13 ms·
Isn't this just the routine fascist playbook at this point? Start by declaring that the law doesn't even apply to them, on whatever flimsiest of bases. Persona
by mindslight 6mo ago
Isn't this just the routine fascist playbook at this point? Start by declaring that the law doesn't even apply to them, on whatever flimsiest of bases.
Personally I would really like to see torts for attorneys who willfully promulgate blatantly incorrect legal interpretations - they're effectively providing incorrect legal advice. A non-attorney is likely to believe such advice coming from a member of the Bar, and the net goal is to discourage the target from seeking further legal advice.
- SoftTalker 6mo agoAn attorney whom you have not engaged in counsel is not providing legal advice.
- mindslight 6mo agoI'm well aware of how it's currently legally defined - hence "effectively". My comment is in the context of what ought, not what is.
- efreak 6mo agoAn expert in any subject matter should not be allowed to provide misleading statements, regardless of whether they're speaking in an official/paid capacity. It doesn't matter if it's considered legal advice or not, the fact that you've got a license and know better should be enough.