer may disagreed strongly with several of your suggestions, and following them may put the person you are trying to help in more trouble. So despite the fact that you are trying to help, and despite the apparent soundness of your advice, you are not a lawyer, and there are very likely to be implications of which you are unaware. I applaud your willingness to take on the personal risk of what you said, but I am concerned that you are not helping, and may be making things worse. Edited for clarity

guelo 14y ago
> you can be regarded by some as taking some of the responsibility for the advice you think you haven't given That sounds bogus to me, has anyone heard of any lawsuits of that type? That is, someone who is not a lawyer and is not presenting themselves as a lawyer being sued for giving bad legal advice?
- ColinWright 14y ago
  > Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, > for you are crunchy, and taste good with > ketchup. I am passing on, almost verbatim, the advice I was given most strenuously. Included in that advice was the comment that not everything in legal circles passes the "That sounds right" test. Certainly in this case, no, I can't quote cases where this has happened. But, you know, like, I'm not a lawyer. There are things that happen in legal circles that I don't know about, but which I have been given legal advice about. So feel free to ignore it all and take a chance that you're right, and the advice given to me was misplaced. Heaven forbid that you should think I'm advising you.

guelo 14y ago

I agree. I have received plenty of awful advice from lawyers, especially when I only have a couple grand to spare, which this guy might not even want to spend considering it's a hobby. The idea that some cheap inexperienced lawyer is going to give better advice than HN which is full of experienced entrepreneurs with tons of business related legal experience is ridiculous.

malachismith 14y ago

And it's ridiculously elitist that only brain surgeons get to cut people's brains open. I mean come on! Is this a democracy or not?!?!