Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: I Need Your Help - Before a Judge  (Read 4833 times)

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: I Need Your Help - Before a Judge
« Reply #40 on: March 18, 2009, 11:41:41 PM »
I'm going to step in and state the obvious. The ethics rules cited (at times) in this thread apply to LAWYERS, not law students. The bar can only discipline LAWYERS (or former lawyers) for the practice of law without a "license." The rules in question are concerned with suspended or disbarred attys providing advice, not with law students providing advice. It is likely INAPPROPRIATE for a law student to provide advice, and any conversation with an Earth person about a legal issue by a law student should be prefaced by the "I'm not a lawyer thing."

You are obviously correct.  In my professional responsibility class, however, we read two cases where law students were denied admission to the bar because they had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law using their credentials as law students.  (I actually think one of these had pretended to be a law graduate, but the other was merely helping people with divorces or something before graduating from law school and without the supervision of a licensed attorney.)  Ordinarily, I would be with you that concerns about C&F with respect to offering legal advice are probably overblown, but LawDog, in particular, holds himself out to be an expert in a way that could prove problematic, particularly given his constant puffery about his training, experience, integration into the legal world, and positions of responsibility (on admissions committees?).  Perhaps more important, as you indicate, it's completely inappropriate for law students to offer legal advice, regardless of any specific model (or adopted) rules.
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

LawDog3

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: I Need Your Help - Before a Judge
« Reply #41 on: March 19, 2009, 02:15:50 AM »
I'm going to step in and state the obvious. The ethics rules cited (at times) in this thread apply to LAWYERS, not law students. The bar can only discipline LAWYERS (or former lawyers) for the practice of law without a "license." The rules in question are concerned with suspended or disbarred attys providing advice, not with law students providing advice. It is likely INAPPROPRIATE for a law student to provide advice, and any conversation with an Earth person about a legal issue by a law student should be prefaced by the "I'm not a lawyer thing."

You are obviously correct.  In my professional responsibility class, however, we read two cases where law students were denied admission to the bar because they had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law using their credentials as law students.  (I actually think one of these had pretended to be a law graduate, but the other was merely helping people with divorces or something before graduating from law school and without the supervision of a licensed attorney.)  Ordinarily, I would be with you that concerns about C&F with respect to offering legal advice are probably overblown, but LawDog, in particular, holds himself out to be an expert in a way that could prove problematic, particularly given his constant puffery about his training, experience, integration into the legal world, and positions of responsibility (on admissions committees?).  Perhaps more important, as you indicate, it's completely inappropriate for law students to offer legal advice, regardless of any specific model (or adopted) rules.

No matter hjow much of an "expert" I hold myself to be, everyone on this site knows I am an 0L who begin's law school in the fall.

Mr/Ms. Likewise:

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THIS GUY. THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT SOME OF THESE ARROGANT, OVERPRIVILEDGED WHITE BOYS AND GIRLS (YES, I WENT THERE!) CANNOT HANDLE BEING INTELLECTUALLY SPANKED REPEATEDLY BY A BLACK MAN. And they cannot handle a Black man who holds himself to be their equal. THEY ARGUE WITH ME NO MATTER WHAT I SAY. I could be the one posting your comments and it wouldn't make a difference. This is "identity politics"...nothing else. Many times, I tell them things that are 100% correct, and they argue with me just for the sake of it. And their logic is stupid, just like it was below...flaming stupid. Why did that idiot even broach the license issue? It really was only brought up to say..."Hey, Lawdog...you're such a know it all. Well...well...how about this? I bet you could get in trouble with the bar!" (waaaaaah...waaaaah! lol.) 

Just flamin'. They hold themselves up to be admissions experts and legal experts more than anybody. Atleast when I speak, I speak from some experience. They talk out of their asses.

Like when looking at the Chris Brown situation. I tell them that, if they really want to be lawyers, they will try to sharpen their skills by figuring out how they might defend Chris Brown. I tell them that a future law prof could give them an analogous fact-pattern on an exam and instruct them to defend Chris Brown.

They refuted that too, saying, "I don't wanna think like a lawyer...I'll do that when I am in law school." 

How stupid does that sound? These people claim to have a passion for the law. Lawyers are born, not made! And if you love the law, u think about it constantly...you eat, sleep and breath the law. You wouldn't need to "wait" to start thinking like a lawyer.

Some of these people are just straight-up idiots.

This is wrong.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1453
  • Dear LawDog3...
    • View Profile
Re: I Need Your Help - Before a Judge
« Reply #42 on: March 19, 2009, 02:59:05 AM »
so I got a bill by the cops for using my cell in my car when the new law went in place, and you're not supposed to do that. actually i was listening to a voicemail and then quickly put it away, but the cop saw me with it in my hands, so i got a fine of $130.00. tomorrow i am going to see if i can contest it before the judge and see if it is possible to waive this bill or at least a mitigated fine. what should i say to him? what would be convincing? I really need your help as this fee is big because I am unemployed due to the economy and I remember once reading on television that your first time using your cell in a car will be a fee of around $40.

I need your input.  Any chances with this?

additional:  the due date for the payment is in 2 days March 18, the cop who gave me the citation doesn't know when i'm arriving as the clerk told me just show up on or before the due date (no notice needed).

Did you notify the court in writing that you'd either a) contest the citation or b) like a hearing to explain the circumstances?

Look at the language in your state's vehicular cell-phone use law. Chances are that you could at least get it reduced by showing up to explain to the judge that u didn't know u couldn't check VM. The language of many state laws says "speaking"/"talking" on the cell phone w.o an earpiece while driving, while others prohibit "using" a cell-phone w/o an earpiece.

Listening to VM doesn not constitute "talking" on the phone. You might try that defense, but I'd be sure of the language first. It's highly technical, and even if it isn't baseless, judges aren't kind with semantics unless there's more at stake than a small fine. Ironically, they tend to care more about language in a murder case, b/c a person's freedom/life is on the line, so they tend to dot every "I" and cross every "T".

Show up, play dumb and try to get it reduced. Then pay it and be done.

Did you read Mugatu's advice about potentially being unable to pass... Oh never mind.  Continue on   :P

This does not constitute "giving out legal advice" or "practicing law without a license", b/c the OP knows we are not lawyers and knows that any advice we give is to be taken with a grain of salt. OP also knows that we have not intended to lead him, in the course of any duty, to follow our advice as patently "legal", as would possibly be the case at a clerk's office. We are not in any way agents or administrators whose actions and advice could reasonably be taken as legal. We have not represented the OP in any proceeding or hearing, administrative or otherwise, nor have we submitted brief's, legal memoranda or other official documents that would establish a binding relationship for service between the OP and any of us. We have not guaranteed or promised, implicitly or explicitly, through our actions or advice, that any of or advice is legally spound. There...now we have a disclaimer! And, the OP does not know any of our identities, nor could anyone prove our identities.

The "reasonable person standard" applies here.

What reasonmable "FOOL" goes online asking for legal advice, from strangers he has little or no reason to believe are qualified to advise him, and takes it as gospel? And what reasonable "FOOL" believes that giving suggestions under an assumed, and, for all intents and purposes, anonymous, identity, would conbstitute "practicing law" without a license, esp. when that given advice applies to a hypothetical situation that the "advisor-fool" doesn't even have reason to believe is real? Anyone who believes they are giving legal advice here or that any legal advice has been given is a fool.

There's no contract (expressed or implied) between OP and anyone else here. There are five elements to a "breach of contract" action.

Offer
Acceptance
Consideration
Breach
Damages

There's no "offer" of service from the other posters. OP solicited some advice, and there was some given. He was not told to follow it. This forum is like a classroom situation. If a type of case is discussed in a classroom, and a student happens to be going through an analogous case at the time, and students proffer what they would have suggested in the hypo...and the student follows that advice in his personal case b/c of what was discussed in the classroom, does that mean the students have practiced law without a license? Must I remind you that we don't even know if the case is real!

Moreover, there's no "acceptance" on the OP's part of any agreement between OP and any other party on this site. There is a thing of "value" (the potentially good or faulty info) so there's "consideration". But there's no "breach" of any agreement, b/c there's no agreement. And the OP would have no "damages" Therefore, there is no practice of law.  This is all on the OP.

Sorry people, but until you find me a precedent that says 0L's giving advice to other 0L's constitutes "practicing law without a license, I don't think it applies.   

If we could be held liable for making suggestions, every "friend", "cousin" or broke drunk on the street could be sued and permanently barred from ever practicing law. 

I would just love to see a state bar approach anyone on this forum and tell them they have practiced law without a license...they'd be laughed off the bar themselves.

GET OVER YOURSELVES. THIS IS NOT THAT SERIOUS.

Quoted for future hilarity.

Distant future, that is.
I do not like hats.
I do not like them on bats.
I would not like them near cats.
I would not like them made out of mats.

This is wrong.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1453
  • Dear LawDog3...
    • View Profile
Re: I Need Your Help - Before a Judge
« Reply #43 on: March 19, 2009, 03:01:37 AM »
lulz

your intention is not relevant.  if the person receiving legal advice relies on it, you have provided legal advice.

cheers,
M

Bull...besides...read the standard again..."reasonable person". On top of that, it is the confluence of the two intentions in that situation.

Is the situation real or a hypo? Can u tell me that? How would u know? More importantly, how would you prove it. And how would you prove that anyone offering advice would have known it? You know how we joke on this site, how ridiculous our posts can get. Why, all of a sudden would any bar believe we knew this situation was real and that we had a reasonable expectation that a real litigant on the other end of cyberspace (not the guy's little brother) was going to take this info and use it?

Intent matters on both sides; if you say it doesn't, prove it! Show me a case ruling that says it and I swear, I'll shut up...I'll say I was completely wrong and give u a cyber-bow. I'll do it in a separate post so everyone reads it. I will completely humble myself to you on this one.

But I'm betting you can't do it, or you already would have, given what I wrote below.

BTW...I have given you substantive law and logic below so I have nothing to prove.

Just to add further:

One of you has taken the MPRE.  One of you has not.  If you can muster the extra four brain cells, figure that one out for yourself.
I do not like hats.
I do not like them on bats.
I would not like them near cats.
I would not like them made out of mats.

This is wrong.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1453
  • Dear LawDog3...
    • View Profile
Re: I Need Your Help - Before a Judge
« Reply #44 on: March 19, 2009, 03:06:37 AM »
I used the logic of contract law to illustrate that there was no agreement between parties...no agreement that could be established or breached. It is NOT the case that contract law would have any bearing on the case, per se...but the logic of whether there's an agreement for services is useful in the interpretation.

This is wrong.

Again, posters are anonymous on this site. Nobody knows WHO I am or whether I am telling the truth...or whether YOU are telling the truth. This is very common sensical.

This is wrong.

I have gone to courthouses. Clerks will not give out advice b/c they work too closely to the law and can be perceived as giving out real law advice. That is why they are instructed to refrain from giving out anything resembling legal advice.

This site is not the same situation.

Slightly different circumstances, same principles (after all, there are ethics involved in both, right). The OP is on his own...period. But for good measure, I am going to delve into this deeper with a real attorney when he returns from L.A. I'll get you an answer, since you obviously cannot do research. 

This is wrong.

This is a discussion board. And I asked for evidence that I was wrong, and like every time, it turns out that my opponents are the ones who are talking out of their asses.

This is wrong.
I do not like hats.
I do not like them on bats.
I would not like them near cats.
I would not like them made out of mats.

This is wrong.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1453
  • Dear LawDog3...
    • View Profile
Re: I Need Your Help - Before a Judge
« Reply #45 on: March 19, 2009, 03:08:46 AM »
Bring it back to law. The advice I offered was pertaining to a minor case (a stupid ticket) that has little at stake ($100+ dollars). The OP's freedom, life, home..etc are not at stake. So there's really no interest on the part of any major governing body...that is for number one.

This is wrong.

Add the other conditions in with everything else I said, and you guys look absolutely stupid! Done with the topic.

This is wrong.
I do not like hats.
I do not like them on bats.
I would not like them near cats.
I would not like them made out of mats.

This is wrong.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1453
  • Dear LawDog3...
    • View Profile
Re: I Need Your Help - Before a Judge
« Reply #46 on: March 19, 2009, 03:16:49 AM »
I appreciate the support on the one point, but you guys are still misreading me.

This is wrong.

As far as bringing up conceptual arguments? You will learn very quickly that attorneys who become adept at making them, as well as being versed in black letter law, will be the same attorneys who get to argue before the US Supreme Court. Conceptual arguments set precedents. Substantive arguments may win or lose cases, but they are rarely outstanding in any way.

This is wrong.

And any attorney who strives just to make substantive arguments will never be an outstanding attorney.

This is wrong.

Secondly, it would depend upon some type of agreement, expressed or implied. Of course the bar isn't going to be talking about "breach" and other elements, but they will question whether there was any "agreement", b/c that will be a litmus test for whether the so-called agrieved party had any reasonable expectation that the advice could be relied upon.

This is wrong.

And, my medical analogy was very clever and to-the-point, u would have to admit!

This is wrong.

That's one we can all relate to.

This is wrong.

And trust me, I will not be getting sanctioned, ever, in my career.

This is wrong.
I do not like hats.
I do not like them on bats.
I would not like them near cats.
I would not like them made out of mats.

This is wrong.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1453
  • Dear LawDog3...
    • View Profile
Re: I Need Your Help - Before a Judge
« Reply #47 on: March 19, 2009, 03:20:32 AM »
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THIS GUY. THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT SOME OF THESE ARROGANT, OVERPRIVILEDGED WHITE BOYS AND GIRLS (YES, I WENT THERE!) CANNOT HANDLE BEING INTELLECTUALLY SPANKED REPEATEDLY BY A BLACK MAN.

This is wrong.

::invokes Alci::

And they cannot handle a Black man who holds himself to be their equal. THEY ARGUE WITH ME NO MATTER WHAT I SAY. I could be the one posting your comments and it wouldn't make a difference. This is "identity politics"...nothing else. Many times, I tell them things that are 100% correct, and they argue with me just for the sake of it. And their logic is stupid, just like it was below...flaming stupid.

This is wrong.

Why did that idiot even broach the license issue? It really was only brought up to say..."Hey, Lawdog...you're such a know it all. Well...well...how about this? I bet you could get in trouble with the bar!" (waaaaaah...waaaaah! lol.) 

This is wrong.

Just flamin'.

This is wrong.

They hold themselves up to be admissions experts and legal experts more than anybody. Atleast when I speak, I speak from some experience. They talk out of their asses.

This is wrong.

Lawyers are born, not made! And if you love the law, u think about it constantly...you eat, sleep and breath the law. You wouldn't need to "wait" to start thinking like a lawyer.

This is wrong.
I do not like hats.
I do not like them on bats.
I would not like them near cats.
I would not like them made out of mats.

This is wrong.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1453
  • Dear LawDog3...
    • View Profile
Re: I Need Your Help - Before a Judge
« Reply #48 on: March 19, 2009, 03:37:30 AM »
LawDog, please stop telling me what I "will learn very quickly."  I am surprised you haven't yet learned that some of us actually have more knowledge and experience than you do.  I suppose you will learn . . . very slowly.

 :D :D :D
I do not like hats.
I do not like them on bats.
I would not like them near cats.
I would not like them made out of mats.

bl825

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • There are just so many reasons to smile.
    • View Profile
Re: I Need Your Help - Before a Judge
« Reply #49 on: March 19, 2009, 09:50:59 AM »
I'm going to step in and state the obvious. The ethics rules cited (at times) in this thread apply to LAWYERS, not law students. The bar can only discipline LAWYERS (or former lawyers) for the practice of law without a "license." The rules in question are concerned with suspended or disbarred attys providing advice, not with law students providing advice. It is likely INAPPROPRIATE for a law student to provide advice, and any conversation with an Earth person about a legal issue by a law student should be prefaced by the "I'm not a lawyer thing."

You are obviously correct.  In my professional responsibility class, however, we read two cases where law students were denied admission to the bar because they had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law using their credentials as law students.  (I actually think one of these had pretended to be a law graduate, but the other was merely helping people with divorces or something before graduating from law school and without the supervision of a licensed attorney.)  Ordinarily, I would be with you that concerns about C&F with respect to offering legal advice are probably overblown, but LawDog, in particular, holds himself out to be an expert in a way that could prove problematic, particularly given his constant puffery about his training, experience, integration into the legal world, and positions of responsibility (on admissions committees?).  Perhaps more important, as you indicate, it's completely inappropriate for law students to offer legal advice, regardless of any specific model (or adopted) rules.

No matter hjow much of an "expert" I hold myself to be, everyone on this site knows I am an 0L who begin's law school in the fall.

Mr/Ms. Likewise:

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THIS GUY. THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT SOME OF THESE ARROGANT, OVERPRIVILEDGED WHITE BOYS AND GIRLS (YES, I WENT THERE!) CANNOT HANDLE BEING INTELLECTUALLY SPANKED REPEATEDLY BY A BLACK MAN. And they cannot handle a Black man who holds himself to be their equal. THEY ARGUE WITH ME NO MATTER WHAT I SAY. I could be the one posting your comments and it wouldn't make a difference. This is "identity politics"...nothing else. Many times, I tell them things that are 100% correct, and they argue with me just for the sake of it. And their logic is stupid, just like it was below...flaming stupid. Why did that idiot even broach the license issue? It really was only brought up to say..."Hey, Lawdog...you're such a know it all. Well...well...how about this? I bet you could get in trouble with the bar!" (waaaaaah...waaaaah! lol.) 

Just flamin'. They hold themselves up to be admissions experts and legal experts more than anybody. Atleast when I speak, I speak from some experience. They talk out of their asses.

Like when looking at the Chris Brown situation. I tell them that, if they really want to be lawyers, they will try to sharpen their skills by figuring out how they might defend Chris Brown. I tell them that a future law prof could give them an analogous fact-pattern on an exam and instruct them to defend Chris Brown.

They refuted that too, saying, "I don't wanna think like a lawyer...I'll do that when I am in law school." 

How stupid does that sound? These people claim to have a passion for the law. Lawyers are born, not made! And if you love the law, u think about it constantly...you eat, sleep and breath the law. You wouldn't need to "wait" to start thinking like a lawyer.

Some of these people are just straight-up idiots.

What experience are you talking about?  Your one semester of law school?  Sitting in on courtroom cases?  Your conversations with lawyers?

None of those seem like a very extensive set of experiences.  What else you got?  :)
Oh yea...you're delicious and lean, but unsustainable and not to be consumed daily.