No you would be mistaken in that regard, more so that you have upset people with the topic of this thread, hence some of the responses. If you had been a member here longer you would know that.

I would ask that you don't tar the majority of the members of this forum with the same brush because of the behavior of one or two members that you don't get on with, it's unfair and unwarranted.

Also we don't pre-moderate, and do not read every post on this forum, so if you feel any posts are inappropriate you are more than welcome to use the "report" post button to bring to to the attention of a "volunteer" moderator.

Thank you

There are several things here. Most people are.just trying to give advice based on their experience with the system.and what they have picked up along the way. Not unreasonable for a site some this. This leads to another issue, the people that give advice or opinions are not lawyers and as such don't know what constitutes legal.advice. I know just from my view no one, even the lawyers, offer legal advice. Every now and again a lawyer does post something that could be legal advice but mainly I just see opinions and advice, usually advice to see a lawyer. The last issue is that, at least to me, a lot of what the lawyers write comes across as very arrogant. I'm of the opinion that its unintentional and they are trying to be helpful but it often sounds like they think you are better than everyone else. This thread is a great example, I don't believe its meant to but it reads like an elitist rant.

Without the free flow of thoughts, opinions and views this particular forum becomes pointless as each question would be answered with the poster being told to see a lawyer.

The only logical conclusion would be to close this and other forums down, if indeed it was illegal. ILW has its own forum, if a bit weird.

The biggest difference is nobody here gets paid for it. and as they say you get what you pay for.

Most of you didn't know Alvena Ferreira or Charles "Doc" Steen. I did, so did Rete... and perhaps one or two others who participated in the original Usenet newsgroup alt.visa.us.marriage-based back in 1997. Susan's post got me thinking about the two of them. I'm not sure why exactly... but then again, maybe I do.

Susan - for what it's worth, thanks for the post! We've debated UPL on and off for many years now - with strong viewpoints on both sides of the issue. I, for one, likely won't change what I do - but I do appreciate that you're trying to protect us!

Ian

The basic problem is that she provides no meaningful context for her complaint. Thus it appears to be directed at everyone.

BTW, it seems to this non-attorney that "go see a lawyer" is qualitatively legal advice as much as anything else on this forum.

UPL is certainly not cut and dry:


"What is considered the "practice of law"?
The practice of law is more than just appearing in court on behalf of a client. Though no concise definition of practice of law exists, certain characteristics make it more likely that the Court will view certain conduct as the practice of law. An early South Carolina case, cited by other jurisdictions as well, stated that the practice of law includes "the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and in general all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law." In re Duncan, 65 S.E. 210 (S.C. 1909). The practice of law "extends to activities in other fields which entail specialized legal knowledge." South Carolina v. Buyers Serv. Co., 357 S.E.2d 15 (S.C. 1987).

Additionally, whether an individual is paid for his or her services is irrelevant. The reasons for prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law are not to protect licensed attorneys from losing business to unlicensed individuals. Rather, the purpose is to protect the public from consequences resulting "from the erroneous preparation of legal documents or the inaccurate legal advice given by persons untrained in the law." South Carolina v. McLauren, 563 S.E.2d 346 (S.C. 2002).

Examples from South Carolina Supreme Court decisions:
Inmates. The Supreme Court ruled that it was the unauthorized practice of law for a state prison inmate to help other inmates prepare applications for post-conviction relief, even though he was not paid and never appeared in court on the other inmates' behalf. South Carolina v. McLauren, 563 S.E.2d 346 (S.C. 2002).

Some lawyers cut and paste....then fail to even bother attributing to the original writer.

http://www.dcba.org/brief/mayissue/2002/art40502.htm -- cut and paste is about half way down.

The article's actually about paralegals working in the legal profession. But we wouldn't want facts to get in the way of opinions here, would we?

You'll find AZ is not quite so gung-ho as SC.

"Rather, the purpose is to protect the public from consequences resulting "from the erroneous preparation of legal documents or the inaccurate legal advice given by persons untrained in the law." South Carolina v. McLauren, 563 S.E.2d 346 (S.C. 2002)."

Class action law suit against the USCIS mis-information line for UPL

Maybe some lawyers have also forgotten that many queries here do not require the attention of a lawyer, an example being that if someone is unsure whether they can use the VWP or not, they certainly don't need to see a lawyer on that score if there is nothing serious preventing them from doing so. It also comes down to how responsible the individuals are in following the very basics of immigration law that in invariably offered to the individual when they read the conditions of the use of something like the VWP.

Whether people are irresponsible or not, going to see a lawyer might not be particularly beneficial when the experience here often does give the right answer a lot more often than not. From what I've seen here the right answers appear to be given at a percentage in the high nineties, so individuals are very unlikely to be given the wrong advice.

'Expressing legal opinions' is covered but vaguely defined as in many cases.




http://www.myazbar.org/LawyerRegulation/upl.cfm

Matt Udall is that you ....

Lord knows I have rarely seen eye to eye with Fatbrit, but he is absolutely correct. I for one will regard the original poster of these comments somewhat differently due to this rather large omission of failing to reference the original, intact article. For shame sir.

It's all based on re. Creasy.

Ray:



As you know, Matt is temporarily banned for life. However, it has struck me that many of the responses in this thread are as if Matt is here. But he is not here.

Susan took great pains to mention that "blurry line." The placement of that "line" is a subject of debate. In a stretch of that metaphor, I think I can safely say that Matt is more of a "hard liner." Also, Matt would go toe-to-toe and name names.

Look -- you have long noted the legitimate limitations of the E-2 visa. However, you then extended it to an opinion that, to paraphrase, all E-2 are made of soft brown material. You now acknowledge that, for certain people, an E-2 may be just fine and dandy. And even if it is not, it is the choice of person as long as they know the shortfalls. By all means, it is my opinion you can continue to point out the down-side -- kids aging out, you go away if business goes away, retirement means going away, etc etc.