OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Boiler,
Interesting discussion group. It underscores that immigration issues
can be both ambiguous and difficult to understand, supporting some of
the arguments on both sides of the discussion in this thread.
With regard to the experience with the immigration attorney that you
relate, I'll share something that an immigration attorny posted to an
internet discussion group. The context wasn't adjustment after a B2 or
VWP entry with intent to immigrate, the general issue was attornies who
tell clients, "don't tell me that information, I don't want to know it
if I'm going to work on your case and prepare your paperwork." I
wonder if it applies to the "10-foot pole" adjustment issue, sounds to
me as though it might.
Begin quote: " However, there is a point under discussion here among
the members which I feel needs to be addressed... in ... any case where
a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact is made in an
application. I will confine myself to the applicable law and, the
responsibility (professional, civil and criminal) of persons preparing
applications for others.
Federal law contains a general "catch all" provision applicable in
these instances. 18 USC 1001 provides: "Whoever, in any matter within
the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick,
scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false,, fictitious, or
fraudulent statements or representations, or makes any false writing or
document knowing the same contains any false, fictitious or fraudulent
statement or entry shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned
not more than five years or both." Criminal prosecutions under this
statute have actually been fairly common for many years, including the
conviction of an immigration attorney who placed false information
regarding priority dates on an application even though there was no
ability to actually deceive the Service with that information. (US v.
Lopez, 728 F2d 1359, 11th Cir. 1984)
It is a well established point of law that "willful blindness" may be
equated with "knowingly and willfully" (US v. Singh, 222 F3d 6, 1st
Cir. 2000). Moreover, there are specific jury instructions on "willful
blindess" which are exemplied by the Federal criminal jury instruction
set forth below:
"In deciding whether the defendant acted knowingly, you may infer that
the defendant had knowledge of a fact if you find that he deliberately
closed his eyes to a fact that otherwise would have been obvious to
him. In order to find knowledge, you must find that two things have
been established. First, that the defendant was aware of a high
probability that the fact existed.
Second, that the defendant consciously and deliberately avoided
learning of that fact. That is to say, the defendant willfully made
himself blind to that fact. It is entirely up to you to determine
whether he deliberately closed his eyes to the fact and, if so, what
inference, if any should be drawn. However, it is important to bear in
mind that mere negligence or mistake in failing to learn the fact is
not sufficient. There must be a deliberate effort to remain ignorant of
the fact."
The essential test is enunciated well in US v. Singh, "it is sufficient
if the government adduces evidence that warning signs existed
sufficient to put a reasonably prudent person on inquiry notice (and,
thus, sufficient to permit a factfinder to infer conscious avoidance of
guilty knowledge). See United States v. Cunan, 152 F.3d 29, 39 (1st
Cir. 1998)." "Inquiry notice" is generally held to be a general
awareness of such circumstances that a reasonably prudent person would
be moved to inquire into the true facts.
In addition, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) created civil liability for
individuals who prepare, file or assist another person in preparing or
filing an application for benefits with knowledge or in reckless
disregard of the fact that such an application or document was falsely
made.(8 USC 1324c(a)(5), INA 274C(a)(5)) A fine of $250-$2,000 per
document for the first offense and $2,000 - $5,000 for subsequent
offenses is established. A new definition of "falsely make" was added
in the same statute. The definition is, "To prepare or provide an
application or document, with knowledge or in reckless disregard of the
fact that the application of document contains a false, fictitious or
fraudulent statement or material misrepresentation or has no basis in
law or fact, or otherwise fails to state a fact which is material to
the purpose for which it was submitted. 8 USC 1324c(d)(3), INA
274C(d)(3) "Reckless disregard" is held to be the disregard of the
truth or falsity of a statement by a person who is highly aware of its
probable falsity or entertains serious doubts about its truth or when
there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity and accuracy of a
source or alternatively, a "complete indifference to the truth of
falsity of the statement".
Since the foregoing is, in part, a civil penalty provision, there is an
even lower threshold for finding a violation than similar criminal
provisions. With regard to the idea of just leaving gaps in the
information, note also that a violation occurs when the preparer "fails
to state a material fact". These provisions impose an even higher
burden to inquire into the veracity of of information provided by
clients, particularly since the preparer is now responsible to assure
that all material facts are included.
IIRAIRA also makes it a crime for a person to "knowingly and willfully"
conceal or fail to disclose his role in preparing for a fee or other
remuneration a false application for benefits under the INA.
Imprisonment for up to five years is applicable for a first offense and
up to 15 years per violation for subsequent offenses. In general, visa
services or consultants cannot and do not disclose their role in
application preparation by signature in the "preparer signature block"
of most forms nor, are they able to file a G-28 Entry of Appearance in
the case because they are prohibited by statute from engaging in the
activity for compensation. Virtually all "visa services" are in
violation of this provision and neither execute the "signature preparer
block" nor file an entry of appearance. For the applicable regulation
on who is authorized to represent third parties or assist in
application preparation, see 8 CFR 292.1 In short however, the
regulations allow only licensed attorneys and representatives
specifically accredited by the Service to represent persons, or render
direct assistance in the preparation of petitions or applications
before the Service. While one may advance reasonable arguments against
the policy, that is the applicable law at this time.
For attorneys, specifically, the Code of Professional Conduct also
imposes more strict ethical constraints, violation of which subject a
practitioner to professional sanction. An "attorney" is someone
licensed and in good standing to practice law in at least one
jurisidiction.
For applicant/beneficiaries there are, obviously, additional sanctions
in play relating to legal grounds of inadmissibility for fraud and
misrepresentation." End quote.
JEff again - here's a followup post from the same attorney, in response
to a question about whether or not a particular alleged attorney, who
seemed to be giving his clients inappropriate advice with regard to
omission or misrepresentation of material information, was likely to be
prosecuted for the offense. I think this post is germane to the topic
of this thread.
Begin quote: "I am sometimes asked why I don't "turn in" or report
operators of "visa services" for such probable violations. The short
answer is that I am not in law enforcement and, my professional duty as
a lawyer is to protect my clients from harm, not to protect the general
public. I work 50-60 hours a week as it is and have no competitive
incentive to launch a crusade to rid [my city] of unlicensed "visa
consultants" or other violators of US immigration laws. Common sense
dictates that individuals should interview the person they are
considering hiring to assist them, verify their qualifications if they
are uncertain, weigh the advice they are getting to see if it strikes
them as both honest and competent, make up their own minds and then,
live with their choices, good or bad." End quote.
Regards, JEff
Boiler wrote:
> Quite frightning the basic questions that Lawyers are asking each other
> on this site:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ImmTalk/
> A post from Visajourney yesterday, my wife was told the same thing
> essentially:
> heh... so... the day i found out, and started really researching the
> visa process... (before i found this resource)... I grabbed the phone
> book and made an appointment with the only lawyer that dealt with
> immigration in this area. Met with her today...
> Her advice was... for my fiancee to come over on a normal visit, go up
> to the courthouse and get married, and she would take it from there by
> filing an adjustment of status
> So, i asked her... "umm.. isn't crossing the border with intent to
> immigrate illegal?"... which my only response was, " i can only advise
> you not to say that"...
> Anyway... needless to say, I wont be spending the 3 grand to retain her
> =P I supopose it would be hard to catch that it was pre-meditated.. but
> not worth the risk of permanent separation....
Interesting discussion group. It underscores that immigration issues
can be both ambiguous and difficult to understand, supporting some of
the arguments on both sides of the discussion in this thread.
With regard to the experience with the immigration attorney that you
relate, I'll share something that an immigration attorny posted to an
internet discussion group. The context wasn't adjustment after a B2 or
VWP entry with intent to immigrate, the general issue was attornies who
tell clients, "don't tell me that information, I don't want to know it
if I'm going to work on your case and prepare your paperwork." I
wonder if it applies to the "10-foot pole" adjustment issue, sounds to
me as though it might.
Begin quote: " However, there is a point under discussion here among
the members which I feel needs to be addressed... in ... any case where
a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact is made in an
application. I will confine myself to the applicable law and, the
responsibility (professional, civil and criminal) of persons preparing
applications for others.
Federal law contains a general "catch all" provision applicable in
these instances. 18 USC 1001 provides: "Whoever, in any matter within
the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick,
scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false,, fictitious, or
fraudulent statements or representations, or makes any false writing or
document knowing the same contains any false, fictitious or fraudulent
statement or entry shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned
not more than five years or both." Criminal prosecutions under this
statute have actually been fairly common for many years, including the
conviction of an immigration attorney who placed false information
regarding priority dates on an application even though there was no
ability to actually deceive the Service with that information. (US v.
Lopez, 728 F2d 1359, 11th Cir. 1984)
It is a well established point of law that "willful blindness" may be
equated with "knowingly and willfully" (US v. Singh, 222 F3d 6, 1st
Cir. 2000). Moreover, there are specific jury instructions on "willful
blindess" which are exemplied by the Federal criminal jury instruction
set forth below:
"In deciding whether the defendant acted knowingly, you may infer that
the defendant had knowledge of a fact if you find that he deliberately
closed his eyes to a fact that otherwise would have been obvious to
him. In order to find knowledge, you must find that two things have
been established. First, that the defendant was aware of a high
probability that the fact existed.
Second, that the defendant consciously and deliberately avoided
learning of that fact. That is to say, the defendant willfully made
himself blind to that fact. It is entirely up to you to determine
whether he deliberately closed his eyes to the fact and, if so, what
inference, if any should be drawn. However, it is important to bear in
mind that mere negligence or mistake in failing to learn the fact is
not sufficient. There must be a deliberate effort to remain ignorant of
the fact."
The essential test is enunciated well in US v. Singh, "it is sufficient
if the government adduces evidence that warning signs existed
sufficient to put a reasonably prudent person on inquiry notice (and,
thus, sufficient to permit a factfinder to infer conscious avoidance of
guilty knowledge). See United States v. Cunan, 152 F.3d 29, 39 (1st
Cir. 1998)." "Inquiry notice" is generally held to be a general
awareness of such circumstances that a reasonably prudent person would
be moved to inquire into the true facts.
In addition, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) created civil liability for
individuals who prepare, file or assist another person in preparing or
filing an application for benefits with knowledge or in reckless
disregard of the fact that such an application or document was falsely
made.(8 USC 1324c(a)(5), INA 274C(a)(5)) A fine of $250-$2,000 per
document for the first offense and $2,000 - $5,000 for subsequent
offenses is established. A new definition of "falsely make" was added
in the same statute. The definition is, "To prepare or provide an
application or document, with knowledge or in reckless disregard of the
fact that the application of document contains a false, fictitious or
fraudulent statement or material misrepresentation or has no basis in
law or fact, or otherwise fails to state a fact which is material to
the purpose for which it was submitted. 8 USC 1324c(d)(3), INA
274C(d)(3) "Reckless disregard" is held to be the disregard of the
truth or falsity of a statement by a person who is highly aware of its
probable falsity or entertains serious doubts about its truth or when
there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity and accuracy of a
source or alternatively, a "complete indifference to the truth of
falsity of the statement".
Since the foregoing is, in part, a civil penalty provision, there is an
even lower threshold for finding a violation than similar criminal
provisions. With regard to the idea of just leaving gaps in the
information, note also that a violation occurs when the preparer "fails
to state a material fact". These provisions impose an even higher
burden to inquire into the veracity of of information provided by
clients, particularly since the preparer is now responsible to assure
that all material facts are included.
IIRAIRA also makes it a crime for a person to "knowingly and willfully"
conceal or fail to disclose his role in preparing for a fee or other
remuneration a false application for benefits under the INA.
Imprisonment for up to five years is applicable for a first offense and
up to 15 years per violation for subsequent offenses. In general, visa
services or consultants cannot and do not disclose their role in
application preparation by signature in the "preparer signature block"
of most forms nor, are they able to file a G-28 Entry of Appearance in
the case because they are prohibited by statute from engaging in the
activity for compensation. Virtually all "visa services" are in
violation of this provision and neither execute the "signature preparer
block" nor file an entry of appearance. For the applicable regulation
on who is authorized to represent third parties or assist in
application preparation, see 8 CFR 292.1 In short however, the
regulations allow only licensed attorneys and representatives
specifically accredited by the Service to represent persons, or render
direct assistance in the preparation of petitions or applications
before the Service. While one may advance reasonable arguments against
the policy, that is the applicable law at this time.
For attorneys, specifically, the Code of Professional Conduct also
imposes more strict ethical constraints, violation of which subject a
practitioner to professional sanction. An "attorney" is someone
licensed and in good standing to practice law in at least one
jurisidiction.
For applicant/beneficiaries there are, obviously, additional sanctions
in play relating to legal grounds of inadmissibility for fraud and
misrepresentation." End quote.
JEff again - here's a followup post from the same attorney, in response
to a question about whether or not a particular alleged attorney, who
seemed to be giving his clients inappropriate advice with regard to
omission or misrepresentation of material information, was likely to be
prosecuted for the offense. I think this post is germane to the topic
of this thread.
Begin quote: "I am sometimes asked why I don't "turn in" or report
operators of "visa services" for such probable violations. The short
answer is that I am not in law enforcement and, my professional duty as
a lawyer is to protect my clients from harm, not to protect the general
public. I work 50-60 hours a week as it is and have no competitive
incentive to launch a crusade to rid [my city] of unlicensed "visa
consultants" or other violators of US immigration laws. Common sense
dictates that individuals should interview the person they are
considering hiring to assist them, verify their qualifications if they
are uncertain, weigh the advice they are getting to see if it strikes
them as both honest and competent, make up their own minds and then,
live with their choices, good or bad." End quote.
Regards, JEff
Boiler wrote:
> Quite frightning the basic questions that Lawyers are asking each other
> on this site:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ImmTalk/
> A post from Visajourney yesterday, my wife was told the same thing
> essentially:
> heh... so... the day i found out, and started really researching the
> visa process... (before i found this resource)... I grabbed the phone
> book and made an appointment with the only lawyer that dealt with
> immigration in this area. Met with her today...
> Her advice was... for my fiancee to come over on a normal visit, go up
> to the courthouse and get married, and she would take it from there by
> filing an adjustment of status
> So, i asked her... "umm.. isn't crossing the border with intent to
> immigrate illegal?"... which my only response was, " i can only advise
> you not to say that"...
> Anyway... needless to say, I wont be spending the 3 grand to retain her
> =P I supopose it would be hard to catch that it was pre-meditated.. but
> not worth the risk of permanent separation....
#77
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
I have chosen to "bump" the old "30/60" essay by Paul Gani. Paul is a wonderful and bright man. He is extremely well meaning. However, he is an example of what Matt refers to as a "hobbyist."
then .,.as he does post on here sometimes.. I won't say who ....
#78
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Ray
A wonderful point to bump ... As Matt may remember only last year I pointed out to him on another site ..a member of the CA bar was still using this one
then .,.as he does post on here sometimes.. I won't say who ....
then .,.as he does post on here sometimes.. I won't say who ....
Immigration attorneys are having a field day using the internet to answer people's questions, and many of them answer incorrectly.
"Immigration law is a mystery and a mastery of obfuscation,
and the lawyers who can figure it out are worth their weight in gold"
-Former Legacy INS Spokesperson
There is an attorney who posts to one of the Usenet immigration boards who recently (this week) posted, with firm conviction (2 posts in the thread), to another board where he is listed as a 'Guide', that time spent as an LPR with conditions (from marriage to a USC) did not count toward naturalization eligibility.
There's plenty of bad advice out there to go around, from professionals and laypeople. At the very least, keeping the questions/answers out in the open protects people by leaving an oportunity for someone else to challenge the bad info.
#79
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by meauxna
I read posts advocating use of the 30/60 day rule every week---posts written by attorneys practicing immigration law. I read further posts each week from individuals reporting back what a lawyer told them in a consult: wait 60 days before making a move; you're safe then. This advice is often given, online, from one post from the OP, in conjunction with advice to have the foreign fiance enter on a VWP/B2, marry and adjust status.
Immigration attorneys are having a field day using the internet to answer people's questions, and many of them answer incorrectly.
"Immigration law is a mystery and a mastery of obfuscation,
and the lawyers who can figure it out are worth their weight in gold"
-Former Legacy INS Spokesperson
There is an attorney who posts to one of the Usenet immigration boards who recently (this week) posted, with firm conviction (2 posts in the thread), to another board where he is listed as a 'Guide', that time spent as an LPR with conditions (from marriage to a USC) did not count toward naturalization eligibility.
There's plenty of bad advice out there to go around, from professionals and laypeople. At the very least, keeping the questions/answers out in the open protects people by leaving an oportunity for someone else to challenge the bad info.
Immigration attorneys are having a field day using the internet to answer people's questions, and many of them answer incorrectly.
"Immigration law is a mystery and a mastery of obfuscation,
and the lawyers who can figure it out are worth their weight in gold"
-Former Legacy INS Spokesperson
There is an attorney who posts to one of the Usenet immigration boards who recently (this week) posted, with firm conviction (2 posts in the thread), to another board where he is listed as a 'Guide', that time spent as an LPR with conditions (from marriage to a USC) did not count toward naturalization eligibility.
There's plenty of bad advice out there to go around, from professionals and laypeople. At the very least, keeping the questions/answers out in the open protects people by leaving an oportunity for someone else to challenge the bad info.
While on the subject of "PL" -- there is a requirement of attorneys that "PL" be "competent." Unfortunately, there is incompetent "PL" out there too. So, we have UPL and IPL and IPL can be by licensed attorneys.
However, do note that the licensed attorneys on the group in question DO ask questions. The true part of being a professional is to know WHEN you don't know something.
On that yahoo group you note, I have reason to believe that the participants don't know that their postings are opened to the public. An offshoot of ImmTalk is the ImmLog group -- their postings are not readily avaialable to the public.
Personally, I think that IPL is the main problem.
#80
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by J Moreno
Is it legal advice, or just advice that happens to be about something
for which there is a law?
for which there is a law?
I was so busy yesterday that I didn’t have extra time to participate in this interesting thread, but I have a few spare minutes today. According to the Supreme Court of Texas:
The practice of law embraces in general all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law. Although the act of recording a client's responses to the questions on the I-130 probably does not require legal skill or knowledge, the act of determining whether the I-130 should be filed at all does require specific legal skills. (Unauthorized Practice Committee, State Bar of Texas v. Cortez, 692 S.W. 2d 47 (Tex. 1985).
My guess is that they chose a simple example instead of a more complex one because if using a complex example, then others might think their more simple applications would be OK. I also think this same rational is reflected in a Florida page that Mr. F links later in this thread. From what I’ve read, its perfectly fine for someone to act as a secretary and type in answers “provided by the other person” on forms, but when the typist starts telling the other person what forms to file and how to answer questions on the forms, that is likely PL.
Originally Posted by J Moreno
I'm not rete, but *I* don't see that as a danger to the public -- this
person is upfront about their expertise, if the public takes their
advice then that's on the heads of the public.
person is upfront about their expertise, if the public takes their
advice then that's on the heads of the public.
If that were the case, then instead of making my homemade ale just for myself, I’d make it on a large scale and start selling it to the public. Why get licensed, and if someone gets hurt, again they have no one but themselves to blame, right?
I recall a hobbyist once telling someone to lie about their true address on their I-751 (the spouses no longer lived together). Even though this hobbyist rendered this dangerous advice to lie in public, nobody caught it or corrected the mistake (cleaned up her mess). If that person relied on this, why shouldn’t he be able to go after the person who harmed him while playing attorney?
#81
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by bionomique
A railroad that fails to install safety devices is not in compliance with various agencies, (Federal, State and perhaps others, I'd presume) and, as such, by its own negligence, either willful or otherwise, assumes the liability. The parent would have every right for a cause of action against the operator.
However, a newsgroup on the other hand, is not governed by/required to comply with safety measures until regulations so state.
However, a newsgroup on the other hand, is not governed by/required to comply with safety measures until regulations so state.
#82
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Rete
I believe if you did a search of the AVUMB newsgroup on google for 1998 you will find postings from "starwind". I do believe that is her name. She did a DCF from Canada before it was eliminated in 1997 and told us of her experience in 1998. The reason I remember it is simply because we lost that option by only a few months and had to apply for the Fiancee Visa in March of 1998 instead.
Rete
Rete
#83
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Matthew Udall
Using this logic, then I should be able to perform minor surgery as long as I let my patient know I’m not licensed (and I’ll do it for free). If they consent to this and are injured, then they have no one but themselves to blame, right?
Originally Posted by Matthew Udall
If that were the case, then instead of making my homemade ale just for myself, I’d make it on a large scale and start selling it to the public. Why get licensed, and if someone gets hurt, again they have no one but themselves to blame, right?
Originally Posted by Matthew Udall
I recall a hobbyist once telling someone to lie about their true address on their I-751 (the spouses no longer lived together). Even though this hobbyist rendered this dangerous advice to lie in public, nobody caught it or corrected the mistake (cleaned up her mess). If that person relied on this, why shouldn’t he be able to go after the person who harmed him while playing attorney?
#84
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by bionomique
OK. Yes, it seems from a cursory look, one approach, Cardozo, cited proximate cause/causation, the other comparative negligence. Understood that the railroad employees had a "duty" to care for a foreseeable plaintiff (Mrs. Palsgraf) when they aided/pushed/helped the passenger onto the moving train. I see that much like railroad employees are liable as a professional attorney might be in rendering advice ~ they are, when all is said and done, in the business of moving people from point A to b on a railcar and, as such, have a duty to be able to identify what *could* happen to one of their passengers even to the extreme of being able to see that which is concealed or otherwise not evident, as in the parcel containing explosives, or certainly they should have foreseen a liability when encouraging a passenger to board a moving train, parcel or not.
To bring this into the PL context that we're discussing, had the people that pushed/enabled the passenger onto the train not been "employed" by the railroad, as Matt terms "net-arios", not engaged by a particular passenger to ensure safe passage (not to suggest that net-arios are negligent per se, but simply not employed, mind you), would the violation of duty issue still apply?
To bring this into the PL context that we're discussing, had the people that pushed/enabled the passenger onto the train not been "employed" by the railroad, as Matt terms "net-arios", not engaged by a particular passenger to ensure safe passage (not to suggest that net-arios are negligent per se, but simply not employed, mind you), would the violation of duty issue still apply?
And would damages caused to a recipient be foreseeable?
#85
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by JEff
The occasional posts about personal experience are typically written by
the posters who have the least understanding about the system in which
they are participating. They may know what happened to them, but they
often do not understand why it happened as it did. They tend to draw
incorrect conclusions and linkages from what they experienced (as our
forebears did in thinking that the earth was flat and the sun revolved
around it). They generally cannot properly describe the experience due
to their lack of understanding of the situation (or, very often due to
their lack of a suitable level of English language skills). For the
same reasons, readers often do not properly understand what they read
and often are not be able to identify the key issues and relate them
properly to their own situation.
the posters who have the least understanding about the system in which
they are participating. They may know what happened to them, but they
often do not understand why it happened as it did. They tend to draw
incorrect conclusions and linkages from what they experienced (as our
forebears did in thinking that the earth was flat and the sun revolved
around it). They generally cannot properly describe the experience due
to their lack of understanding of the situation (or, very often due to
their lack of a suitable level of English language skills). For the
same reasons, readers often do not properly understand what they read
and often are not be able to identify the key issues and relate them
properly to their own situation.
Originally Posted by JEff
On the other hand, while the long-time hobbyists (to use your term) do
make mistakes, they are the people who, other than the ocassional
attorney, provide the best information in the online arena. They fill
in the gaps that the ocassional, single-experience posters inevitably
leave, correct the misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and are
quick to correct or debate each other's mistakes.
make mistakes, they are the people who, other than the ocassional
attorney, provide the best information in the online arena. They fill
in the gaps that the ocassional, single-experience posters inevitably
leave, correct the misunderstandings and misrepresentations, and are
quick to correct or debate each other's mistakes.
I think the rules regulation the practice of law are meant to minimize the danger to the public from this sort of activity, and there is not always going to be someone around to clean up the mess. One way to eliminate or at least reduce the risk is to refrain from PL until one is licensed (and insured) to do so.
By discussing the dangers of PL, I’m not silencing anyone. It is up to “them” to decide if they want to engage in this high stakes activity and potentially hurt other people via their mistakes. And surely you don’t think that if any given hobbyist discontinued, that this would mean immigrants would be cut off from sources of good information. There are plenty of licensed and qualified (and insured) people out there that perform this work.
#86
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Rete
And yes, I plan on working in a non-profit organization assisting immigrants. I will be doing so on a volunteer basis for the Irish Community Center here in my city and/or New York City and will continue doing such (god willing) after retirement on a part-time basis where I relocate.
While working for both of these agencies, every single bit of information I rendered to the recipient, every letter I wrote, virtually everything I did had to first be checked and authorized by a licensed attorney. If not, I’d be engaging in UPL.
So I’ll bet that is what will happen in your volunteer work. And if you don’t mind me asking, does a licensed attorney review every communication you have with people (before you post a reply) in your dealing with them in the immigration context on the net? You say you work for a law firm and that you post from work, so I assume you have worked this out with them and they review everything you do before you post it (or am I mistaken about that).
#87
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
It is amazing for someone who dislikes me so much that you are so very interested in my life. I believe I will refrain from answering any further of your personal questions as they are absolutely none of your business. Just as I don't ask about your love life, your professional career, the scope of your business, your ability to have so many free hours to post on a newsgroup forum instead of working on your clients' cases, why you don't have a phone at home or a computer, why you and your wife are divorced, why you have a roommate, etc. Just as that is not my business, my life is none of yours.
Just as I would appreciate it if you were to stop inferring to the general posting population that the UPL laws in Texas and/or Florida and/or California are the same through the US. It is not so and I, for one, would appreciate your making this known in every reply that references these three particular states and references to their UPL standing that it does not indicate the law in each and every state.
Good Day to you Mr. Udall and may you have a pleasant weekend.
Just as I would appreciate it if you were to stop inferring to the general posting population that the UPL laws in Texas and/or Florida and/or California are the same through the US. It is not so and I, for one, would appreciate your making this known in every reply that references these three particular states and references to their UPL standing that it does not indicate the law in each and every state.
Good Day to you Mr. Udall and may you have a pleasant weekend.
Originally Posted by Matthew Udall
Good for you and that should be a fun experience. I too volunteered before getting my license at similar organizations in SF. I volunteered at the homeless advocacy project in SF, and also at the HIV immigration project that provides legal help to immigrants who happen to suffer with HIV+ status or with aids.
While working for both of these agencies, every single bit of information I rendered to the recipient, every letter I wrote, virtually everything I did had to first be checked and authorized by a licensed attorney. If not, I’d be engaging in UPL.
So I’ll bet that is what will happen in your volunteer work. And if you don’t mind me asking, does a licensed attorney review every communication you have with people (before you post a reply) in your dealing with them in the immigration context on the net? You say you work for a law firm and that you post from work, so I assume you have worked this out with them and they review everything you do before you post it (or am I mistaken about that).
While working for both of these agencies, every single bit of information I rendered to the recipient, every letter I wrote, virtually everything I did had to first be checked and authorized by a licensed attorney. If not, I’d be engaging in UPL.
So I’ll bet that is what will happen in your volunteer work. And if you don’t mind me asking, does a licensed attorney review every communication you have with people (before you post a reply) in your dealing with them in the immigration context on the net? You say you work for a law firm and that you post from work, so I assume you have worked this out with them and they review everything you do before you post it (or am I mistaken about that).
#88
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
My law school training did NOT include immigration law -- but I don't think I would have been able to figure it out absent my legal training.
I agree -- the goal is to get out good information.
About the goal of supplying accurate information; that’s what I do and I’m sure that’s what you do. And if some hobbyists eventually tire and discontinue, that won’t prevent good information from being available to others seeking information from those authorized to render it. There were immigrants and immigration cases long before the advent of the internet.
#89
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Rete
It is amazing for someone who dislikes me so much that you are so very interested in my life. I believe I will refrain from answering any further of your personal questions as they are absolutely none of your business. Just as I don't ask about your love life, your professional career, the scope of your business, your ability to have so many free hours to post on a newsgroup forum instead of working on your clients' cases, why you don't have a phone at home or a computer, why you and your wife are divorced, why you have a roommate, etc. Just as that is not my business, my life is none of yours.
Just as I would appreciate it if you were to stop inferring to the general posting population that the UPL laws in Texas and/or Florida and/or California are the same through the US. It is not so and I, for one, would appreciate your making this known in every reply that references these three particular states and references to their UPL standing that it does not indicate the law in each and every state.
Good Day to you Mr. Udall and may you have a pleasant weekend.
Just as I would appreciate it if you were to stop inferring to the general posting population that the UPL laws in Texas and/or Florida and/or California are the same through the US. It is not so and I, for one, would appreciate your making this known in every reply that references these three particular states and references to their UPL standing that it does not indicate the law in each and every state.
Good Day to you Mr. Udall and may you have a pleasant weekend.
It appears to me that you are reading things into the string that are simply not there.
It is obvious from the information on the string that the "U" is UPL is, in large part, a STATE issue. But immigration law is a FEDERAL area of practice. There is overlap.
Also, it is the nature of the "Common Law" that authorities from other jurisdictions are looked at, examined, and either followed, disagreed with, or modified. I attended law school in California -- we studied the aforementioned "Palsgraf" case from New York [BTW, if memory serves me correct, California followed the Andrews dissent]. We also studied the British Polemis and Wagon Mound cases. For both the California and Washington bar examinations, I had to study Palsgraf, Polemis and Wagon Mound again [which is probably why I remember the damn things -- having studied them THREE times].
Long before the World Wide Web there was breadth of communication -- the famouns "Sullivan v New York Times" case involved a libel suit by someone in Mississippi regarding an advertisement run by the NAACP in New York.
However, given the reach of the internet, the postings DO raise some interesting "choice of law" issues in the area of "Conflicts of Law"
Perhaps it is because I have the normal broad legal training given in an American law school, I don't view the postings the same way.
BTW, why are not asking about Matt's sex life? Inquiring minds might like to know!
#90
Re: OT with trepidation: California Bar & "UPL"
Originally Posted by Rete
So what would you have the AVUMB newsgroup do. Petition to have the newsgroup closed down. Have us all take our questions to private e-mail where the issue of UPL and incorrect and dangerous information can be dispensed without the hope of it being corrected?
As for you recognizing the danger of a hobbyist doing this via e-mail, I glad to see you understand that. It is sill UPL whether or not someone is called on it or if others see it. And I like your use of the word “hope” when talking about bad advice being corrected. Hopefully the poor soul who was told to lie about his address on his I-751 had this corrected, and “hopefully” the hobbyist who exposed him to the danger did the right thing and engaged in a little “damage control”.
I personally don’t think that people in search of legal advice should have to rely on “hope” that someone will come along to clean up the mess of others.
And I don’t really get this “magical cleansing filter” that some seem to think happens just because electrons pass through a computers circuit board. The same danger is there even when this happens face to face, and archiving the bad info (when done via computer) actually takes the danger to a higher level IMO.
Originally Posted by Rete
As you said, your law degree did NOT include immigration studies. So you learned it in some manner from someone and through trial and error.
Originally Posted by Rete
Why take away the opportunity for others to learn as you have done or to learn period.
Originally Posted by Rete
I don't believe that the laypeople on these forums are looking to take the place of attorneys. I know I'm not. But I do want to learn here and in a teaching environment.
Originally Posted by Rete
I can tell you two stories of two attorneys who are immigration attorneys and who work for the Irish Center here on a volunteer basis. One told her "client" that her son could not apply for a US Passport based on his having resident status and his parents' naturalization because he only have an I-551 stamp in his passport. She told the "client" that the stamp means nothing and he needs the actual card to prove he qualifies. Wrong!
The second attorney in from the same center had told the same "client" earlier in her son's journey to get his residency that after a five year wait there was absolutely nothing she or the client could do but wait for the CIS to get around to processing her son's petition. Wrong!
The second attorney in from the same center had told the same "client" earlier in her son's journey to get his residency that after a five year wait there was absolutely nothing she or the client could do but wait for the CIS to get around to processing her son's petition. Wrong!
Originally Posted by Rete
If both of you wish to stop what you preceive to be UPL then I humbly suggest that you report the AVUMB newsgroup to the proper authorities and have it shut down if the proper authorities feel it is warranted.
If you don't wish to do that, then I suggest that the issue be put to bed and if and when you feel that someone has overstepped your perception of what constitutes UPL, then you call that to their attention in a quiet and dignified manner.
If you don't wish to do that, then I suggest that the issue be put to bed and if and when you feel that someone has overstepped your perception of what constitutes UPL, then you call that to their attention in a quiet and dignified manner.
And don’t confuse “asking a question and looking for answers/information” with the act of rendering legal advice. Two completely different activities and people won’t be cut off from information even if a hobbyist or two discontinued their PL.
I think news groups can and should exist. It’s the hobbyist that abuses this line of communication that creates the dangerous environment.
Last edited by Matthew Udall; Mar 11th 2006 at 1:26 am.