Folinskyinla

Matt:

I've had a few cases where the UPL'r charged a fee MORE than what I would have charged in the beginning [and when I say "more", it is a matter of magnitude more -- like three or four TIMES which I would have charged, but with a "guarantee."]

And when I quote a fee twice what I would have charged initially because the I have to clean up the mess, I get a response "I've already paid UPL-girl $10,000, why should I pay you ANOTHER $5,000?" As if it was ME that had charged the initial $10,000. I understand the emotion, but if they had come to me in the first place, they would have paid $2,500 and would have been done with the case.

One of my colleagues in my new suite just got an H-1b denial today becuase of a combination of CSC screw-up AND information different from what attorney was told when case was filed which made the otherwise ordinary RFE into an RFE from Hell. She wanted to know if she should charge for the appeal/MTR and we reviewed the case and I had to remind her "The client screwed up, not you."

scrubbedexpat099

How many tax preparers jokes do you know?

Now Lawyers, no shortage, and none that I can think of that are favourable.

Unfortunately you get tarred with the same brush.

Matthew Udall

While attorney jokes “might” be a sign of someone who is a bigot, I’m not bothered by attorney jokes. Hell, I enjoy a good attorney joke as much as the next person.

But there is a world of difference between someone relaying a “joke” and the attitude I see expressed in many of the postings containing mischaracterizations about attorneys and where people affirmatively go out of their way to try to discourage others from looking into possible legal representation with their important case. That’s where I see the true bigot colors shining through, and there is nothing “funny” about that.

It seems what is “always” left out is that an attorney will go to bat for his or her client and try to resolve USCIS and/or Consulate screw-ups when they happen (not to mention doing the job correctly at the outset to try to avoid and RFE, being at the client’s disposal to answer questions that come up along the way, etc.). When I see non-attorneys telling others what it is an attorney brings to someone’s case (and the value seems to always be downplayed) I often wonder how they would have any clue as to what an attorney brings to a case (if they don’t do that work for client’s themselves, how would they know?).

scrubbedexpat099

My impression is that Immigration Lawyers do not get much stick as the run of the mill ambulance chasers.

I have seen the most negative comments where waivers, 601/212, are involved.

I assume mainly due to most Lawyers being unfamiliar with such aspects.

fatbrit

Highly confused!?!?!

There are opinions on immigration lawyers because this is a group that directly involves the aforesaid!

Go, for example, upstairs to the US lifestyle forum and you will find prejudice against tax preparers, car salesmen, American citizens, politicians and Joe the ragman.

Mr. Udall's only logical destination is calling for closing the group or turning it in to lawyers only. T'would be about as sensible and productive as banning alcohol! Why are you surprised he's starting to get some stick for it?

Matthew Udall

Not sure what "getting stick" means, but everything is fine. I'm not getting hassled by anyone. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. News groups (but hardly any "news" is given) can be wonderful things, and I personally draw a distinction between those who post occasionally about what happened in "their" case, and those who become prolific UPL hobbyists and over the course of years answer the specific legal questions posted by strangers.

As for the analogy of UPL on news groups and prohibition, I don't really see the connection. I would think a closer analogy would be to examine why society limits the practice of medicine to those who are trained and insured when engaging in this high stakes activity.

fatbrit

We've been there before...and the tide still came in on poor Mr. Nebuchadnezzar.

The logical outcome of your ideas would be a web site stating "Employ an attorney -- preferably me!" or a list of experiences such as those found on Kamya.

While there is much to commend these two ideas, this NG is neither because it allows for interaction. Your argument is that you cannot participate actively and give advice if you are not a hallowed lawyer. And if you post a lot and that information is actually useful to people, I shall be after you. My argument is that you cannot and will not dictate the policy of an unmoderated Usenet NG. If people want a lawyer, they will go and get one (provided they can afford the ridiculous fees!). If laypeople want to give advice based on their experiences, they can and will do so. There is no injury here -- posters realize they are getting free advice and are free to do with it what they desire. And no amount of pushing your rattle out of the pram or even more underhanded tactics will stop this. Even if you managed to close the NG, the members would just move elsewhere and do the same thing.

So where exactly are you going with this? You cannot stop NGs that dispense legal advice, and if you are an attorney and all you are prepared to do is bitch and moan about those who do, then it all starts to look like sour grapes to me.

Would suggest you either set up your own NG (and certainly not an unmoderated Usenet one) where you are free to dictate policy or refrain from visiting here all together if it upsets you so much.

Matthew Udall

Chill out man. “You” attribute the "preferably me" comment. That did not come from me. And if someone decides to hire an attorney, there are literally thousands of AILA members to choose from. Over the years, I’ve had very few people come to me who said they were aware of my participation in groups like this (likely because I have a policy of not generally jumping into a case that has already been filed).

A telephone allows for interaction and so does a face-to-face conversation. The “rendering” of legal advice can happen via a number of methods. Before the advent and wide spread use of the internet, one would have been free to set up some phone lines, have DIY’ers they find hanging out at the local INS office come in to staff the phones and answer legal questions, and advertise the availability of this service. The net didn’t change anything.

Hallowed? These characterizations you choose to impose start to sound like we’re entering the bigot zone. Why does this discussion, or my opinion upset you so? Surly if you think the unauthorized practice of the law is excused because it travels through the magic box (computer) than why am I not entitled to voice my opinion?

Who says I’m dictating anything? You? I’m just one attorney and I don’t work for any of the states in whatever agency a state has to police the unauthorized practice of law. UPL, if UPL is going on is not going on because “I” think it’s UPL. It would be UPL due to the nature of the activity itself, and obviously I don’t have anything to do with that. If someone wants to engage in UPL, that is their decision to make and their possible risk to take.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Bigot Town! :-).

Its entirely possible that some “advice” will be legal advice in nature. If actually “thinking” about this possible risk helps someone someday avoid hurting someone else or perhaps even themselves, is not this subject matter worthy of discussion?

And again, I have no power to close anything. You give me too much credit my friend.

Who says I’m “upset”? You? So you would be willing to censor me, and I can’t even voice my concerns about a topic that actually might be worth taking into consideration?

fatbrit

Me thinks you doth protest too much!

You are free to voice your concerns. And you topic certainly falls within the parameters of the group IMVHO.

Am I right in believing your claim is thus:
*Nobody but a suitably qualified attorney should provide legal advice on this NG.*

Please correct or confirm my assumption if wrong, and I shall proceed from there.

Mh

In article <[email protected]> ,
Folinskyinla <member4043@british_expats.com> wrote:

[cut]

    >> As for every AILA member being as “on-the-ball”, every one I’ve
    >> met takes their duties and responsibilities very seriously. But of
    >> course, we are all separate individuals just like you are not a carbon
    >> copy of your best friend.
    >Matt:
    >As you note, there is a prejudice against lawyers. I find it amusing
    >though that there seems to be no such prejudice against tax preparers.
    >Anyone with an ability and dedication to detail can do their taxes
    >themselves.
    >Why is that? It strikes me that a CPA or Enrolled Agent is a good idea
    >and no one seems to complain about the people who do the work -- they
    >may bitch about the LAW that makes a professional preparer a good idea,
    >but they don't complain about the preparer.
    >Go figure.

Maybe because there aren't many CPA jokes? :-)

MH

Mh

In article <[email protected]> ,
Matthew Udall <member3997@british_expats.com> wrote:
    >> How many tax preparers jokes do you know?
    >> Now Lawyers, no shortage, and none that I can think of that are
    >> favourable.
    >> Unfortunately you get tarred with the same brush.
    >While attorney jokes “might” be a sign of someone who is a bigot,
    >I’m not bothered by attorney jokes. Hell, I enjoy a good attorney joke
    >as much as the next person.
    >But there is a world of difference between someone relaying a “joke”
    >and the attitude I see expressed in many of the postings containing
    >mischaracterizations about attorneys and where people affirmatively go
    >out of their way to try to discourage others from looking into possible
    >legal representation with their important case. That’s where I see the
    >true bigot colors shining through, and there is nothing “funny”
    >about that.
    >It seems what is “always” left out is that an attorney will go
    >to bat for his or her client and try to resolve USCIS and/or
    >Consulate screw-ups when they happen (not to mention doing the job
    >correctly at the outset to try to avoid and RFE, being at the
    >client’s disposal to answer questions that come up along the way,
    >etc.). When I see non-attorneys telling others what it is an
    >attorney brings to someone’s case (and the value seems to always
    >be downplayed) I often wonder how they would have any clue as to
    >what an attorney brings to a case (if they don’t do that work for
    >client’s themselves, how would they know?).

Look, if it was my post that got you all upset, I'll apologize already..

MH

Matthew Udall

I'm not upset (that is if you are replying to me). What makes you think I am?

Matthew Udall

While I appreciate you asking, I think my thoughts have already been expressed (and as you already know, I'm not in charge of any news group or any individual who decides to participate). The topic of UPL came up this week in threads where it happened to be appropriate to do so (as those threads helped illustrate some of the dangers posed by this). I don’t really care to keep going with the discussion.

I will say however that I understand that some of the legislatures throughout the country apparently felt the need to regulate certain high stakes activities. If you disagree, then I invite you to contact “your” representatives and convince them otherwise.

If there is UPL going on in some of the replies by the prolific hobbyists, that activity is certainly not going on behind closed doors. It’s being broadcast for the entire world to witness. Would a prolific hobbyist go on the radio and answer legal questions of the callers? I suppose that would be up the individual hobbyist.

And for those who post on usenet, perhaps you can tell me; how long will those posts be archived? I shudder to think that someday a government attorney who really wants to remove someone from the U.S. could find evidence of UPL and somehow use that activity as ammunition (which again, makes me feel this might be a worthy topic of discussion for an immigration related forum). We’ve already read reports of the CIS finding incriminating information people have posted about themselves on news groups (We really need to come up with a better name as I rarely see “news” discriminated) and used that against them when it comes to their case.

fatbrit

You are wandering all over the place.

You do not care to continue the discussion but then start a diatribe on your last word, clouded in the priestly smoke of your profession. Do you wish to discuss it or just have the last word? I'm quite happy to continue but we can't go anywhere with your current sidestepping of the issue.

Elvira

To me, the main issue is that, if Matt continues in this vein, he will ultimately scare off some very helpful people here and stop them from posting what he clearly considers to be inappropriate 'legal advice'.

In my view that would be a crying shame.