fatbrit

Well if you say you're a hotshot ass-kicking immigration attorney looking for UPL issues, I would think your chances would be minimal. Try being the demure, transatlantic lovesick Deidre instead and use an anonymous proxy server.

bionomique

The reason I posed this question was because I thought it fairly well replicates what we are discussing with regard to newsgroups and "net-arios" and potential claims.

For purposes of discussion, the scene is as follows:
Group of passengers on a platform, one Mrs. Palsgraf; one Mr. Black carrying a parcel covered with a newspaper (parcel contained explosives) and several others. A train employee, the Conductor is on the train. As train pulls away, Mr. Black carrying the parcel attempts to get on the moving train; several passengers on the platform, Mr. Grey and Mr. Gris, boarding the train, push Mr. Black on the train and in doing so he falls, parcel explodes and Mrs. Palsgraf is injured.

In this analogy, if i'm not mistaken, wouldn't this be the scenario, and if so, who, if anyone, would be liable? Is the person rendering unauthorised legal advice the railroad, Messrs. Grey and Gris, or Mr. Black?

Mrs. Palsgraf is the victim that brings charges against the railroad as she is injured because of some perceived or alleged "oversight" on its part.
Are Messrs. Grey and Gris the "net-arios" - they wanted to "help" Mr. Black board the moving train and thought they could do so by pushing him? Unfortunately, they did not foresee that a package he was carrying, if dropped, could cause a chain reaction and ultimately injure either Mr. Black or Mrs. Palsgraf. Naturally, any train employee would advise against anyone boarding a moving train, whether carrying a parcel or not. The act in itself carries a certain risk factor. Mr. Black could injure himself, even if there were no Mrs. Palsgraf in the picture.

Should the railroad conductor have prevented the passengers from assisting Mr. Black on the train, foreseeing that this was risky behaviour? Was it the railroad's negligence not to do so?

Further, if the railroad posts a sign on the platform advising passengers that are carrying anything NOT to board a moving train, have they not covered any potential liability?

How would Mrs. Palsgraf be successful in her claim?

Matthew Udall

Hi J. I respectfully disagree. If someone asks questions concerning legal matters and someone provides legal advice, the act of rendering legal advice is the PL. Don’t get all caught up in the word “client” as that is traditionally usually used in a licensed attorney client relationship. And I suppose if a net-tario set up shop in a pub, it could happen there too ;-).

By the way, I’ve got a neighbor who wants to open up a law practice. This is his plan.

He’s going to rent some office space and put in a bunch of cubicles and telephone lines his volunteer workers can use to render legal advice. To find workers, he will then go loiter outside of the L.A. CIS building and he’ll approach couples coming out from their spousal interviews. He’ll tell them what he has planned, and since they now know a bit about the process he would like them to come down to his office and volunteer (as a public service) by answering the phones and rendering advice to the callers. Most say no, but there are a few with spare time on their hands that think this sounds like a good thing to do (not to mention helping others which is always a nice thing to do).

He plans on paying the office rent by selling space on the exterior of the building where advertisers can place billboards. That should keep the rent paid and the phone bills paid.

He also advertises the availability of his service in local papers and through other media outlets.

He asked if that would be OK.

The first problem I see is that he’s not an attorney himself, so I’m not sure if he should open up this type of law practice. Plus, the people working for him are not attorneys either, so they are not authorized to engage in that either.

He tells me he’s actually getting his license to practice law next week, and he’ll be opining up this business after he gets his license. OK, but the problem of him facilitating the UPL of his employees is still there so he’s going to have to use his employees for the gathering of information only. When it comes to the rendering of advice, he’ll have to do that himself. And he really should buy and insurance policy to protect his callers, and himself, just in case he commits malpractice along the way.

You are describing a one-time occurrence. I’m like you in that in my mind, I too draw a distinction between someone posting occasionally about what happened in his or her case from one whom systematically and regularly over the span of years answer the specific legal questions of others.

Now if the neighbor set up shop and started providing suturing services on a daily basis for anybody knocking on the door and seeking out his services (since he’s done it so much, he’s gained a reputation for his medical knowledge) then the agency regulating the practice of medicine in the state might have a big problem with it.

Once again the focus is being shifted to the “recipient” of the legal advice. PL is about the rendering of advice. And I don’t think there is any question that people rely on the advice they receive by net-tarios, whether or not it is reasonable for them to do so. In fact, from what I’ve observed I don’t think it reasonable for the average person seeking legal advice “not” to rely on it. After all, they were looking for it and a net-tario provided it.

Matthew Udall

People are certainly entitled to do-it-themselves, and I think they should be proud of their accomplishment if they do. And reading text books, form instructions, websites that have flowcharts, that sort of thing is all fine and dandy. I’m not talking about that.

What I’m talking about is “a person” who over time takes upon themselves the task of rendering legal advice to other individuals in regards to their specific legal questions. When someone relies on a net-tario for their legal advice, they are no more of a do-it-yourselfer than someone who goes to a licensed attorney for the same thing.

Y & M are two of the most prolific net-tarios on the other site. No two ways about it (and notice I’m not saying they are “bad” net-tarios). These two should go get a law license and become legitimate since they seem to be addicted to the activity (and there is nothing wrong with wanting to try to help people… I know that feeling well myself).

hcj1440

Did you have a UPL discussion with Yodrak at some point? Because he very rarely posts there now, and when he does, it's to say "you should consult an attorney".

Matthew Udall

Each post (legal advice rendered to another in regards to that other person’s specific legal questions/problems) is different, but I suppose I can see the logic in what you are saying.

As Rita herself points out, some of these long time posters have learned through “trial and error” in their prior legal advice rendered.

If the new members are the ones most likely to give inaccurate and dangerous advice, then why are they allowed to do so? Using this logic, only the most seasoned experienced posters should be the ones rendering legal advice. Maybe the posting number (count) helps a newbie determine which person’s advice is more likely to be accurate. Maybe a special status like Moderator helps them make that determination.

But denying new members the opportunity to post occasional what happened in their own case seems contrary to what I often read as to the general purpose of news groups. From what I’ve read, it is to facilitate the sharing of information that people found out through their own ordeals with the CIS and Consulate (and please keep in mind my own personal distinction between the occasional poster and the habitual participant). I don’t read that the purpose is to facilitate the long term rendering of legal advice over the span of years by those whose case is long over and who render legal advice about situations that never came up in their own case. But this is actually what happens, and after a certain point (as Mr. F said, it’s not a sharp line) the PL line is crossed.


The last line of the paragraph above sounds like you are advocating the elimination of news group participation from the occasional poster. And you are correct, the rendering of legal advice is a high stakes activity and the danger of inaccurate advice is just as real regardless of whom it comes from. That’s probably why the states regulate this activity and require certain requirements be met before someone is authorized to do so.

I replied privately to another news group friend yesterday who asked what could be done to reduce the danger of bad advice received by the recipient. Maybe you can come up with some ideas too. Here are a few of my ideas:

Require all participants to post under their real names and have them register their actual address with the site owners (and it must be verified for accuracy before they can begin posting). Net-tarios hide behind fake identity and as Ray pointed out, IPS address can be faked too. By requiring true identities to be used, that might dissuade posters from encouraging others to lie during the process. Also when inaccurate legal advice is rendered and relied upon to the detriment of the recipient, the injured recipient could get the contact information from the owners and then bring legal proceedings against the person who harmed them (of course, when warranted… if not warranted then they would not win anyway).

Limit the rendering of legal advice to those authorized to do so. By allowing “anybody” to render legal advice, this “is” authorization by the site owners for anybody to engage in this high stakes activity.

How about limiting replies to what actually happened in “their own” case (from the POV of the person posting the reply). After all, this is the information that they will be most familiar with and most likely to be correct.

How about limiting the ability to “reply” to only those who have visited the site for X amount of times (I’m sure the owners could set it up so a counter will tabulate how many times a person logs into the site). They can post a question immediately (not limited), but when it comes to replying, they have to have visited the site a certain amount of time (or perhaps a certain amount of days, weeks go by) before they are enabled to reply to others. Once they hit that specification, then they are more likely to post accurate information. And to prevent the prolific hobbyist situation from happening to the extreme (UPL), perhaps put in a cut off point. Once they make a certain amount of replies, their ability to reply further is disabled.

How about requiring others to always ask follow up questions “before” posting a reply that contains legal advice. That seems to be a big problem in news groups and is often the source of incorrect legal advice rendered.

Do you have any ideas?

Insurance is there to provide a monetary form of relief to the client in case the attorney screws up. In the situation where the person relied on a hobbyist’s inaccurate legal advice that caused separation from their K-4 child (which resulted in foreseeable monetary damages proximately caused by the incorrect legal advice), if warranted that hobbyist’s insurance carrier might pay out damages to pay for things directly resulting from (but for) this malpractice (costs directly resulting from the hobbyists malpractice). Now, if that hobbyist had insurance, that might help the hobbyist too in that he might not have to pay this out of his own pocket (but he pays for it by paying his insurance premiums over the years anyway).

How about this for another way to reduce the danger of UPL on news groups? The owners take a portion of their advertising revenue and buy an insurance policy to provide this type of relief for damages resulting from those they allow to render legal advice on the site? Seems reasonable to me.

Matthew Udall

And this is different from damages resulting from a net-tario..... how?

Matthew Udall

Not directly, but he might be aware of the issue and the danger it poses. And by the way, I think he's one of the more knowledgeable net-tarios.

If he’s changed his posting style, maybe he (or one of his close friends on this site) can explain why he did this.

Bob

Idea's wont' fly because what is stopping people posting via google etc? and there are other visa/expat sites that plug into the newsgroups..not to mention people that want to post in other sections of the website, a mare to have multiple ID's....and getting software to log how many times someone visits the site before posting, that would require custom extention to the site, require people to not delete cookies etc...major undertaking for very little gain....baring in mind this site also plugs into immigration groups for canada, australia, NZ and the rest of the world.

Matthew Udall

I’m talking about what could be done on “this” site to reduce the danger of UPL by hobbyists. And if things were implemented to make any site a safer environment (and I like my insurance policy idea) that would make that site an extremely attractive entity and would set them apart from other similar sites. It would be a model others would follow if they wanted to compete, and would help reduce the danger posed by the hobbyists.

If they delete cookies and that screws up their “ability to reply counter”, then they go back to day one and can’t reply until they hit the specification. Would be an incentive not to monkey around this way (that is, if they want to reply).

Providing a safer environment for the recipient of the legal advice, IMO, is not something of “very little gain”. This danger is why there are regulations about this activity, and this danger was around long before the internet.

Who cares what goes on in the lounge and TIO or immigration sites dealing with immigration to foreign countries? Let those countries deal with their UPL problems as they see fit (just like we have always done with UPL activity in the U.S.).

mdyoung

Anyone that would take the word of one person from an Internet site of a possible legal matter is a fool anyway.

I advise people on Social Security related matters, but I always provide links to the information on the SSA Website so that they can read it themselves. I don't want people to think I'm the final word on everything SSA related. That's just what a person should do with info provided here on immigration matter, e.g verify it from another sourse.

fatbrit

Bob's your man! For $100 a year (I'm not expecting much traffic!) and a few peanuts thrown to Bob (who could do with a job), you can have your own site with a portal through to this very UseNet group. I'd suggest you call it "Matt's UPL-Free Immigration Shack".

The you can have the site just the way you like it. In fact, if you don't like BE, it would be quite easy to throw Bob a few more peanuts and get him to block all entries from this site appearing on your nice, new, virginal one.

mdyoung

I was just pointing out that not every lawyer is Perry Mason and having a lawyer doesn't necessarily make the process a slam dunk.

Matthew Udall

Ah, the classic reply. Let’s blame the person who innocently asks questions on a site that purports to be a resource for immigration advice, received incorrect legal answers to their questions and relied on it to their detriment. This rational is exactly why UPL regulations exist in the first place. I think those seeking legal advice deserve a little better than, “well, you were a dumb **** for asking your question here in the first place”. And if information on sites like this should not be relied on, then why do they exist?

And time has shown that people “do” rely on advice they receive on sites like this. And sometimes, others back up the inaccurate advice so often it’s not just the word of “one person”.

Matthew Udall

True. Same goes for advice from non-attorneys. I think this is obvious, even though there "are" some big differences between the two (an insurance policy is one).