Matthew Udall

And legal advice at that :-) (sorry, but that was too much of a set up... didn't post to usenet).

Rete

Nope common knowledge to anyone with the ability to read more than a Dick and Jane book. Ho! Ho! Ho!

Didn't you go to Utah for the Holiday? You only need a sleigh to go with the suit you are wearing to make a big impression.

Matthew Udall

Obviously not common knowledge to the OP asking the question. She "could" have read about it, but instead she has you as her legal advisor.

Ho! Ho! Ho! indeed. And even though my avatar shows a Santa suit, I’m afraid that was just art by Ray and I can’t give you a license to practice law for Christmas. Having a computer and an internet connection is not the same thing (although I have a feeling you might think it is). Happy Holidays to you (reply not sent to usenet).

Rete

Nor have I asked you for one. Your opinion of me and others who utilize this forum is seen by me and some others as an encroachment of our rights to talk and discuss the topic of immigration among our peers. While it is common knowledge to those of us who have been around a while or who know how to read the USCIS website and use its search engine, not everyone is given to doing their own research. It is not practicing law, it is sharing of knowledge.

You see UPL around every corner and in every shadow. It must be very difficult to live with an obssession such as this where it apparently eats away at your ability to see things in a rational light.

Your continually coach your posts with your accomplishments for clients and your ability to have forstalled a problem if only your services had been contracted. You post your URL on your signature so that people can contact you for retaining your services as their immigration attorney.

Whereas others think that you are of great wisdom and are of a helpful nature, if they were objective and read your responses thoroughly they would see what I see. A man who has to tout himself in public and pat himself on the back for a job well done. They would see that there is no advice in your posts as you fall back on your "I'm an attorney but not your attorney" credo. They would see that your posting of ALIA memorandums is not necessary as it can be found online by anyone with a knowledge of a search engine. And those memorandums from ALIA that are sent to you privately as a paying member of their association are probably not meant to be cut and pasted to the general public before they, themselves, make it public.

Now you can continue your triade about me, meauxna, rene, JEff, bio, etc. You can reply to this post as you wish. It matters not to me, at least.

I have checked New York State law, Mr. Udall. I work as a secretary and a paralegal. In NYS disclaimers are legal and paralegals are accorded the right to answer questions regarding forms and generalized questions. When I finish my courses I will be allowed to represent clients in immigration court with my Immigration Certification. Those are the regulations in New York State.

And for the record ... this post is going to the Usenet.

Rete

Folinskyinla

Hi Rete:

I think not. See 8 CFR 1292.1(a) for people appearing in immigration court. See 8 CFR 292.1(a) for CIS. BTW, although NY State law may allow you to prepare documents, and will be required to sign the appropriate certification on such forms, you will NOT be allowed to sign a G-28. See 8 CFR 292.4.

This is FEDERAL law which trumps state law on the matter. [BTW, this principle was enucnicated by the Supremes in a context where State law was more restrictive that Federal law. E.g. Matt and I could appear before an Immigration Court in New York although neither he or I have any type of New York license].

BTW, both Matt and I hail from California which has one of the most lenient [or lax, depending on POV] UPL regime in the country. And BAD advice from UPL'ers [aka "Notarios" or "Brokers" or "Consultants"], often for a lot of money is the bane of the immigration bar AND the government -- because we lawyers end up doing a lot of "janitorial work."

Although non-attorney law practice is often considered a "consumer" issue, immigration law is one arena where the UPL statutes actually favor the consumer and save them money.

In other areas of law such as bankruptcy, simple family proceedings, simple probates, etc, the non-attorney assistants ARE good for the consumer. They give competent service at reasonable prices. Unfortunately, in immigration they all too often give BAD service at HIGH prices.

[BTW, I'm probating an estate now for a member of the family and I'm using a licensed probate paralegal and we joke that I'm a customer she CAN give legal advice to becuase I'm considered competent to evaluate it. I will collect the statutory attorney's fee as an aggravation surcharge which I've explained to my relative and she has no problem with it! She says I'm to consider it a present even though she thinks I am earning it.].

Matthew Udall

I don’t generally jump into the middle of a DIY’ers case. Most people who visit UPL boards already have filed their cases. Someone might be able to find some useful general information on my site though. The other day Ray mentioned I ought to enable the link to my page. I did. A day or two later I went back in to disable it (after all, I’m not here for business as I don’t generally jump into the middle of a DIY’s case that has already been filed). For some reason, the link is still active (I had removed the HTML url tags). I’ll try that again.

I’m glad to hear that I can express my opinion without it bothering you. As for your current job, do you render legal advice from one of the law firm’s computers? If so, you might be putting your boss in jeopardy, and at a bare minimum if they don’t know of this you should at least let them know so they can make an informed decision about whether or not they want to take that risk (or provide attorney supervision for each of the posts you make containing legal advice). That would seem like the ethical if not moral thing to do.

Reply is not being posted to usenet.