« first day (46 days earlier)      last day (3198 days later) » 

nomen agentis
nomen agentis
12:04 AM
I'd be interested to see an example of a successful UPL prosecution or sanction (by a state bar, for example) for answering the type of questions we answer on this site.
 
jimsug
jimsug
@nomenagentis Well, that's the thing, right? It's hard to prove a negative...
3
Q: Should people put disclaimers in answers?

HDE 226868The outcome of this question depends in part on the outcome of Can we get a blanket disclaimer out of the way?, and I don't know if the latter issue has been completely solved. Nonetheless, I think that this is still an important issue. I see a lot of disclaimers on answers, generally running al...

discussion
@nomenagentis Also I'm not entirely sure whether bar sanctions are always publicly accessible?
 
nomen agentis
nomen agentis
@jimsug Yeah, i'm not looking for a negative... I just want to enjoy the entertainment I'd get from reading about such a case :)
 
jimsug
jimsug
I did a quick Google search...
 
nomen agentis
nomen agentis
1:02 AM
I guess we could ask our state bars for opinions about this site.
Like can we contribute? Do we need disclaimers even if not providing legal advise, etc?
Or the equivalent in other countries.
Maybe it makes the most sense for each author to disclaim whatever is required for them to disclaim in their jurisdiction.
 
 
1 hour later…
nomen agentis
nomen agentis
2:19 AM
> Ideally, the forum itself notifies consumers at the outset that their questions are public (and thus not confidential communications) and that responses to their questions do not create an attorney-client relationship.
> lawyers should preface their answers by disclosing the state(s) in which they are licensed to practice and, to the extent the lawyer’s answer addresses substantive aspects of the law, add a caveat that the answer is based on the law of the lawyer’s state only.
This obviously doesn't control the behaviour of non-lawyers.
A law.se-specific notification that this Q&A does not create an attorney-client relationship seems prudent.
> Because the Supreme Court found the information posted by Palmer to be of a general nature and not individualized, he did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law. The court, however, was quick to underscore that had Palmer actually given legal advice in response to a specific question posed by a visitor of his site, he would have engaged in practicing law without a license.
 

« first day (46 days earlier)      last day (3198 days later) »