clement@ucbiris.berkeley.edu (03/27/86)
I'm new to the net (because UCBerkeley just made it accessible to us regular folks.), so please accept my appologies in advance if this has been discussed previously. I'm curious about the legality of the very informative discussions I've been reading in net.legal. In particular, when a non-lawyer gives advice or information on the net, does this constitute the unauthorized practice of law? What about when a licenced attorney of one state offers advice which does not purport to be specific to the state in which he is licenced? Does the gratuitous nature of such advice take it out of the purview of "unauthorized practice of law" statutes? How about the disciplinary rules of the State Bar of states in which he is unlicenced? The disemination of this advice might be viewed by some as dangerous because of the potential for misleading lay persons about their local rights. Personally, I'm not likely to rely too much on the network for legal advice, but I'll bet there are a lot of programmers who read net.legal for advice on how to protect their programs with copyright. Net.legal seems to provide a valuable service to a lot of people as well as a forum for discussion of a lot of interesting issues, but I feel uneasy about the legality/ethics of it. Am I being paronoid? Tom Clement Licenced to practice law in the state of Texas. Bar #04361500
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (03/29/86)
> I'm new to the net (because UCBerkeley just made it accessible to us regular > folks.), so please accept my appologies in advance if this has been discussed > previously. > > I'm curious about the legality of the very informative discussions I've been > reading in net.legal. In particular, when a non-lawyer gives > advice or information on the net, does this constitute the unauthorized > practice of law? When I read something in net.legal, I believe that I am reading the conceptual equivalent of cocktail-party banter. If I take any action based on anything said here, I know I had better verify it someplace reliable if I want to trust it. Consider: even though things that appear here are in "writing," it is actually very hard to verify that (1) what you are reading now is indeed what I wrote, or (2) what you are reading was written by me and not someone else. Here's a thought experiment that may be analogous. Suppose you have a legal problem. You run an ad in a magazine with national distribution describing your problem. You get back a typewritten letter with no signature, but with an author's name and return address. How likely is it that it would be possible to convict that person of practicing law without a license?
steve@bambi.UUCP (Steve Miller) (03/31/86)
> > I'm curious about the legality of the very informative discussions I've been > > reading in net.legal. In particular, when a non-lawyer gives > > advice or information on the net, does this constitute the unauthorized > > practice of law? Jack Moore, a New Jersey attorney, points out that the question applies to lawyers as well. That is, if a lawyer gives advice on the net, is he liable for its accuracy? Jack says he'll think about this for us... -Steve Miller ihnp4!bambi!steve