« first day (45 days earlier)      last day (3199 days later) » 

jimsug
jimsug
7:02 AM
@nomenagentis Hmm. I don't know. Ideally, most things that we say are true even if it's not explicitly stated. But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't state it.
Email disclaimer
An email disclaimer is a disclaimer, notice or warning which is added to an outgoing email and so forms a distinct section which is separate from the main message. The reasons for adding such a disclaimer include confidentiality, copyright, contract formation, defamation, discrimination, harassment, privilege and viruses. Since the disclaimer is usually attached at the end, it will not be noticed until after everything else, so cannot prevent any virus infection or other damage nor restore confidentiality. The Economist reports that people have long stopped paying attention to disclaimers, claiming...
If Wikipedia is accurate, and email disclaimers can be taken to be a relevant precedent, including them may actually mitigate some issues related to UPL/malpractice.
In any case - unless it objectively makes my answers worse, or it is shown that attempting to remove the possibility of representing myself as a lawyer, or as creating a relationship between myself and the OP, I may as well leave it in, right?
Unless "It doesn't make the answer better" is your tactful way of saying "It makes your answers worse"? @nomenagentis
 
 
5 hours later…
nomen agentis
nomen agentis
12:33 PM
On StackExchange, answers are supposed to stay pretty much on topic, and only say things relevant to the question. Writing an answer doesn't give leeway to just write anything you want about the subject.. Expect people to trim your answer down if it strays off topic or has content irrelevant to the question.
"Your" = "one's"
You don't need to say it. First, if you're not a lawyer, it is logically necessary that you're not their lawyer, so the disclaimer may as well be, "I am not a lawyer".
And StackExchange is pseudo-anonymous, so since it actually impossible to verify for many people whether "I am not a lawyer" is true, it is just an unprovable assertion made by the answerer that is irrelevant to the question.
Consider "I am not a lawyer. The US Supreme Court has held in *US v. Jones that..." It sort of doesn't matter that you're not a lawyer to state what the supreme court has held. Or "I am not a lawyer. 35 USC 101 reserves patent for ..." Again.. Doesn't matter that you're not a lawyer.
Perhaps it makes sense when you're summarizing an entire body of work, like "I am not a lawyer, but I am not aware of any statutes in NC that implicate defamation against public figures"
That you're not a lawyer is relevant, because that says something about your level of confidence that such a statute doesnt exist. We're relying on your familiarity with NC statutes in that case
Even if you were a laywer, but not in NC, it would make sense to say "I don't practice in NC, but..."
I wasn't concerned when only one user here was using that line as an intro, but I saw a second user start to use it
 
 
10 hours later…
jimsug
jimsug
10:51 PM
@nomenagentis I see. Look, I include it primarily when I think it is relevant to the answer - if I'm interpreting statute that I'm not a practising professional in, I would expect my answer to be treated differently to someone who is one. They will probably also be able to produce better answers, but that's besides the point.
@nomenagentis StackExchange (and any other service that one uses online) is only as anonymous that one makes it.
For me, you can get to a couple of real-life identities with with two clicks from my Law.SE profile. And that's the way I want it, and so you shouldn't make sweeping declarations about how anonymous or otherwise SE is.
Actually, you can get to a couple of real-life identities from anywhere I appear on Law.SE.
I'm happy to (and believe I do already) not put it on questions where I'm just providing legal information, and to truncate it to I am not a lawyer.
@nomenagentis I will continue to include it where I'm interpreting the law - I think it's only fair that people know that the information that they're being provided isn't from a qualified lawyer. I'm also happy to put it towards the bottom of my posts, where I include it.
But even in law firms, there are concerns about negligence claims from non-retained clients, so I'm wary of the information I provide online, too.
 

« first day (45 days earlier)      last day (3199 days later) »