

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

Reference bfe profile:<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;user?id=bfe<p>Which says:<p>&quot;views expressed are my own and don&#x27;t necessarily reflect those of my law firm or clients | views expressed are not legal advice; if you need legal advice, retain an attorney in your jurisdiction&quot;<p>Why exactly is it necessary to do this? Is there an actual risk that someone can take something that you write in an online comment?<p>Are there cases where an attorney has been held liable and does this actually carry an actual risk?
======
wutangson1
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
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).

~~~
wutangson1
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.

------
webmaven
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
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
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?"

