
Ask PG: Can we have a guideline regarding legal advice? - jsprinkles
As we all (hopefully) know, specific legal advice is not something to discuss with the Internet for a plethora of reasons. Anything you write online regarding legal action can be used against your company, whether you run it or not. There is <i>very</i> real damage to be done by not being careful. However, I see too many threads where someone posts a legal tale[1] and immediately the comments fill up with this general template:<p><pre><code>    I am not a lawyer, and this is not advice.

    That said, here's what I'd do:
</code></pre>
I don't think people are cognizant enough of the legal consequences and ramifications as a result of a seemingly-innocuous comment like this; that doesn't just go for the person heeding the advice, there is also, in some cases, liability created for the person <i>giving</i> the advice.<p>Can we have a guideline explicitly mentioning armchair lawyering and why it's bad, and why it shouldn't be done? Please?<p>[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055256
======
larrys
I don't see any danger in offering "advice" whether it be medical or legal or
computer as long as you don't misrepresent who you are. (In other words I
don't even think you have to say IANAL you just shouldn't represent that you
are if you are not.) Why? There should always be a general degree of caution
and since there is no way to verify that someone is a lawyer or doctor (with a
few exceptions such as grellas who openly posts contact info) the assumption
should be that the advice is strictly to point you in the right direction and
you need to pay someone in the end).

With regard for the reason for this "Ask PG" IANAL but I have plenty to say
about this by virtue of the fact that I own domains and have successfully
fended off Fedx and American Express as well as several other smaller
companies. In some of those cases I've used an attorney and in other cases I
have not. What I think about this does count even though I'm not a lawyer.
Lawyers also keep in mind know the law but they don't think strategy many
times which is also important.

As far as "liability" I think you are taking this to seriously. Do you really
think someone is going to bring a cause of action against someone writing
something on hacker news with the appropriate disclaimer (or not)? Why not a
cause of action if someone gives bad advice on a backup solution? That's going
to hold up in court? While anything can happen I think this is extremely
remote. A comment on HN is not like writing a blog and pretending to be a
lawyer.

Above opinion by the way is based on my 30 years in business avoiding all
sorts of legal issues along the way.

------
daeken
> I don't think people are cognizant enough of the legal consequences and
> ramifications as a result of a seemingly-innocuous comment like this; that
> doesn't just go for the person heeding the advice, there is also, in some
> cases, liability created for the person giving the advice.

I don't think people are cognizant of the ramifications of wearing denim
suits, but I think it's ok that they do it. Seriously, (most) everyone here is
an adult, and fully capable of making these decisions for themselves. It's up
to you how you choose to participate, whether in this context or any other.

------
pg
Don't trust stuff you read on forums.

~~~
jsprinkles
Couldn't agree more. What do you think about specifically mentioning legal
advice?

~~~
nirvana
I find it astounding that you lied about what I said, managed to derail
discussion, and are now trying to loop PG into making it verboten to talk
about any legal issues at all.

Since I didn't give any legal advice[1], but you constantly insisted I did,
what you're really lobbying for is the power to shut people up who talk about
laws.

[1] Other than "get a lawyer". The topic of the post was how doing research
might get lawyers interested because he'd been turned down so far.

~~~
pg
Will you guys please stop?

------
joshmattvander
Give it a rest bro!

~~~
krobertson
Amen. Talk about "running to mommy"

------
chris_wot
Under color of what law would you be sued for making free suggestions about
legal matters?

~~~
tonyjwang
Under the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, providing legal advice
without a license potentially could be considered "practicing law without a
license" or, for licensed attorneys, the creation of an attorney-client
relationship, which creates duties for the attorney.

~~~
chris_wot
This is not law though.

------
bfe
When you need legal advice, talk to a lawyer.

------
logjam
"...there is also, in some cases, liability created for the person giving the
advice."

[citation(s) needed]

~~~
jarrett
This should help:

[http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unauthorized+P...](http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unauthorized+Practice)

~~~
larrys
"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
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.

~~~
johnny22
can't you find one in which you don't have such first hand experience with?

~~~
jarrett
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.

