Folinskyinla

Hi:

Be nice. I happen to agree with Matt on his concerns; its just that my methods of combatting it are different. I simply contradict the wrong advice given by UPL'ers and let SOME of my CREDS speak for themselves.

"The trouble is all inside you head she said to me. The answer is easy if you take it logically. I'd like to help you in your struggle to be free." Paul Simon

Folinskyinla

Hi Rene:

You reading them a little wrong. Part of what those articles talk about is the dange of "UPL" originating for the attorney's own shop! From non-professional or semi-professional staff in the office.

An analogy may be made to medicine -- it is possible for a RN to engage in unauthorized medical practice. And the danger of "UPM" is greater in that circumstance than an ordinary lay person. Another example is in pharmacy -- the pharmacist cannot prescribe medication or advise a patient as to what medication is appropriate. But if she should spot a problem within her area of expertise, she can and SHOULD say "you've got a problem here, you can't take Medication A since you are taking Medication B." But the pharmicst can substitute her judgement for the prescribing MD by giving the patient Medicatoin "C" instead.

Matthew Udall

This is similar to the reason I personally make a distinction between someone who occasionally posts about what they did in their own case vs. the prolific UPL hobbyists who have cultivated reputations for themselves due to this activity.

Matthew Udall

Hi Folinskyinla, and welcome to my lynching! Feels like old times.

Did you also notice that in my header and sig line I talk about being an attorney and AILA member (which I am) and that I help people with their family based immigration cases (which I do). I don't see anything in there about being an expert on UPL issues, that I help people with their UPL related legal problems or that I work for any state's agency that polices UPL.

Elvira

... as opposed to the obsessive compulsive professional who keeps on flogging a dead horse?...

Matthew Udall

I've been ready to bury the horse for a while now, but I've been politely answering the replies of those who apparently seem to want to keep the discussion going and to discuss this in more detail (including replying to your posts). I don't think I've resorted to calling other people names (unless of course you equate "prolific hobbyist" to "obsessive compulsive"). Have a nice weekend.

Edit: Well, maybe I did with my comments about things said by others that in my opinion, seemed rather bigoted. Just an opinion, and I usually use a smiley! Here, I'll use one for you too ;-).

fatbrit

Hi:

And I don't believe anyone's picking on you either. And I would hazard a guess that it is about the way you conduct yourself despite your concerns.

fatbrit

We've been all the way there before!

And in case anyone is under any misapprehension, you started it with your snide remark at the second reply to the OP.

Why not take your own thread for this topical point rather than hijacking other threads. Would you like me to start it for you?

Ray

The way I see it.. our lawyer hear make a point on most occasions of saying I am a Lawyer but not your lawyer ..which presumambly means they cannot be sued for wrong information being given ..which is of course is correct as they, in most cases do not have the full information..

So I see it being the same for contributors to this site These area's on this site are described as Discussion forum ..(not newgroup) nowhere does it say legal advice given here .. Of course I am not talking about usernet ..of which have no knowledge ...

We are discussing a persons question and the answers can be very varied
on every question. That what every discussion forum is about ...

I do think Matt should spend more time worrying about Immigration consultants if UPL is his worry bead .. as it does seem to be ...
or the countless number of Notarios in his own parts......

Mr F ..does have the better bedside manner ..of that there is no doubt
and Matt was unecessarily harsh to Norah ..but I don't think it was meant to be malicious ..more just his way ...

Has there ever been a case of a forum contributor being
prosecuted for UPL?????? a bit of case law would be useful knowledge...

But lets be quite frank here... most prosecution of a UPL nature are against people in the legal profession...

Folinskyinla

Sigh. I did make a reguest to "be nice."

Matt has been pretty clear that his objection is not against UPL per qua UPL -- it is against the very real damage that can be done by UPL. Remember that both Matt and I practice in California which permits a huge amount of practice of what would be considered UPL in other states -- simply based upon the damage theory. For example, almost all home purchases in California do NOT involve any lawyers in the purchase and escrow transactions.

FYI -- a court decision YESTERDAY on the "poison" of UPL: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2AF28B8F52162BD8882570BC0077FE4C/$file/0372552.pdf?openelement

[BTW, the actions of the licensed attornies in this case raise some interesting issues -- some of which involve some of the ethical dilemmas. I happen to know some of the attorneys named in that case, and at least one appears, IMHO, to have been trying to make the best of a bad situation. Some I think may have to answer to the CA bar. Their being NAMED in the fact description was a "shot across the bow."]

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Thank you, but I wonder. However, the practice of law often involves knowing when to "kiss ass" and when to "kick ass." And a suitable balance is often hard to find -- it is usally a matter of experience. Unlike Matt, my practice involves removal defense and litigation. I like to think that is why I like John Mortimer's "Rumpole" stories. In fact, given the general prejudice against lawyers, I find it amusing that Horace Rumpole is considered an endearing character although he is cheerfully irritating to everyone in his life.

fatbrit

Dear Matt got all he deserved last night with a bit more thrown in for good measure. His behavior over the last month or so hasn't been particularly nice, either. I know we all have off-days and I must admit to several off-months in my own life, but my friends and acquaintances have always been happy to point it out to me and I, in turn, have elected not to hold grudges against their moments of merriment.

The case you cite is interesting but doesn't appear to have any particular relevance for the case Matt raises here save that is an example of UPL. It seems on a cursory glance to involve one immigration consultant and two attorneys thoroughly messing up a pretty hopeless case in the first place. Poor guy would probably have got a better whack at it asking for opinions on this NG IMO! I could guarantee that the hapless fellow would have at least got one dissenting opinion against the initial road to doom he took.

I am happy to concede that UPL can and has done real damage to people; perhaps to a lesser extent -- although we ourselves have seen many examples on this very board -- the PL without the U seems to have caused undue distress to civvies, too.

But the UPL the case highlights is very different from the UPL Matt alleges may be occurring on this board. Relevant factors on a quick brainstorm might be: posters do not falsely claim to be attorneys; posters do not receive financial remuneration for their efforts; posters do not advertise their services; the news group claims no official status; the FAQs for the newsgroup specifically state that the advice is not of a professional nature, a fact which is generally understood by the general public; the entity is neither a person nor a structure, has no or very little control, and is very transitory in nature.

Despite being asked to cite precedent where a newsgroup of this type or similar has committed an offence of UPL which has resulted in legal action. I do not have the resources that you have available. However, I would hazard a very wild guess that it is perhaps because no precedent beyond bullying by bar associations and other groupings of attorneys has occurred.

andrea874

My 2 cents (and I know I havent been asked, but I just spent all this time READING all six pages of this thread, I've gotta throw SOMETHING in!):

Theres a big difference between people saying "hey, this is what I did, and this is how it worked out", and the people that say "you need to do things this way" and actually give what they feel is solid advice, with nothing but their own experiences to back it up. This board has its share of both scenarios.

With that said... I think most people on here probably realize that this is just a discussion forum, and with a very few exceptions (lawyers), no one here is really in a position to give "real" advice. I think a lot of people come here just because its a place to read about other people's experiences so that they know what to expect. Maybe I'm wrong... all I know is Folinsky is my favorite poster on here - while I dont think he and I have ever had conversation back and forth at all, the fact that he quotes Paul Simon makes him the man.

I think its time to make a chocolate cheesecake.

ian-mstm

The term newsgroup is actually a holdover from 1979 when news and information exchange was limited to universities and government. At the time, only 3 top-level domains existed on the Usenet backbone: comp, news, sci. By 1983, 4 more top-level domains had been added: misc, rec, soc, talk. Over time, other top-level domains were added and now include: alt, bit, biz, k12, and clari among others. Eventually, all of the lower groups attached to these top-level domains became known as newsgroups whether or not "news" was actually disseminated.

Ian

Matthew Udall

Actually, the discussion was quite tame although it did last longer than I anticipated due to having to answer so many follow up posts from a few who seemed to want to keep the discussion going. No worries, but thanks for your concern. I appreciate it.

Yesterday I mentioned that I shudder to think of a government attorney finding evidence of UPL and somehow using that as some sort of ammunition against someone in their immigration case. The logical follow up question that nobody asked is (at least to me, this is what I would have asked): Well, how are they going to know about this?

While every case and situation is different, I’ve always heard that when people get ratted out to the CIS, almost always its by a family member or other (former) loved one, a friend or co-worker who happens to know something and who has a bug up their tail for some reason (and the evidence is likely archived and easy to obtain). We see posts like that quite often here in this group by one party of a once happily married couple (She used me for her greencard, so how do I get her removed/deported from “my” country). Since the net is still relatively new, I haven’t heard of a government attorney using this as ammunition yet, but that’s not to say it won’t ever happen. Since this is a non-news group relating to people’s immigration matters, this seems like a legitimate topic of discussion.