Ray

Actually ..that quite a good idea... Why don't you two Lawyers set up your own Forum and try it out ... in fact I have a spare I can give you for a year
I will even set it up too your requirements ... for free...

You couldeven get other Lawyer to join in ..for their pro bono bit

Matthew Udall

As you know, I try to limit my participation to the sharing of general information (not case specific advice) not available from other sources (for example, things I learn while touring the Service Centers).

I "could" render case specific advice, but to do that I would first have to ask the appropriate question to really get to know the client's facts/case, start a file, monitor the client’s situation throughout their immigration process, keep those records for at least 5 years, and basically accept the fact that I'm now this person's attorney. I would rather do that privately (not in public) and I'd also like to be paid for my services rendered.

So setting up a site would be fine, but I'd limit it to the sharing of general information not available from other sources, and I certainly wouldn't allow others to engage in UPL on the site.

fatbrit

So, let me get this straight..
You don't want laypeople to give advice, but you as an attorney will happily give specific advice but only after you're paid for it. Think we're getting to the bottom of this UPL malarkey very quickly. After three, everybody...

Matthew Udall

The danger of UPL is real whether or not you want to accept that. As for what I do in my volunteer work, I think some of the general information I share is useful. As far as not wanting to create an attorney client relationship due to postings, no secret there.

You have a marvelous grasp of the obvious ;-).

fatbrit

It's my special bs detector!

Matthew Udall

How do you ever pry yourself away from the mirror then ;-)?

ian-mstm

True, but there are many people, me included, who will not stop giving advice (well, to be fair... many people don't consider what I do to be actually giving advice! ) Personally, I'm not too concerned. You and I have exchanged a number of interesting thoughts both online and in private, and I have appreciated both your insight and fervent passion. That said, I'm probably still not going to stop giving... um... advice! So where does that leave us?

You can choose to be the UPL police if you want, but I think you're facing an uphill battle. I deeply respect your position on this and I have no issues with you bringing it to our attention and discussing it but, from where I sit, it's a bit like the never-ending story.

In some strange way, I consider you and others in this forum as friends - and there is nothing wrong when friends disagree on topical issues... I think it makes things more interesting and I celebrate diversity - but friends also have a duty to speak the truth as they see it. In this context, I honestly think that you are not going to curtail the actions of others... even if they (including me) are all operating outside legal boundaries.

You see UPL. I see a free exchange of information. Surely there is some middle ground where we can agree? If not, your role as the UPL police takes on an aura of incredulity!

Ian

mdyoung

It's a classic because it makes sense, the same as if someone blew their life's savings on some hot stock tip they got here and it tanked. The only time I would be on your side is if someone was giving out advice and they gave the impression that they were a lawyer, but weren't.

Matthew Udall

I’m not the UPL police and I don’t work for any state agency that is charged with regulating this activity. I’m simply posting about the obvious danger of UPL and I’m not the only person who understands and acknowledges this.

It’s no secret that some take the spirit of what a news group is all about and twist it into their own personal immigration practice due to the sheer scope and duration of their activities. Perhaps they feel the immigration community would be lost and in the dark without their presence, and if they want to continue putting others at risk with their addiction, that’s their business.

And if any particular state agency did decide to go after any given person or website, you would have the PL hobbyist to blame, not the occasional poster who is sharing what happened in their own case (Look at what Alvena did to her own self and site due to her PL addiction). That would really be a shame, and the PL hobbyist or hobbyists would be doing a huge disservice to those they seem to want to help.

The debate about PL on the group is certainly nothing new and most of the hobbyists in question have been well aware of the problem for years now, so like you, I have a feeling they will continue to put their own interests before those of the immigration community or any particular website where they engage in their PL.

Matthew Udall

Ah, another classic reply. No matter how much legal advice is rendered and how long it goes on, it can “NEVER” be legal advice unless it comes from an attorney, right? Boy, are you ever naive, or perhaps you just can’t handle the reality of the situation (or perhaps you are wrapped up in the misplaced romantic notion that all speech is “free”). Some speech is highly regulated, and in fact, I believe speech that constitutes legal advice would probably be classified as commercial speech (which is far less protected).

anti-climacus

Could this allay some of the discussed concerns?

1. General Caveat Emptor/Disclaimer in LARGE FONT on top of the BritishExpats Forum: The BritishExpats Forum does not intend to replace professional, licensed legal advice and is not responsible for accuracy of information provided. Use at your own risk. (The forum owned by Law Offices of Rajiv Khanna, PS has something comparable. See, http://boards.immigration.com .)

2. A similar caveat in the generic signature under EACH posted message on the forum: This post does not intend to replace professional, licensed legal advice. The poster is not responsible for accuracy of information provided. Use at your own risk.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Just got back from a very pleasant evening of listening to four fine Irish musicians. But, in retrospect, there are some times when laypeople SHOULD give legal advice. And I've seen it on this very NG and approve.

Allow me an analogy: someone posts I need some money and I need it quickly, what do you think if I walk into a bank with a sawed-off 4/10 and say "I need money" -- what do you think of that.

I see nothing wrong with a response from a layperson that possession of sawed-off shotguns is illegal and that perhaps, walking into a bank with it just might be considered bank robbery which is against the law.

Now, I WOULD see something wrong with an answer to the effect "Sawed-off shotguns are illegal, I recommend an unmodified shotgun. Also, since your action may be interpreted as bank robbery, note that is is Federal offense with stiff penalites. The penalty is less if you pull that stunt in a commercial store. BTW, Southland Corporation prohibits its franchisees from carrying heat."

Ray

I would have said ...the 410 is inadequate ..you need a 12 gauge pump...

Matthew Udall

There is one noticeable group that does not seem to have a disclaimer and that group is the one exposed to the dangers of PL. Anybody that has been around long enough knows that even with the two disclaimers above, this group is going to rely on the advice.

Maybe those in this group should include their own disclaimer with each of their questions; “I am seeking accurate legal advice for my important life altering immigration situation (and perhaps list some examples of topics of discussion where replies would be considered as legal advice). Do not reply unless you are certain of the accuracy of the advice you render, unless you have first asked questions of me (and received my reply) that are necessary in order for you to fully understand my situation (Since I don’t fully understand this subject, I might not give enough information in my first few postings to give you all of the information you need to come to an accurate conclusion), and reply only if you are willing to be held accountable for any reasonable foreseeable damages I suffer in reliance on the legal advice you render”.

Since this is the group exposed to the risk of PL and since we know that a great many do actually rely on legal advice rendered perhaps their disclaimer should automatically appear on each posting made (but my guess is that those replying will ignore it just like those asking ignore the liability shield disclaimers).

Plus, I’ll bet in certain situations disclaimers may only go so far, and I’ll bet we could think of many types of activities where it might not be possible to totally disclaim away liability.

anti-climacus

Why not ALSO reverse the burden of responsibility?

“YOU are seeking accurate legal advice for YOUR important life altering immigration situation. YOU [may not be] certain of the accuracy of the advice [rendered] here, [even if] YOU have first [been] asked questions (and received YOUR reply) that are necessary in order to fully understand YOUR situation (Since YOU don’t fully understand this subject, YOU might not [provide] enough information in YOUR first few postings to give all of the information [needed] to come to an accurate conclusion). [ASK QUESTIONS on this forum] only if YOU are willing to be held accountable for any reasonable foreseeable damages YOU suffer in reliance on the legal advice [rendered here].


*As an aside note: It's been said that style and demeanor are as important to communication and persuasion as content and logic.