Steve2003

I think to both protect the public and to protect the business for lawyers. I think it can go more or less each direction depending on the judge.

http://www.tenant.net/Court/nolo/nn227.html

Hypertweeky

We sure do!!, Do you miss my smileys and hyper cow Mathew?

Andrew DeFaria

inquisitive40 wrote:

    > Dang, this is a forum for "sharing experiences and information" , with
    > the UPL issues it would make any such forum a huge minefield,,, maybe
    > we should all go back to the Usenet?

Never left it! ;-)

    > Did these laws come from people sueing others for misinformation OR is
    > it from attorneys not wanting this information to be given freely and
    > so losing them money?

I suspect.... Both!

--
A friend of mine is into Voodoo Acupuncture. You don't have to go.
You'll just be walking down the street, and...........ooooohhhhhh,
that's much better...

jeffreyhy

Patrick,

If anyone were to answer that question I believe they would be UPL-ing.

Regards, JEff

Rete

If I'm remembering correctly, no it does not if you are in California. I recall Dekka's Angel advising the forum of that.

Rete

Steve2003

Here is another example of what "could be" UPL. The abuot website is entitled:

Immigration Questions, Answers & Support

http://forums.about.com/ab-immigration/start/?lgnF=y

About.com seems to have forums everywhere along all walks of the law. I posted the link to the Immigration Discussion area. Compared to this neither B.Expats or VJ are any where near violating UPL.

I just want to again emphasize that UPL should be applied to all these sites equally.

Hypertweeky

The signatures don't show in usenet, do they?

Hypertweeky

I agree! But can we all stop arguing??

Steve2003

I would love to kill the thread, but I just want to know why VJ and maybe this site are singled out for what has been defined as UPL when sites like about.com have stuff across all disciples of law. Is there something I am missing? I am suer no one wants to see this site or VJ taken down and all the "same old" just move to another place that has less moderation and less control over preventing the alleged UPL.

Sorry to vent, but I just am really confused by this contradiction.


FYI: 166 groups on immigration law on yahoo groups:
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/dir/Gove...?show_groups=1

Hypertweeky

As stated before UPL is a very gray area. I don't understand why VJ and this site have been singled out either, maybe because we are very POPULAR??
If I were you.. I would let it be, You aren't gonna find a clear answer, I don't want you to end up getting a huge headache!.
Take care!!

Ray

Seems to me Mr Udall bring this up in a quiet threatening manner fairly regularly .. I think its his little bee in a bonnet.. and likes to get his personal bee out to everybody.. It certainly does his reputation no good on forums..
But we all have our little foibles...

meauxna

Did someone call for a threadkiller?

I think Ray's got a nugget there. There's only one way I've ever seen this topic come up online, and that's it. MDU has already said he's preparing a presentation to pitch to AILA about how to close down sites, tho he said he's not had anything to do with that. There was something about the about.com site a few years ago, if you wanted to search.

I think Pandora's box has been opened, and the legal community needs to find a way to balance people's access to information with protecting them from unscrupulous/misinformed people.

inquisitive40

Yes I have to say when I did a search on UPL, Mr Udall was pretty high profile on the list of people bringing up this subject.

I think it is pretty much another one of those US laws that seems really weird to us foreigners. Sorta like when I moved here first and went to McDonalds and discovered their food is only just warm due to someone sueing them for spilling hot coffee on themselves. LOL

If everyone on this site were to stop giving help to others I would think that then and ONLY then would this site be UPL compliant
Patrick

Steve2003

I agree that UPL needs to be black and white not grey. There needs to be protection of the public AND protection from the system and lawyers themselves who may possible abuse it to shut down competition. If both sides are balanced then I agree that a solid line should be drawn in the sand.

inquisitive40

How would such companies as "Divorce yourself" be able to avoid these laws?
They advertise they are not lawyers BUT pretty much do a lawyers job for a divorce?
Patrick