Matthew Udall

Well I'm polite and wanted to reply. As I mentioned a while ago, I've said about all I had to say on the topic for now.

fatbrit

You have more influence than the average bear!

Good!
Please stop bullying people who are giving advice.
Please continue to help people asking for advice.
Please correct any errors that laypeople might make.

Elvira

Good.

But you may have something useful to add here, perhaps?

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=338156

Noorah101

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_of_law

http://vt.essortment.com/unauthorizedpra_rhjo.htm

Can someone please explain why the definitions in these two sites keep referring to UPL as something pertaining to attorneys, attorney's assistants, and paralegals, but not the common layman? I could be reading it wrong, but it seems by these definitions, they are not considering laymen to be in danger of UPL, but rather attorneys and their assitants, or paralegals.

Thanks,
Rene

Matthew Udall

If it’s the I-865 thread, I added a bit of info about possible situations where the fine could be bumped up. Thanks for asking.

Matthew Udall

I'll take a look, but it could be that the author limited the scope of the discussion to the categories of people you mentioned above. If so, than UPL by people in other categories would not have been addressed. But I'll take a look when I get a chance. Thanks for the links.

Elvira

Ehem, no.... I was referring to this comment by Biomedique:

"I find it humourous that you so affectionately termed it RFEJourney? Would that have anything to do with the fact that the FAQ information you once had posted there you requested be removed upon your being asked to leave?"

Matthew Udall

Oh, I've addressed that now. Any more digs you want to get in before I'm done for the day?

bionomique

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't suppose that anyone doesn't realise the hazards of UPL, nor do I suppose that anyone would think that UPL doesn't exist. Nor, do I presume, those who have legislated to regulate the practice of law did so with the express purpose of limiting discussions of this sort. Rather, it would appear, it was to make certain that persons seeking professional, legal expertise could have some expectation of what a "professional, legal expert" would be capable of rendering and what responsibility he or she had to the client.

The point I am trying to make is that it is a s-t-r-e-t-c-h to paint with such a wide brush and suggest that this place is rife with it, and as a consequence temper normal open discourse in membership groups. It's the exception rather than the rule that someone might tread on inappropriate turf when answering typical questions. On the other hand, if I were to secure the services of a lawyer for immigration assistance, I'd be certainly very keen to know that he or she is qualified to do the job.

It was mentioned earlier about how attorneys and CPAs were treated a little differently. There are plenty of threads on here and other sites that refer to the tax implications of this or that, and yet I have yet to see a caution on a post speaking on how to interpret the tax code, from someone concerned about the Unauthorised Practice of Tax laws.

Elvira

How long have you got?

bionomique

Damn, what the heck am I doing? Now we'll have those threads censored. Shut me up, please

fatbrit

Just been tying to find out how to adjust the brakes on my car but unfortunately that one's already been shut down already due to UPM.

Matthew Udall

Woo-Hoo, you win the Aunt Fanny prize for the second most predictable analogy that always comes up during these discussions! Congratulations! You-Da-Mon.

bionomique

On a serious note, all sarcasm aside, if the medical and mechanical analogies are the most predictable, doesn't that suggest something to you? Are there more reasonable analogies? Or is it more poignant that perhaps albeit it could be taken to the extreme and applied in layperson context, isn't it more appropriately applied with an eye to the professional arena?

Matthew Udall

Yes, I think there are more accurate analogies (but any analogy will only go so far). For example, if over the span of years I hold myself out available to diagnose other's (people I don't know) medical conditions (and I don't change a fee) I'd probably be practicing medicine without a license. Diagnosing medical problems does not necessarily need to be done in person, and like with the practice of law, its basically an act involving the rendering of pure advice (words).

Aunt Fanny wasn't doing that.

If you want real examples, there have been plenty of cases already in the states dealing specifically with immigration law. I know I've given a copy of an article with this information in it to some of the prolific hobbyists, but I don't think they have read it.

If I can find the cases without having to repost the article (and I remember a recent one, not mentioned in the article that discussed the added danger of those who try to shield themselves with “disclaimers”), I'll see if I can dig them up for you. That way, you can read it/them yourself and we won't have to rely on Aunt Fanny to help those who might have questions about what is and what is not UPL.