4 ms·

"...there is also, in some cases, liability created for the person giving the advice." [citation(s) needed]

by logjam 14y ago

jarrett 14y ago
This should help: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unauthorized+Practice http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unauthorized+P...
- larrys 14y ago
  "The unauthorized practice of a profession is prohibited by state laws." "unauthorized practice of a profession" is not the same as offering an occasional comment on a blog. It's pretending to be a lawyer or acting in a way a lawyer would or charging for it. For one thing it would be seen as de minimis not to mention the fact that there is no compensation for the service. Think of it this way. You may need a license to have an office and offer therapy and pass some tests. But do you know of anyone who ever got charged with impersonating a social worker by offering advice for free to a friend?
  - jsprinkles 14y ago
    It's anecdotal, so it doesn't carry much weight, but I have firsthand experience with comments such as those in that thread carrying legal consequences for people. I'm not legally permitted to discuss it beyond that.
    - larrys 14y ago
      Every day prosecutors decide what crimes to charge people with (or not) and people decide when they are damaged enough by something to hire a lawyer. And of course there are cases where someone is pissed off and will sue with no merit to get revenge with barely a leg to stand on. "I'm not legally permitted to discuss it beyond that." Sorry this had to happen to you and I see where your caution comes from.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - johnny22 14y ago
      can't you find one in which you don't have such first hand experience with?
      - jarrett 14y ago
        Lawyers and their clients are probably pretty cautious about discussing such incidents. Imagine you've just had some negative legal repercussions for discussing a case online. If you then wrote a blog post or whatever about that, you'd be doing pretty much the same thing that got you in trouble in the first place. So this is one good reason why it might be hard to find write-ups of cases like this.
- logjam 14y ago
  No, it doesn't help in the least. The link you post mentions ONE CASE where a committee of the Texas Supreme Court apparently made a complaint because someone published a self help legal book. That complaint was dropped. Now, how again is publishing and taking money for a self-help legal book (and indeed suffering NO legal liability for doing so) analogous to discussing the law on the internet with no money exchanging hands? Again, where exactly are these "cases" of "liability" the OP is citing?
  - jarrett 14y ago
    I'm not claiming the link contains mountains of references to actual cases. It was meant as a helpful general overview of the topic. The parent comment asked for a citation of the fact that "there is also, in some cases, liability created for the person giving the advice." The link I gave clearly states that there can be civil and criminal liability related to unauthorized practice of law. Surprising to get down voted for a comment consisting of "this should help" plus a link to a relevant source. Also, the fact that I cited this law doesn't mean I'm giving an opinion as to whether HN should have a policy about legal advice. I'm just trying to contribute to the discussion by interjecting some relevant facts. As to my personal opinion, I lean slightly against an HN prohibition on the giving or soliciting legal advice. While the state may have something to say about it, I generally think it's not PG's responsibility to protect people from bad advice--which is the whole purpose of the law in the first place.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
Don't worry, he commented about 20 times with legal recommendations against giving legal recommendations and dodges any requests for information about a court case or really any elaboration beyond hand waving and spooky insinuations.
- jsprinkles 14y ago
  I gave up this topic several hours ago, and you are just now commenting to scold me for it, and following me around to do so. For someone who self-describes as "not a troll," you sure work hard to look like one, based on observing you for several months. Even pg had to tell you to shut up the other day. Go away and let this issue lie.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    You're the one that spammed it, ran to mommy and now are calling me a troll? Yes. I have made it this far and long on HN by being a troll. You're the one going around being a hypocrite and not supporting your arguments. Ironic that in your 'run to mommy' thread you try to invoke pg as some authority for you. (ironically his comment was trying to stop a futile argument in the bud, as you could easily have seen the other killed comment that wasn't mine while you were stalking me)? And after you accuse me of following you, you say you've been "observing me for months" and concluded I'm a troll. You're a creep. What is your problem?
    - jsprinkles 14y ago
      I read the comment threads and observe patterns. You are generally an obnoxious troll, enough that I recognize your name. Like I recognize tptacek as a security expert. You, in my mind, are burned in as "obnoxious troll". Other names are burned in as permanent no-hires, never-do-business. That list grows pretty quickly. I have a good memory for obnoxious or blatantly stupid people, so you've stuck. I didn't skim your comment history, I read the God damned thread yesterday. I should have known you'd show up and want a spoonful of this delicious troll soup, hours after the fact, while saying absolutely nothing of contributing value that other people haven't said already. The complete irony of this is that the abuse I'm getting for "running to mommy" (I'm sure Paul Graham would really appreciate your minimization) is not what I expected for trying to help people not get in legal trouble, and that you can't see that just means: you are a troll.

"...there is also, in some cases, liability created for the person giving the advice." [citation(s) needed]

by logjam 14y ago

"...there is also, in some cases, liability created for the person giving the advice." [citation(s) needed]

This should help: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unauthorized+Practice http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unauthorized+P...

larrys 14y ago
"The unauthorized practice of a profession is prohibited by state laws." "unauthorized practice of a profession" is not the same as offering an occasional comment on a blog. It's pretending to be a lawyer or acting in a way a lawyer would or charging for it. For one thing it would be seen as de minimis not to mention the fact that there is no compensation for the service. Think of it this way. You may need a license to have an office and offer therapy and pass some tests. But do you know of anyone who ever got charged with impersonating a social worker by offering advice for free to a friend?
- jsprinkles 14y ago
  It's anecdotal, so it doesn't carry much weight, but I have firsthand experience with comments such as those in that thread carrying legal consequences for people. I'm not legally permitted to discuss it beyond that.
  - larrys 14y ago
    Every day prosecutors decide what crimes to charge people with (or not) and people decide when they are damaged enough by something to hire a lawyer. And of course there are cases where someone is pissed off and will sue with no merit to get revenge with barely a leg to stand on. "I'm not legally permitted to discuss it beyond that." Sorry this had to happen to you and I see where your caution comes from.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnny22 14y ago
    can't you find one in which you don't have such first hand experience with?
    - jarrett 14y ago
      Lawyers and their clients are probably pretty cautious about discussing such incidents. Imagine you've just had some negative legal repercussions for discussing a case online. If you then wrote a blog post or whatever about that, you'd be doing pretty much the same thing that got you in trouble in the first place. So this is one good reason why it might be hard to find write-ups of cases like this.
logjam 14y ago
No, it doesn't help in the least. The link you post mentions ONE CASE where a committee of the Texas Supreme Court apparently made a complaint because someone published a self help legal book. That complaint was dropped. Now, how again is publishing and taking money for a self-help legal book (and indeed suffering NO legal liability for doing so) analogous to discussing the law on the internet with no money exchanging hands? Again, where exactly are these "cases" of "liability" the OP is citing?
- jarrett 14y ago
  I'm not claiming the link contains mountains of references to actual cases. It was meant as a helpful general overview of the topic. The parent comment asked for a citation of the fact that "there is also, in some cases, liability created for the person giving the advice." The link I gave clearly states that there can be civil and criminal liability related to unauthorized practice of law. Surprising to get down voted for a comment consisting of "this should help" plus a link to a relevant source. Also, the fact that I cited this law doesn't mean I'm giving an opinion as to whether HN should have a policy about legal advice. I'm just trying to contribute to the discussion by interjecting some relevant facts. As to my personal opinion, I lean slightly against an HN prohibition on the giving or soliciting legal advice. While the state may have something to say about it, I generally think it's not PG's responsibility to protect people from bad advice--which is the whole purpose of the law in the first place.

drivebyacct2 14y ago

Don't worry, he commented about 20 times with legal recommendations against giving legal recommendations and dodges any requests for information about a court case or really any elaboration beyond hand waving and spooky insinuations.

jsprinkles 14y ago
I gave up this topic several hours ago, and you are just now commenting to scold me for it, and following me around to do so. For someone who self-describes as "not a troll," you sure work hard to look like one, based on observing you for several months. Even pg had to tell you to shut up the other day. Go away and let this issue lie.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  You're the one that spammed it, ran to mommy and now are calling me a troll? Yes. I have made it this far and long on HN by being a troll. You're the one going around being a hypocrite and not supporting your arguments. Ironic that in your 'run to mommy' thread you try to invoke pg as some authority for you. (ironically his comment was trying to stop a futile argument in the bud, as you could easily have seen the other killed comment that wasn't mine while you were stalking me)? And after you accuse me of following you, you say you've been "observing me for months" and concluded I'm a troll. You're a creep. What is your problem?
  - jsprinkles 14y ago
    I read the comment threads and observe patterns. You are generally an obnoxious troll, enough that I recognize your name. Like I recognize tptacek as a security expert. You, in my mind, are burned in as "obnoxious troll". Other names are burned in as permanent no-hires, never-do-business. That list grows pretty quickly. I have a good memory for obnoxious or blatantly stupid people, so you've stuck. I didn't skim your comment history, I read the God damned thread yesterday. I should have known you'd show up and want a spoonful of this delicious troll soup, hours after the fact, while saying absolutely nothing of contributing value that other people haven't said already. The complete irony of this is that the abuse I'm getting for "running to mommy" (I'm sure Paul Graham would really appreciate your minimization) is not what I expected for trying to help people not get in legal trouble, and that you can't see that just means: you are a troll.