Matthew Udall

I call BS on that one. I know that I’ve said it over and over and I know Mr. F has said it on many occasions as well. One is not required to hire an attorney in their immigration case. One is certainly entitled to be a true “do-it-yourselfer” if they want. But what I think you fail to understand is that when a hobbyist perform an attorneys function, the recipient is no longer a do-it-yourselfer and instead is relying upon a hobbyist engaged in PL. How did you describe it, “learning through trail and error”. Do you really think the immigration community will be all alone and in the dark if a hobbyist or two discontinued engaging in UPL? Come on, get real.

I call BS on that one too. This myth propogated across the net and I see it rear its ugly head over and over again. And how did it start? A hobbyist on a news group, and I’m sure it being archived for the unwary to stumble on doesn’t help either.

You seem to be fixated on a fear of news groups shutting down. I’m not saying they should and there are some who are authorized to render legal advice. If a hobbyist wants to go underground, that’s their business (Maybe on their spare time they can start performing abortions in the back alley with a wire clothes hanger too).

And if they want to join in the rendering of legal advice, nothing is stopping them from getting the credentials (and hopefully insurance) to do so. But having a computer and internet access is not the equivalent of having a license to practice law.

Matthew Udall

Not all mistakes are caught and corrected and there are examples in this own group that illustrate this.

Rita calls it learning by “trial and error”. Personally I think those in need of legal advice deserve better than that.

And if some attorneys are incorrect on occasion, that makes it OK for non-attorneys to render legal advice…… how?

Matthew Udall

I don’t know why people can’t tell the difference between asking a question, and giving an answer. Above you talk about people asking questions and you are right that questions are asked on news groups and on this group in particular.

Where PL comes into play is when others “answer” legal questions with legal advice.


Not everybody is perfect all of the time. Are you saying that since its possible for an attorney or doctor to make a mistake, the regulations concerning those high stakes activities should be ignored or done away with? If so, what is your reasoning behind that?

And if a licensed individual makes a mistake, they can be held accountable. Is that the same for the hobbyist?

Matthew Udall

I respectfully disagree. The subject is UPL and you brought up volunteer work for a non-profit organization. That will require attorney supervision in doing that work. Seems on point to me, and different than the questions you ask about me.

But since you asked, here you go: Non-existant, very fulfilling, family based immigration, some days I have more free time than others and I usually work very late into the evening (don’t have problems keeping up with my case work), life is better without the temptation to work on the computer while on my off time at home, I made a bad selection and probably rushed into the decision but I have not one bad thing to say about her, and I have a spare room and took in a buddy who needed a place to stay (the landlord at his old place wanted to move into it) and I like having someone around to talk to and help pay the rent.

The defining characteristics of UPL seem to be pretty consistent throughout the states. Plus, immigration law is also a federal area of practice. The punishment might differ from state to state but what constitutes the activity seems to be more similar than different. And for you to suggest otherwise seems reckless to me, unless of course you are interested in leading citizens from the other 47 states into believing that anything goes in their respective states.

fatbrit

Anybody who reads this group regularly *knows* exactly what your definition of "PL" is. It would be interesting to see if any courts have agreed with you but, alas, you always fail to name any relevant precedent and instead just blow plenty of smoke. I might venture that this is because there is none.


I merely turn your argument back on itself and demonstrate that it is pure bunkum. You can get crap advice you pay for and you can get poor advice free. Postings to this board suggest that the paid for crap is far from isolated. I would concede, as you point out yourself, you have the added advantage of being able to sue the twat should the need arise. But this is what you paid the money for, and it's hardly a matter of putting up your arm and being handed the compensation, is it?

J Moreno

In article <[email protected]> ,
Matthew Udall <member3997@british_expats.com> wrote:

    > > MDUdall <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
-snip-
    > > > I would think a more apt comparison would be someone (not licensed
    > > > and who lets others know that) who systematically and regularly over
    > > > the span of years takes it upon themselves the task of diagnosing
    > > > people's medical problems and recommending courses of treatment.
    > > > Surely you can see how dangerous that could be to the public,
    > > > especially when the natural tendency in that situation would be for
    > > > some to rely upon the medical advice (based on a diagnoses) as a
    > > > substitute for going to a trained doctor.
    > >
    > > I'm not rete, but *I* don't see that as a danger to the public -- this
    > > person is upfront about their expertise, if the public takes their
    > > advice then that's on the heads of the public.
    > >
    > > IMO the advice and questions in this group are more along the lines of
    > > "what would you do in my shoes" and "I'd do X if I was in your shoes".
    > >
    > > PS: this means that "lie like crazy" should be a perfectly acceptable
    > > response, it may not be legal, but it's surely what a lot of
    > > people
    > > would do/have done.
    >
    > Hi J,
    > I was so busy yesterday that I didn�t have extra time to participate
    > in this interesting thread, but I have a few spare minutes today.
    > According to the Supreme Court of Texas:
    > The practice of law embraces in general all advice to clients and all
    > action taken for them in matters connected with the law. Although the
    > act of recording a client's responses to the questions on the I-130
    > probably does not require legal skill or knowledge, the act of
    > determining whether the I-130 should be filed at all does require
    > specific legal skills. (Unauthorized Practice Committee, State Bar of
    > Texas v. Cortez, 692 S.W. 2d 47 (Tex. 1985).

No one here is a client of anyone else here. Newsgroups are the corner
pub, not an office.

(Also I'd have to say that I agree with the jury, and the court of
appeals).

-snip-
    > Using this logic, then I should be able to perform minor surgery as
    > long as I let my patient know I�m not licensed (and I�ll do it for
    > free). If they consent to this and are injured, then they have no one
    > but themselves to blame, right?

Yes. For instance if you have your neighbor sew up a small cut.

    > If that were the case, then instead of making my homemade ale just for
    > myself, I�d make it on a large scale and start selling it to the
    > public. Why get licensed, and if someone gets hurt, again they have no
    > one but themselves to blame, right?

Actually no, the point of licensing booze is to collect taxes, you
aren't paying your taxes

    > I recall a hobbyist once telling someone to lie about their true address
    > on their I-751 (the spouses no longer lived together). Even though this
    > hobbyist rendered this dangerous advice to lie in public, nobody caught
    > it or corrected the mistake (cleaned up her mess). If that person relied
    > on this, why shouldn�t he be able to go after the person who harmed
    > him while playing attorney?

Because the hobbyist said "lie like crazy"? When someone tells you to
lie, any reasonable person should know that it might come back to haunt
you.

In rec.arts.sf.written, a regular poster is a convicted felon -- he
says he was innocent, but his attorney told him to lie and say he was
guilty as the best way to get out of the situation. He did so. This
has had consequences he didn't anticipate when he opened his mouth and
lied like a dog.

But hey, he KNEW he was lying -- when you lie and things don't turn out
the way you wanted when the truth would have gotten you what you
wanted, then you did it to yourself.

OTOH, like I said -- it's reasonable advice, sometimes lying can get
you out of trouble.

--
J. Moreno

mdyoung

I know of him and I know of the Website and normally people (me included) tell people unless something like what you mention is involved they can do everything themselves.

I have filled out or helped fill out everything from the I-129F through the N-400 with no problems. If I can do it just about anyone can do it. People just get spooked about submitted something with the government or are just too lazy to do their homework. I tell people if you can file your own taxes without a problem you surely can do your own K or spouse visa and related paperwork.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Not a bad analogy; I use it myself.

However, it is inherent that there is a more widespread body of knowledge on income taxes -- most working people have to file a return, and do it every year. Ideally, the marriage visa application is a one-shot deal.

While we are on the subject of analogies, I used to service my old Type 1 and Type 2 Volkswagens. I used a very early edition of John Muir's "How To Keep Your Volkswagen Alive."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1566913101/ref=cm_cr_dp_pt/104-3544219-0664738?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

One thing I remember is one of the necessary "tools" for putting an engine back in the car -- a friend who has EVER put back in an engine.

ian-mstm

This is especially true when your wife asks, "Honey... does this dress make me look fat?" !!!

Ian

JEff

Matt,

Just so that your wording doesn't cause misunderstandings, JEff made
the post but he (JEff) was not doing the talking.

JEff was quoting, an attorny's commentary on the issue. A general
commentary that had been offered to a public audience and did not speak
to any specific case.

JEff's talking in the post was to provide the context of the attorney's
comment and ask if the comment was germane in the current context.

Regars, JEff

Matthew Udall wrote:
    > ....
    > When they render legal advice, that's exactly what they are doing, and
    > understand you don't think you are doing this (but I think this is
    > like the post JEff made where he talks about someone who on purpose
    > closes their eyes to obvious things for ulterior motives of some sort).
    > And I don't fault anybody for wanting to learn things. Its just what
    > they "do" with this knowledge (in relation to other people and their
    > legal questions) is where the problem of PL comes in.
    >
    > ...

JEff

Matt,

No, not always. But far more often than not.

You offer 3 valid examples. I agree that there are undoubtedly more
that you could find, although you don't and I sometimes wonder why some
recent examples might not make a more compelling argument than the 3
old ones that you use repeatedly.

What you also seem to ignore are the many more examples of good
information that are put forth on a daily basis by the same people and
other long-time posters. And that, on an ongoing daily basis, most of
the good information is coming from long-time posters who have gained
some broad experiences and most of the misinformation is coming from
relative newcomers with limited experience.

That long-time 'hobby' posters have posted incorrect or inapproptiate
information is not in dispute. Let's further agree for the purpose of
this discussion that this constitutes UPL. Certainly UPL has dangers.
So does PL. And so does the non-PL of the ocassional internet poster.


So, I'm glad to hear that your discussions of PL are not to silence
anyone, merely to educate people.

Another question I've been meaning to ask for a while now - with regard
to the licensed and qualified people who are insured, who does that
insurance protect? The client who's case has been lost through
inappropriate representation? (Do they get what they were asking for
after all)? Or the practitioner who failed to properly represent that
client? (Speaking here of true misrepresentation, certainly case will
be lost and sometimes deserve to be lost with the best of
representation.)

Regards, JEff

Matthew Udall wrote:
    > No, not always. I really hate to bring it up, but did someone correct
    > your mistake that came into play in (can't remember her name now, the
    > avatar with the drawing of the fox) someone else's case? How about the
    > hobbyist who instructed someone to lie on the I-751? How about the
    > hobbyist who told the Canadian to lie and immigrate with a non-immigrant
    > option? These are just 3 examples that come to mind, and how many other
    > examples are out there that I don't know of, and that were not
    > corrected by others. Good information rendered through PL is not based
    > on the consensus of the majority, and I think the danger of it coming to
    > that point is what UPL is meant to address.
    > I think the rules regulation the practice of law are meant to minimize
    > the danger to the public from this sort of activity, and there is not
    > always going to be someone around to clean up the mess. One way to
    > eliminate or at least reduce the risk is to refrain from PL until one is
    > licensed (and insured) to do so.
    > By discussing the dangers of PL, I'm not silencing anyone. It is up to
    > "them" to decide if they want to engage in this high stakes activity
    > and potentially hurt other people via their mistakes. And surely you
    > don't think that if any given hobbyist discontinued, that this would
    > mean immigrants would be cut off from sources of good information. There
    > are plenty of licensed and qualified (and insured) people out there that
    > perform this work.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Out of curiosity, how did you get the information from the ImmTalk yahoo group. It purports to be for members only. I just looked and its archives are not open to the public.

fatbrit

Er...why don't you just join the group, then? Click on the button marked "Join Group"!

Folinskyinla

Hi:

To join, you have to go through the moderator/owner of the group. And he asks for an introduction.

mdyoung

I think the some of same reasons that people use immigration lawyers are the same ones that keep H&R Block in business, i.e. are afraid of making a mistake or just too lazy.

I wouldn't tell everyone one with a cold to run to the doctor either, you try over the counter medication, but at some point it's time to see a doctor. Same thing with using a lawyer, some things can be "self-medicate," but for some cases you need to see a "doctor."

Plus with doctors and lawyers you have no idea if the person knows what they are doing until after the damage has been done. Someone had to graduate in the bottom half of the class.