Quote from: Miss P on March 18, 2009, 11:41:41 PMQuote from: likewise on March 18, 2009, 10:27:27 PMI'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.)
Quote from: likewise on March 18, 2009, 10:27:27 PMI'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.
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."
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.
Can it possibly be? LawDog abandoned an argument?!?
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.
Quote from: This is wrong. on March 23, 2009, 12:56:31 PMQuote from: Long Duk Dong on March 23, 2009, 10:30:34 AMCan it possibly be? LawDog abandoned an argument?!? This is wrong.(Sadly. He'll be back. You know it. I know it. We all know it.)J, you're needed in the "Speaking Spanish in Texas" thread, stat.
Quote from: Long Duk Dong on March 23, 2009, 10:30:34 AMCan it possibly be? LawDog abandoned an argument?!? This is wrong.(Sadly. He'll be back. You know it. I know it. We all know it.)
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.
That's cool how you referenced a case.
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.
Discussion
Resources
