4 ms·

Ask (any) Attorneys on HN: Why do you need to do this?

• webmaven 13y ago
  IANAL, and TINLA: Lawyers are well positioned to know exactly how much trouble they can get into by casually giving someone legal advice for free, and how much trouble someone who isn't a lawyer can get into for the same reason. Which may mean that those who are in other regulated professions such as CPAs or MDs should be doing the same...
  • larrys 13y ago
    Noting of course that "grellas" has no such disclaimer though. Would think there potentially might even be exposure for someone who does put disclaimers but then doesn't in all circumstances (in other words reverse default of typical behavior). For example if you have an amusement ride and you put a sign in front of 20 rides "be careful dangerous ride" but don't put the same sign in 10 other rides doesn't that imply those rides aren't dangerous by one way of thinking? Noting also that the particular HN commenter doesn't put a disclaimer on his twitter account.
    • wutangson1 13y ago
      I think- not 100% sure because I can't recall any case law- but if you are referring to Grellas' website, it would qualify as 'general information' and not 'legal advice' because it is not an answer to someone's specific question on a legal issue. For example, Grellas has info on the best practices for company entity formation, financing, etc. It would be different if Grellas was at a party and he answered a question of "oh your a lawyer... I'm trying to convince my brother-in-law the engineer to work on this medical prototype idea I have on nights and weekends. Is a C-corp, or an LLC the best way to go for tax purposes?"
• wutangson1 13y ago
  Short answer to your question is 'yes', there are cases where an attorney has been held liable. You can search online the "Togstad" case, cited as 291 N.W.2d 686 , showing that the lines between a legal consultation, and actual legal services can be a very thin. Basically, the wife of a medical malpractice victim told her husband's story- no fees, letters, evidence, etc. were exchanged- to a lawyer. The lawyer responded that "he did not think we had a case". By the time the wife consulted with another attorney, the statute of limitations had run, and sued the first lawyer. The court found that the wife "relied on legal advice" of the first lawyer, and his firm had to pay for his negligent advice since there was clearly a case. So, when there is some ambiguity between a consultation and 'legal advice' , lawyers will make it clear they have not entered into an attorney-client with you simply based on a discussion of some legal issue.
  • dennisgorelik 13y ago
    What are the odds of being found liable in that case? If the odds are comparable with odds of winning Powerball Jackpot then such disclaimers are simply way to expensive (extra cognitive load in emails, unneeded distraction for prospective clients).
    • ScottWhigham 13y ago
      What are the odds of being found liable in that case? Is it really worth the hassle + time of defending yourself though? That's the main issue I suspect most people worry about.
    • wutangson1 13y ago
      Well, the case went up to the Minnesota Supreme Court and they affirmed the ruling- so, those lawyers had to pay. A lot of other states follow the MN court's reasoning, and since in the US case precedent heavily influences subsequent rulings, it is much greater than a powerball's chance for other lawyers to face similar consequences. I agree with you that those disclaimers are 'expensive'. It seems the ABA wants to control the market structure of legal advice, so as to control compensation for attorneys. The legal establishment has historically been against technological improvements which can more easily disseminate legal knowledge. Even from the popular nationally syndicated radio call-in shows of the 1930s which were eventually shut down, to 'legal form' websites of today, it seemed to provole some powerful interests.