Every time drama from a legaladvice thread gets posted the same couple people pop in and reply to just about every single comment with even a hint of criticism.
The post you linked to was actually removed and I was still getting replies from them after the fact.
Legaladvice is just a wellspring of the most self-righteous drama on Reddit and I wish it would get posted here more often. You don't even have to ping! They just come running to defend themselves as soon as they see that comment showing they are linked to.
Do you think biondina and thepatman obsess here too? It would be nice since we can't ping anymore, and tbh those two are some of the biggest piece of shit moderators that give absolute garbage legal advice.
I'm an actual attorney and have stopped reading LA completely just because so much bullshit gets upvoted and the mods have no idea what they're doing.
Serious question though... if you see bullshit being upvoted, how come you don't take a quick second to report it and call it out with a correction? It'd take no more time than it took you to reply to me here. Seems like it'd help make the sub less shitty, don't you think?
Serious question though... if you see bullshit being upvoted, how come you don't take a quick second to report it and call it out with a correction?
I have, actually. And sometimes that has even worked!
It'd take no more time than it took you to reply to me here. Seems like it'd help make the sub less shitty, don't you think?
When it's overflowing with shit, it's just too annoying/frustrating and not worth the time or effort. I'm not a mod of the sub, you guys are - you should know these answers without us having to call you out.
I'm an actual attorney and have stopped reading LA completely just because so much bullshit gets upvoted and the mods have no idea what they're doing.
I'm an actual attorney too, and wrote an excellent response on a tax issue, only to have the idiot Biondina delete it, and write "Please ignore that advice. It is wholly incorrect, particularly to your jurisdiction." as if she knows anything about the law.
Biondina is just another idiot mod abusing her little bit of Reddit power to delete people who say things she disagrees with. She isn't qualified to pass judgment on the legal merits of anything I have to say.
I will give real replies now, you are actually allowed to ping. You won't get in trouble. The thing is though that 99% of them will get removed instantly unless it is a person on an approved white list. So effectively you will end up talking just to yourself.
There are two kinds of people on r/legaladvice: lawyers who are committing malpractice, and non-lawyers who are committing a crime by giving legal advice.
It's pretty shocking that anyone actually looks for advice there.
There are two kinds of people on r/legaladvice: lawyers who are committing malpractice, and non-lawyers who are committing a crime by giving legal advice.
I know that's an often repeated belief held by baby lawyers and law students, but it's really not accurate. It also sounds totally whiny.
There are two kinds of people on r/legaladvice: lawyers who are committing malpractice, and non-lawyers who are committing a crime by giving legal advice.
It isn't malpractice when there is no attorney-client relationship, which there clearly is not in that context.
Non-lawyers have a 1st amendment right to give opinions on legal subject matter. Any law purporting to criminalize this would be unconstitutional anyway, though I have never seen any case where these laws were ever enforced in any situation remotely like an internet forum.
The only way you'd run into trouble is if you went so far as to establish an attorney-client relationship, and then you weren't an attorney or you gave wrong advice below the standard of care.
It isn't malpractice when there is no attorney-client relationship
It's not at all clear that there's no AC relationship. In fact, the default is that there IS an AC relationship when someone seeks legal advice and an attorney provides that advice.
Beyond that, an attorney has certain obligations even when there isn't an AC relationship, such as keeping communications confidential. Good luck with that when you're on one of the most heavily-trafficked sites on the internet.
Non-lawyers have a 1st amendment right to give opinions on legal subject matter. Any law purporting to criminalize this would be unconstitutional anyway
You can give opinions, but the minute you start to advise people of their legal rights and responsibilities, you're practicing law. And no, the 1A won't save you.
In fact, the default is that there IS an AC relationship when someone seeks legal advice and an attorney provides that advice.
This is just wrong. Here is my authority. Your words imply that they are based on authority. Let's see it.
Beyond that, an attorney has certain obligations even when there isn't an AC relationship, such as keeping communications confidential. Good luck with that when you're on one of the most heavily-trafficked sites on the internet.
Again, wrong, attorneys have no such obligations/duties to non-clients, particularly when you are talking about a public internet forum where all the information is being posted for all to see.
You can give opinions, but the minute you start to advise people of their legal rights and responsibilities, you're practicing law. And no, the 1A won't save you.
That's a mighty strong opinion you've got there. Got any authority to back it up?
I've actually researched the issue of unauthorized practice of law extensively in California because I consult and write briefs for criminal defense lawyers (even though I don't practice criminal law in general), and the issue came up. The law in California is laughably vague and obviously unconstitutional, but it is almost never actually used, and the few cases in which it is used never rely on the concept of "legal advice alone is enough to practice law", so that issue - which you have your very strong opinion on - has never been ripe for review, BECAUSE prosecutors agree with me and would never dare try to push such an obviously unconstitutional prosecution.
Under your ridiculous interpretation of UPL, a husband and wife couldn't even discuss trivial legal matters together, since either side expressing their opinion would be "legal advice" to the other.
In reality, you'd have to meet the threshold for the establishment of an attorney-client relationship before UPL even gets on the radar, and even then, nobody has ever been prosecuted (as least in California) for informally, not-for-profit, stating opinions on legal subject matter. UPL is used to go after people (almost always disbarred attorneys) who are actually working as purported lawyers for money. The only case different from this that I saw, was one in which a guy used a fraudulent scheme claiming he was a lawyer to shake someone down, and that case is an outlier.
This is just wrong. Here is my authority. Your words imply that they are based on authority. Let’s see it.
Here is DC bar opinion letter which discusses a lot of other jurisdictions and analogous situations. Tl;dr: it’s pretty freaking easy to inadvertently create an AC relationship.
And from your source:
Attorney provides the caller with a generalized answer rather than one directly addressing the caller’s specific question. Following the answer, Attorney points out that the question is outside his area of expertise, and that the caller should select and consult an attorney who practices in the field of landlord- tenant law.
So...not at all like the replies on r/legaladvice.
For the record: I’m not saying that it’s necessarily unethical for an attorney to post there. I’m saying that everything I’ve seen on there is unethical.
BECAUSE prosecutors agree with me and would never dare try to push such an obviously unconstitutional prosecution.
Under your ridiculous interpretation of UPL, a husband and wife couldn’t even discuss trivial legal matters together, since either side expressing their opinion would be “legal advice” to the other.
I agree that no sane DA would file charges for something like that. That’s rarely going to be an egregious issue for them to spend their limited resources on.
Here’s a hypo for you: one of the cops who mods r/LA wrongfully shoots someone. A few weeks later, he sees a post there from someone asking if they have a 1983 claim in a very similar fact pattern. He says “no, the LEO was right and you’d have to pay his attorney fees if you brought a frivolous suit, so don’t bother” and deletes any posts that say otherwise. Do you really think the cop would get off with a 1A defense if he were charged with UPL for that?
For the record: I’m not saying that it’s necessarily unethical for an attorney to post there. I’m saying that everything I’ve seen on there is unethical.
As a general rule I agree with you that LA is garbage, and invites bad advice from people who have their own agenda to push. I just think that people who post there pretty much know that they are signing up for unreliable garbage, not genuine attorney advice they'd get from a real consultation.
Here’s a hypo for you: one of the cops who mods r/LA wrongfully shoots someone. A few weeks later, he sees a post there from someone asking if they have a 1983 claim in a very similar fact pattern. He says “no, the LEO was right and you’d have to pay his attorney fees if you brought a frivolous suit, so don’t bother” and deletes any posts that say otherwise. Do you really think the cop would get off with a 1A defense if he were charged with UPL for that?
I don't think that is UPL so much as some other kind of wrongful and possibly tortious conduct. I don't think your fact pattern fits into any of the exceptions to the 1st amendment. It's not really a statement of fact, it's a legal conclusion. There is a lot of bad behavior out there that doesn't necessarily create liability.
You see this kind of bullshit agenda-driven "advice" a LOT with landlord-tenant legal questions, where landlords come out of the woodwork giving their biased pro-landlord legal opinions.
I just think that people who post there pretty much know that they are signing up for unreliable garbage, not genuine attorney advice they’d get from a real consultation.
It seems to me like there are a lot of people who feel like they’re at the end of their rope. They need someone to tell them “See a lawyer! Lots of them work on contingency!”, not to get armchair lawyers’ legal advice.
I don’t think your fact pattern fits into any of the exceptions to the 1st amendment. It’s not really a statement of fact, it’s a legal conclusion.
You were making me curious, so I checked. Courts have rejected 1A defenses to UPL charges, and I havent seen a single case where that defense was successful.
Here’s an example:
In general, Colorado's ban on the unauthorized practice of law does not implicate the First Amendment because it is directed at conduct, not speech. See Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 456, 98 S.Ct. 1912, 56 L.Ed.2d 444 (1978) (suggesting that the government's regulation of the practice of law is a regulation of conduct, not speech); S. Christian Leadership Conference v. Sup.Ct. of La., 252 F.3d 781, 789 (5th Cir.2001) (finding that state prohibition on unlicensed students practicing law in state courts did not regulate speech); Drew v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 970 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Tex.App.1998) (holding that ban on unauthorized practice of law did not implicate the First Amendment); Fla. Bar v. Furman, 376 So.2d 378, 379 (Fla.1979) (rejecting argument from unlicensed attorney that ban on unauthorized practice of law violated freedom of speech).
The fact that our ban touches on the legal content of the advice offered or the pleadings drafted by an unlicensed person is of no constitutional significance, since “it has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.” Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 502, 69 S.Ct. 684, 93 L.Ed. 834 (1949) (emphasis added); see also Ohralik, 436 U.S. at 456, 98 S.Ct. 1912 (applying Giboney in the context of attorney regulation case). In this respect, our ban on the unauthorized practice of law is no different from state laws prohibiting bribery (section 18-8-302, C.R.S. (2006)), extortion (section 18-3-207, C.R.S. (2006)), or criminal solicitation (section 18-2-301, C.R.S. (2006)). Each of these unlawful activities requires some method of communication, and yet it is “well established that speech which, in its effect, is tantamount to legitimately proscribable nonexpressive conduct may itself be legitimately proscribed, punished, or regulated incidentally to the constitutional enforcement of generally applicable statutes.” Rice v. Paladin Enter., Inc., 128 F.3d 233, 243 (4th Cir.1997) (citing Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 669, 111 S.Ct. 2513, 115 L.Ed.2d 586 (1991)).
People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162, 173 (Colo. 2006) (en banc), cert. denied, Shell v. Colo., 550 U.S. 971 (2007).
While that case isn’t particularly similar to reddit legal advice, I think it strongly dispels the argument that this is protected speech.
I think it strongly dispels the argument that this is protected speech.
I don't, because the language from that case isn't discussing pure speech. The person there, Shell, was doing things like drafting discovery, filing motions, and so on. She was doing this professionally and for-profit. The punishment there was just a fine, no jail time.
The court you cited also says, right after the bit you quoted, that there might be a 1st Amendment problem on different facts, but that Shell's conduct was such that she couldn't try to hide behind the 1st amendment:
It is true that some activities constituting the practice of law are difficult to disentangle from the exercise of free speech.
174*174 See Lawline v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 956 F.2d 1378, 1386 (7th Cir.1992) ("While the practice of law and the exercise of free speech are not indistinguishable, neither are they mutually exclusive."). However, none of Shell's actions at issue in this case presents such a difficulty. Any impact on speech in this case "is merely the incidental effect of observing an otherwise legitimate regulation."
Shell's problem was that she openly acted as a lawyer in all respects, not just giving "legal advice".
I have never seen a case where a UPL was based on pure legal advice, hence why the 1st amendment never is a major issue.
The person there, Shell, was doing things like drafting discovery, filing motions, and so on. She was doing this professionally and for-profit.
I have never seen a case where a UPL was based on pure legal advice
In one case (the A.F. neglect case), she’d drafted motions and gave advice, which is all speech. She wasn’t trying to ‘officially’ represent the party; in fact, she was trying to act like she was just giving advice (i.e. she sent a letter providing the plaintiff with legal arguments to make and had a ‘sample’ discovery request on her website).
Previously and after (in the K.M. case and the A.F. lawsuit, respectively), she’d also attempted to ‘officially’ represent the parties. There’s no indication that it was for profit (in a letter she said that she’d been “retained”, but I think the court would’ve highlighted it if she’d actually been paid a retainer...and in any case, it’s unlikely that the indigent party paid her).
Notably, the court did not draw a distinction between her acting as a counselor and her acting as an advocate. It’s all UPL.
Here’s another good section of the opinion:
As this case reveals, one of the touchstones of Colorado's ban on the unauthorized practice of law is an unlicensed person offering advice or judgment about legal matters to another person for use in a specific legal setting. See Denver Bar Ass'n, 154 Colo. at 280, 391 P.2d at 471. The ban's focus on case-specific legal practice keeps it from becoming so malleable as to restrict Shell's right to criticize legal rulings or advocate for the reform of Colorado's legal system. Any potential limitation on protected speech or conduct caused by the ban “is not real and substantial as compared” to the legitimate and permissible ban on the unauthorized practice of law, which concerns “a whole range of easily identifiable and constitutionally proscribable conduct.” Shepard, 983 P.2d at 4. We therefore cannot agree with Shell's claim of overbreadth.
To me, this says that the 1A exception to the UPL statute is extremely small. As the statute only outlaws case-specific legal advice, it would only run afoul of the 1A where it’s used to retaliate for criticism of a ruling.
The funny part is that Shell’s conduct was closer to this than r/LA’s conduct is. Shell “is an advocate committed to exposing what she considers to be abuses of process”, so she’s at least acting with a political motive. A redditor saying “you don’t have the right to refuse an employer’s DNA test” is not in the ballpark.
The punishment there was just a fine, no jail time.
In one case (the A.F. neglect case), she’d drafted motions and gave advice, which is all speech.
Drafting a motion isn't "speech", it's conduct/legal advocacy. It's just like how showing up in court and doing oral argument is not "speech". Yes, you are speaking, but that's not what is being outlawed, it is the fact that you are representing someone else's interests in a legal matter without a license. The Court discusses this.
She wasn’t trying to ‘officially’ represent the party; in fact, she was trying to act like she was just giving advice (i.e. she sent a letter providing the plaintiff with legal arguments to make and had a ‘sample’ discovery request on her website).
She drafted motions and discovery, and tried to puppet the real lawyer and effectively turn him into her paralegal. It was pretty extreme. The Court didn't do a case-by-case analysis that I saw, it just looked at her total conduct and said "1A? bitch, please".
Notably, the court did not draw a distinction between her acting as a counselor and her acting as an advocate. It’s all UPL.
Courts never split hairs like that. It's not before the court. If you were accused of UPL on 3 cases, they aren't going to go case by case and say yea or nay on every single ground/charge, since their role as an appellate court is to just determine if there was at least 1 ground on which to sustain the result.
For example, lets say you have a probation violation case with 10 grounds for violation, 9 of which are total bullshit. The court will point to the 1 that isn't bullshit, say "yup, he violated, affirmed" and ignore the other 9 because there's no prejudice. If she had separate charges for UPL for each case, they'd have to look at it, but apparently there was just 1 UPL charge here, so the only role of the appellate court was to find 1 reason to uphold it.
To me, this says that the 1A exception to the UPL statute is extremely small. As the statute only outlaws case-specific legal advice, it would only run afoul of the 1A where it’s used to retaliate for criticism of a ruling.
That's not how I read it. It says "case-specific legal practice" and I think the words "legal practice" are what show that the Court was not looking at speech. The speech in question has to be tied to actual legal practice, like what she was trying to do here. If you ask your buddy for legal advice as to whether or not you should divorce your wife because she won't have sex with you, and he says "yeah dump that bitch", he is giving you legal advice in a technical sense, but this Court is saying it has to go further and be part of legal practice. That's why UPL is such a mess: it basically comes down to a "I'll know it when I see it" test of "was this person PRACTICING LAW? Since prosecutors never file cases where that question is a close call, we never get case law ruling on those 1st amendment issues, because like this Court wrote, "practicing law" is conduct, not speech.
Drafting a motion isn't "speech", it's conduct/legal advocacy
My dude, the motion I'm talking about was not prepared for a specific case. Instead, it was presented as a sample motion on her website. In fact, the entire point of it being a "sample" was to make an end-run around the UPL statute...but it didn't matter, because drafting a sample motion is both speech and conduct.
Courts never split hairs like that. It's not before the court. If you were accused of UPL on 3 cases, they aren't going to go case by case and say yea or nay on every single ground/charge, since their role as an appellate court is to just determine if there was at least 1 ground on which to sustain the result.
So why even mention the advice? Why not just say, "She drafted motions, and that's UPL"? Surely that would be more likely to be upheld if she'd been successful in appealing to the SCOTUS.
If you ask your buddy for legal advice as to whether or not you should divorce your wife because she won't have sex with you, and he says "yeah dump that bitch", he is giving you legal advice in a technical sense,
I don't agree with this. The precise definition of legal advice differs a bit by state, but it generally boils down to counseling others about their rights and/or duties in a particular case. Sometimes it involves reliance or representing that you have legal knowledge.
If you add some stuff, though, it can very easily become legal advice. For example: "Yeah, dump that bitch. You can get alimony from her because she wasn't performing her wifely duties -- trust me, I'm a paralegal so I know what I'm talking about". That's UPL pretty much anywhere.
Good example. It's a pure statement of opinion about a person's rights. That's squarely within the 1st amendment. It's crazy to imagine a world where citizens are not allowed to discuss their own rights without facing criminal liability. That's north-korea level of crazy. That means a high school teacher talking about the Constitution is committing UPL if she answers student questions.
I said that to illustrate the generally-non-political character of r/legaladvice. I wasn't saying that it, by itself, is legal advice. But hey, let's take a look at that thread. Here are some choice bits of a couple of top comments:
They cannot force you to take the DNA test, but they do not have to continue to employ you.
So unless you have an employment contractor protecting your job your employer can fire you for any reason that isn't a protected class to include not submitting a DNA sample. So basically this means they can fire you because you didn't submit a DNA sample, you can also get fired for wearing the wrong colored socks. My advice, submit the DNA.
These are very, very clearly statements about OP's legal rights as applied to this particular case, rather than a general statement about rights. It's also in the context of a "legal advice" forum; OP appears to be relying on it, and one of them is a "quality contributor" (which is, to me, a representation about his level of knowledge).
I'll gladly take the position that a high school teacher talking about the Constitution should not be answering student questions in such a way that she gives them advice about their rights and responsibilities in a particular case. Instead, she should only give generalized information, which is not "legal advice".
In California, misdemeanors usually carry jail time, and are all crimes with up to/under 1 year jail time. Fine-only crimes are called infractions. I looked up the Colorado law, and it looks like UPL is a civil matter there, punished as contempt of court, with a fine of 2-5k. They can jail you if you do it repeatedly, but it's not a criminal proceeding.
I was wrong about CO. My bad.
In my state, GA, it's a misdemeanor, and that seems to be the majority rule. I did know that a few states treat it as contempt and at least one (FL) has it as a felony. The point is that it's a crime in a lot of the US, and a nonlawyer who frequently posts to r/LA will almost certainly give advice to someone in a misdemeanor state at some point.
I think where we are getting hung up is that, in my view, UPL exists to stop people from actually "practicing law", which means representing them as a lawyer would, or doing the job a lawyer would do (drafting contracts, etc). So if someone, be it a family member or co-worker, or redditor, wants to talk about a legal problem they have and solicits opinions, engaging in that discussion isn't a crime in any sense. You would have to take it further and actually engage in some kind of attorney-client representation. Every UPL case I've seen involves this being done professionally, for-profit, not just as a matter of loose talk.
Your interpretation of UPL makes it illegal for any layperson to talk about a person's legal problem. Period. That's just insane and dystopian, to me. Now, I know being a lawyer means lots of family and friends harass me with their legal questions, but I think it's crazy to think that it would be Constitutionally valid, if someone starts annoying me with some talk about their employer not paying them overtime at Thankgiving dinner, and my aunt chimes in and gives her two cents, even if it is wrong, that my aunt is now a criminal. This just happens waaaaaay too much in society. People with legal problems tend to cast a wide net and ask advice from lots of people, not just lawyers, because... well... that's how people deal with ALL their problems. A considerable portion of a person's problems in life happen to have legal implications.
Your view of UPL would elevate lawyers to a kind of sacred priesthood who has total and utter monopoly power to wield and give opinions on legal matters. If some common plebian dares to give his opinion, off to the stockade with him! How dare he deign to speak his opinion on a legal matter in public!
Now, I understand that this means that sometimes laypersons will cause bad results, by discouraging valid claims, or encouraging frivolous litigation. To me, the social cost of that is far lower than the social cost of locking people up for giving their legal opinion. Trying to draw a fine line between protected speech and criminal "legal advice" is too difficult and chills too much speech to be worth going down that road at all. I think "legal advice" ought to be stricken from the statutes entirely, there has just never been a case where that issue was ripe.
Ultimately, if a person follows advice from an anonymous internet forum without getting confirmation from a licensed attorney, it's their own fault if the advice is bad. I'm not interested in protecting that person from their own stupidity with the application of jail time.
Your interpretation of UPL makes it illegal for any layperson to talk about a person's legal problem.
Again, I disagree with your characterization of my interpretation. I think there's plenty of room for benign "advice" while preventing people from being harmed by the advice people who don't know what they're talking about.
But let's say that my interpretation is too broad. I think a subreddit called "legal advice", which is purportedly run by a group which includes numerous lawyers, who pick out "quality contributors" whose advice is starred, is engaging in much more than "loose talk". It's basically "pro bono UPL" or "Avvo with a bunch of nonlawyers", and it should be unlawful under nearly any definition of UPL.
It's basically "pro bono UPL" or "Avvo with a bunch of nonlawyers
I see where you are coming from. The sub is problematic, I just don't think the government has the power to criminalize the sub as long as it stays non-commercial, because trying to prosecute people posting opinions there for UPL would end up with the UPL law being overbroad/vague under the 1st amendment.
This is just me, but if the mods there tried to commercialize/monetize the sub, my opinion would flip to the commercial activity being UPL.
Hey CorrineontheCobb! Thank you for your submission, unfortunately it has been removed from /r/SubredditDrama because: You used a biased title or write-up.
SRDine mods give the most bullshit reasons for removing posts.
Biondina closed a thread of mine asking legal advice in the legal advice sub reddit. Power hungry dumb bitch who just supports lawyers. The subreddit is of no help at all and she closed the post in 20 minutes before real lawyers could answer. No way to report it to anybody either.
91 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-12-13
Hahaha, you were so butthurt you reported all my posts to the moderators too.
You win this one, I'm not allowed to make fun of you anymore. Enjoy living your internet life every day, goodbye.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-12-13
Um, are we just going to ignore this guy?
1 Goroman86 2018-12-13
That's a lot of taint-licking... yet my taint remains dry. Is this oppression?
1 CrackFerretus 2018-12-13
No way that thread is even real. "My special needs brother is a beat mixing savant...christian rock label" no way this shit is real.
1 JurijFedorov 2018-12-13
1 Jigglyploof267 2018-12-13
The 4th: you
1 Jigglyploof267 2018-12-13
Wait... not you
1 Goroman86 2018-12-13
Trick question, the biggest misinformed morons are r/Drama posters
1 retarded4bustin 2018-12-13
Get canned SRDine.
1 Goroman86 2018-12-13
Ad hominem. MOOOOOODS
1 retarded4bustin 2018-12-13
How about "add homo in em" and it's what you're doing right now.
1 Elite_AI 2018-12-13
then he should be lauded. i have upvoted him
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2018-12-13
That shit doesn't work here, you have to own your idiocy.
1 Ghdust2 2018-12-13
SRDine humor is painful.
1 Goroman86 2018-12-13
Ad hominem. Plz take 2 steps back.
1 Agenda_Poster 2018-12-13
K
1 Argentumvir 2018-12-13
Why are people downvoting this man smh
1 rabiiiii 2018-12-13
Every time drama from a legaladvice thread gets posted the same couple people pop in and reply to just about every single comment with even a hint of criticism.
The post you linked to was actually removed and I was still getting replies from them after the fact.
Legaladvice is just a wellspring of the most self-righteous drama on Reddit and I wish it would get posted here more often. You don't even have to ping! They just come running to defend themselves as soon as they see that comment showing they are linked to.
1 grasshoppa1 2018-12-13
Please. As if we don't browse this sub obsessively too.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-12-13
You are legit one of the worst """quality contributors""" so it's completely unsurprising that you are also a dramatard.
1 grasshoppa1 2018-12-13
Fuck yes. Thank you.
1 Seattle_Bussy_Lmao 2018-12-13
Guys and gals, remember: Upvote
1 dogwheiner 2018-12-13
You really don't have to encourage this one. He'll post the rest of his life away regardless
1 patriarchypanties 2018-12-13
Maybe if you spent less time on reddit and more time going to law school you would know what you're talking about.
1 AlreadyPorchNaked 2018-12-13
Do you think biondina and thepatman obsess here too? It would be nice since we can't ping anymore, and tbh those two are some of the biggest piece of shit moderators that give absolute garbage legal advice.
I'm an actual attorney and have stopped reading LA completely just because so much bullshit gets upvoted and the mods have no idea what they're doing.
1 grasshoppa1 2018-12-13
I dunno, ask them yourself.
Serious question though... if you see bullshit being upvoted, how come you don't take a quick second to report it and call it out with a correction? It'd take no more time than it took you to reply to me here. Seems like it'd help make the sub less shitty, don't you think?
1 AlreadyPorchNaked 2018-12-13
I have, actually. And sometimes that has even worked!
When it's overflowing with shit, it's just too annoying/frustrating and not worth the time or effort. I'm not a mod of the sub, you guys are - you should know these answers without us having to call you out.
1 grasshoppa1 2018-12-13
I'm not a mod! Not sure why people keep thinking I am.
You're right though, the vast majority of posts, especially those on the 'hot' tab, are overflowing with shit.
1 Biondina 2018-12-13
Oh fuck off. I don’t give “absolute garbage legal advice.” I’m just a cunt who mouths off at people when moderating. There’s a fucking difference.
1 AlreadyPorchNaked 2018-12-13
Thanks for answering my question, glad to know you are just an overall miserable person who obsesses over reddit!
Yes, your entire schtick is being a 'cunt'.
1 Biondina 2018-12-13
Well that, and being kickass in bed. Girl’s gotta have more than one talent these days.
1 tuch_my_peenor 2018-12-13
This is sad lmao
1 AlreadyPorchNaked 2018-12-13
This is just embarrassing. I'm sorry your life is so terrible.
1 KantReasonWithYou 2018-12-13
How is being bad in bed a bad thing?
1 Don_Cheech 2018-12-13
It’s not. It’s Because she sounds like a complete loser
1 microdot72 2018-12-13
I didn't know I was on legal advice, I just thought you had anger issues. Tell me about these bedroom skills you speak of...
1 dekachin5 2018-12-13
I'm an actual attorney too, and wrote an excellent response on a tax issue, only to have the idiot Biondina delete it, and write "Please ignore that advice. It is wholly incorrect, particularly to your jurisdiction." as if she knows anything about the law.
Biondina is just another idiot mod abusing her little bit of Reddit power to delete people who say things she disagrees with. She isn't qualified to pass judgment on the legal merits of anything I have to say.
Yep
1 TrimetTribble 2018-12-13
Another actual attorney here. Had this same experience. Is Biondina even an attorney?
1 microdot72 2018-12-13
She just said she was a cunt...that really doesn't describe it accurately, but it's a start
1 microdot72 2018-12-13
YEP
1 TrimetTribble 2018-12-13
Another actual attorney here. Had this same experience. Is Biondina even an attorney?
1 therapistofpenisland 2018-12-13
That sub is such a shitshow lol people tagged "Quality Contributor" who are clearly fucktarded.
1 grasshoppa1 2018-12-13
Yes, we are fucktarded, but you post there too, so you are technically one of us, just a junior version.
In all honesty though, we just do this hoping we get featured in, in our true favorite sub.
1 Agenda_Poster 2018-12-13
I don't think anybody actually pretends to be an expert on here though
1 JustLions 2018-12-13
Is that what you're going with now? That your consistently wrong advice, fragile ego, and childish tantrums are just got pretending to be retarded?
1 grasshoppa1 2018-12-13
Who said anything about pretending?
1 Deathcrow 2018-12-13
Subreddits elevating VIP users with some kind of special flair is one of the most idiotic developmnets I've ever seen on reddit.
It's almost as bad as mods posting as mods when they aren't modding.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-12-13
💯
1 Deathcrow 2018-12-13
ಠ_ಠ
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-12-13
Oh hey, are you that guy from the Deathcrow pedophile forums?
1 Deathcrow 2018-12-13
Nah, you're thinking of... oh shit, I almost pinged someone. That's illegal now.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-12-13
I will give real replies now, you are actually allowed to ping. You won't get in trouble. The thing is though that 99% of them will get removed instantly unless it is a person on an approved white list. So effectively you will end up talking just to yourself.
1 Deathcrow 2018-12-13
https://i.imgur.com/IW8simF.gif
1 ResIpsaBroquitur 2018-12-13
There are two kinds of people on r/legaladvice: lawyers who are committing malpractice, and non-lawyers who are committing a crime by giving legal advice.
It's pretty shocking that anyone actually looks for advice there.
1 grasshoppa1 2018-12-13
I know that's an often repeated belief held by baby lawyers and law students, but it's really not accurate. It also sounds totally whiny.
1 ResIpsaBroquitur 2018-12-13
Which one are you? My money is on non-lawyer committing a crime.
1 grasshoppa1 2018-12-13
You're cute when you're stupid.
1 ResIpsaBroquitur 2018-12-13
no u
1 grasshoppa1 2018-12-13
I accept.
1 dekachin5 2018-12-13
It isn't malpractice when there is no attorney-client relationship, which there clearly is not in that context.
Non-lawyers have a 1st amendment right to give opinions on legal subject matter. Any law purporting to criminalize this would be unconstitutional anyway, though I have never seen any case where these laws were ever enforced in any situation remotely like an internet forum.
The only way you'd run into trouble is if you went so far as to establish an attorney-client relationship, and then you weren't an attorney or you gave wrong advice below the standard of care.
1 ResIpsaBroquitur 2018-12-13
It's not at all clear that there's no AC relationship. In fact, the default is that there IS an AC relationship when someone seeks legal advice and an attorney provides that advice.
Beyond that, an attorney has certain obligations even when there isn't an AC relationship, such as keeping communications confidential. Good luck with that when you're on one of the most heavily-trafficked sites on the internet.
You can give opinions, but the minute you start to advise people of their legal rights and responsibilities, you're practicing law. And no, the 1A won't save you.
1 dekachin5 2018-12-13
This is just wrong. Here is my authority. Your words imply that they are based on authority. Let's see it.
Again, wrong, attorneys have no such obligations/duties to non-clients, particularly when you are talking about a public internet forum where all the information is being posted for all to see.
That's a mighty strong opinion you've got there. Got any authority to back it up?
I've actually researched the issue of unauthorized practice of law extensively in California because I consult and write briefs for criminal defense lawyers (even though I don't practice criminal law in general), and the issue came up. The law in California is laughably vague and obviously unconstitutional, but it is almost never actually used, and the few cases in which it is used never rely on the concept of "legal advice alone is enough to practice law", so that issue - which you have your very strong opinion on - has never been ripe for review, BECAUSE prosecutors agree with me and would never dare try to push such an obviously unconstitutional prosecution.
Under your ridiculous interpretation of UPL, a husband and wife couldn't even discuss trivial legal matters together, since either side expressing their opinion would be "legal advice" to the other.
In reality, you'd have to meet the threshold for the establishment of an attorney-client relationship before UPL even gets on the radar, and even then, nobody has ever been prosecuted (as least in California) for informally, not-for-profit, stating opinions on legal subject matter. UPL is used to go after people (almost always disbarred attorneys) who are actually working as purported lawyers for money. The only case different from this that I saw, was one in which a guy used a fraudulent scheme claiming he was a lawyer to shake someone down, and that case is an outlier.
1 LongPostBot 2018-12-13
Wow, you must be a JP fan
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 ResIpsaBroquitur 2018-12-13
Here is DC bar opinion letter which discusses a lot of other jurisdictions and analogous situations. Tl;dr: it’s pretty freaking easy to inadvertently create an AC relationship.
And from your source:
So...not at all like the replies on r/legaladvice.
For the record: I’m not saying that it’s necessarily unethical for an attorney to post there. I’m saying that everything I’ve seen on there is unethical.
I agree that no sane DA would file charges for something like that. That’s rarely going to be an egregious issue for them to spend their limited resources on.
Here’s a hypo for you: one of the cops who mods r/LA wrongfully shoots someone. A few weeks later, he sees a post there from someone asking if they have a 1983 claim in a very similar fact pattern. He says “no, the LEO was right and you’d have to pay his attorney fees if you brought a frivolous suit, so don’t bother” and deletes any posts that say otherwise. Do you really think the cop would get off with a 1A defense if he were charged with UPL for that?
1 LongPostBot 2018-12-13
Sorry ma'am, looks like his delusions have gotten worse. We'll have to admit him,
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 dekachin5 2018-12-13
As a general rule I agree with you that LA is garbage, and invites bad advice from people who have their own agenda to push. I just think that people who post there pretty much know that they are signing up for unreliable garbage, not genuine attorney advice they'd get from a real consultation.
I don't think that is UPL so much as some other kind of wrongful and possibly tortious conduct. I don't think your fact pattern fits into any of the exceptions to the 1st amendment. It's not really a statement of fact, it's a legal conclusion. There is a lot of bad behavior out there that doesn't necessarily create liability.
You see this kind of bullshit agenda-driven "advice" a LOT with landlord-tenant legal questions, where landlords come out of the woodwork giving their biased pro-landlord legal opinions.
1 LongPostBot 2018-12-13
Your pulitzer's in the mail
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 ResIpsaBroquitur 2018-12-13
It seems to me like there are a lot of people who feel like they’re at the end of their rope. They need someone to tell them “See a lawyer! Lots of them work on contingency!”, not to get armchair lawyers’ legal advice.
You were making me curious, so I checked. Courts have rejected 1A defenses to UPL charges, and I havent seen a single case where that defense was successful.
Here’s an example:
People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162, 173 (Colo. 2006) (en banc), cert. denied, Shell v. Colo., 550 U.S. 971 (2007).
While that case isn’t particularly similar to reddit legal advice, I think it strongly dispels the argument that this is protected speech.
1 LongPostBot 2018-12-13
You can type 10,000 characters and you decided that these were the one's that you wanted.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 dekachin5 2018-12-13
I don't, because the language from that case isn't discussing pure speech. The person there, Shell, was doing things like drafting discovery, filing motions, and so on. She was doing this professionally and for-profit. The punishment there was just a fine, no jail time.
The court you cited also says, right after the bit you quoted, that there might be a 1st Amendment problem on different facts, but that Shell's conduct was such that she couldn't try to hide behind the 1st amendment:
Shell's problem was that she openly acted as a lawyer in all respects, not just giving "legal advice".
I have never seen a case where a UPL was based on pure legal advice, hence why the 1st amendment never is a major issue.
1 LongPostBot 2018-12-13
still unemployed then?
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 ResIpsaBroquitur 2018-12-13
In one case (the A.F. neglect case), she’d drafted motions and gave advice, which is all speech. She wasn’t trying to ‘officially’ represent the party; in fact, she was trying to act like she was just giving advice (i.e. she sent a letter providing the plaintiff with legal arguments to make and had a ‘sample’ discovery request on her website).
Previously and after (in the K.M. case and the A.F. lawsuit, respectively), she’d also attempted to ‘officially’ represent the parties. There’s no indication that it was for profit (in a letter she said that she’d been “retained”, but I think the court would’ve highlighted it if she’d actually been paid a retainer...and in any case, it’s unlikely that the indigent party paid her).
Notably, the court did not draw a distinction between her acting as a counselor and her acting as an advocate. It’s all UPL.
Here’s another good section of the opinion:
To me, this says that the 1A exception to the UPL statute is extremely small. As the statute only outlaws case-specific legal advice, it would only run afoul of the 1A where it’s used to retaliate for criticism of a ruling.
The funny part is that Shell’s conduct was closer to this than r/LA’s conduct is. Shell “is an advocate committed to exposing what she considers to be abuses of process”, so she’s at least acting with a political motive. A redditor saying “you don’t have the right to refuse an employer’s DNA test” is not in the ballpark.
Yeah, it’s usually a misdemeanor. Still a crime.
1 LongPostBot 2018-12-13
You can type 10,000 characters and you decided that these were the one's that you wanted.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 dekachin5 2018-12-13
Drafting a motion isn't "speech", it's conduct/legal advocacy. It's just like how showing up in court and doing oral argument is not "speech". Yes, you are speaking, but that's not what is being outlawed, it is the fact that you are representing someone else's interests in a legal matter without a license. The Court discusses this.
She drafted motions and discovery, and tried to puppet the real lawyer and effectively turn him into her paralegal. It was pretty extreme. The Court didn't do a case-by-case analysis that I saw, it just looked at her total conduct and said "1A? bitch, please".
Courts never split hairs like that. It's not before the court. If you were accused of UPL on 3 cases, they aren't going to go case by case and say yea or nay on every single ground/charge, since their role as an appellate court is to just determine if there was at least 1 ground on which to sustain the result.
For example, lets say you have a probation violation case with 10 grounds for violation, 9 of which are total bullshit. The court will point to the 1 that isn't bullshit, say "yup, he violated, affirmed" and ignore the other 9 because there's no prejudice. If she had separate charges for UPL for each case, they'd have to look at it, but apparently there was just 1 UPL charge here, so the only role of the appellate court was to find 1 reason to uphold it.
That's not how I read it. It says "case-specific legal practice" and I think the words "legal practice" are what show that the Court was not looking at speech. The speech in question has to be tied to actual legal practice, like what she was trying to do here. If you ask your buddy for legal advice as to whether or not you should divorce your wife because she won't have sex with you, and he says "yeah dump that bitch", he is giving you legal advice in a technical sense, but this Court is saying it has to go further and be part of legal practice. That's why UPL is such a mess: it basically comes down to a "I'll know it when I see it" test of "was this person PRACTICING LAW? Since prosecutors never file cases where that question is a close call, we never get case law ruling on those 1st amendment issues, because like this Court wrote, "practicing law" is conduct, not speech.
1 LongPostBot 2018-12-13
This is one of the worst post I have EVER seen. Delete it.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 ResIpsaBroquitur 2018-12-13
My dude, the motion I'm talking about was not prepared for a specific case. Instead, it was presented as a sample motion on her website. In fact, the entire point of it being a "sample" was to make an end-run around the UPL statute...but it didn't matter, because drafting a sample motion is both speech and conduct.
So why even mention the advice? Why not just say, "She drafted motions, and that's UPL"? Surely that would be more likely to be upheld if she'd been successful in appealing to the SCOTUS.
I don't agree with this. The precise definition of legal advice differs a bit by state, but it generally boils down to counseling others about their rights and/or duties in a particular case. Sometimes it involves reliance or representing that you have legal knowledge.
If you add some stuff, though, it can very easily become legal advice. For example: "Yeah, dump that bitch. You can get alimony from her because she wasn't performing her wifely duties -- trust me, I'm a paralegal so I know what I'm talking about". That's UPL pretty much anywhere.
I said that to illustrate the generally-non-political character of r/legaladvice. I wasn't saying that it, by itself, is legal advice. But hey, let's take a look at that thread. Here are some choice bits of a couple of top comments:
These are very, very clearly statements about OP's legal rights as applied to this particular case, rather than a general statement about rights. It's also in the context of a "legal advice" forum; OP appears to be relying on it, and one of them is a "quality contributor" (which is, to me, a representation about his level of knowledge).
I'll gladly take the position that a high school teacher talking about the Constitution should not be answering student questions in such a way that she gives them advice about their rights and responsibilities in a particular case. Instead, she should only give generalized information, which is not "legal advice".
I was wrong about CO. My bad.
In my state, GA, it's a misdemeanor, and that seems to be the majority rule. I did know that a few states treat it as contempt and at least one (FL) has it as a felony. The point is that it's a crime in a lot of the US, and a nonlawyer who frequently posts to r/LA will almost certainly give advice to someone in a misdemeanor state at some point.
1 LongPostBot 2018-12-13
You can type 10,000 characters and you decided that these were the one's that you wanted.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 dekachin5 2018-12-13
I think where we are getting hung up is that, in my view, UPL exists to stop people from actually "practicing law", which means representing them as a lawyer would, or doing the job a lawyer would do (drafting contracts, etc). So if someone, be it a family member or co-worker, or redditor, wants to talk about a legal problem they have and solicits opinions, engaging in that discussion isn't a crime in any sense. You would have to take it further and actually engage in some kind of attorney-client representation. Every UPL case I've seen involves this being done professionally, for-profit, not just as a matter of loose talk.
Your interpretation of UPL makes it illegal for any layperson to talk about a person's legal problem. Period. That's just insane and dystopian, to me. Now, I know being a lawyer means lots of family and friends harass me with their legal questions, but I think it's crazy to think that it would be Constitutionally valid, if someone starts annoying me with some talk about their employer not paying them overtime at Thankgiving dinner, and my aunt chimes in and gives her two cents, even if it is wrong, that my aunt is now a criminal. This just happens waaaaaay too much in society. People with legal problems tend to cast a wide net and ask advice from lots of people, not just lawyers, because... well... that's how people deal with ALL their problems. A considerable portion of a person's problems in life happen to have legal implications.
Your view of UPL would elevate lawyers to a kind of sacred priesthood who has total and utter monopoly power to wield and give opinions on legal matters. If some common plebian dares to give his opinion, off to the stockade with him! How dare he deign to speak his opinion on a legal matter in public!
Now, I understand that this means that sometimes laypersons will cause bad results, by discouraging valid claims, or encouraging frivolous litigation. To me, the social cost of that is far lower than the social cost of locking people up for giving their legal opinion. Trying to draw a fine line between protected speech and criminal "legal advice" is too difficult and chills too much speech to be worth going down that road at all. I think "legal advice" ought to be stricken from the statutes entirely, there has just never been a case where that issue was ripe.
Ultimately, if a person follows advice from an anonymous internet forum without getting confirmation from a licensed attorney, it's their own fault if the advice is bad. I'm not interested in protecting that person from their own stupidity with the application of jail time.
1 LongPostBot 2018-12-13
I've known more coherent downies.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 ResIpsaBroquitur 2018-12-13
Again, I disagree with your characterization of my interpretation. I think there's plenty of room for benign "advice" while preventing people from being harmed by the advice people who don't know what they're talking about.
But let's say that my interpretation is too broad. I think a subreddit called "legal advice", which is purportedly run by a group which includes numerous lawyers, who pick out "quality contributors" whose advice is starred, is engaging in much more than "loose talk". It's basically "pro bono UPL" or "Avvo with a bunch of nonlawyers", and it should be unlawful under nearly any definition of UPL.
1 dekachin5 2018-12-13
I see where you are coming from. The sub is problematic, I just don't think the government has the power to criminalize the sub as long as it stays non-commercial, because trying to prosecute people posting opinions there for UPL would end up with the UPL law being overbroad/vague under the 1st amendment.
This is just me, but if the mods there tried to commercialize/monetize the sub, my opinion would flip to the commercial activity being UPL.
1 Ghdust2 2018-12-13
SRDine mods give the most bullshit reasons for removing posts.
1 rabiiiii 2018-12-13
TBF, saying mods are people is pretty biased.
1 russellgreer 2018-12-13
What kind of retard would take legal advice from a cop. LOL.
1 ComedicSans 2018-12-13
/r/legaladvice is basically "Twitch plays
Pokémonlitigation".1 LightUmbra 2018-12-13
It should really just be a sticky post that says "talk with your lawyer".
1 myusername_sucks 2018-12-13
If we can only pick one, it's the mentally deficient mods from LA taking the time to post here with "I'm not triggered, I love this"
1 JurijFedorov 2018-12-13
1 Lysis10 2018-12-13
IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL
1 KaiW 2018-12-13
The mods. The more I look into it the more I realize how bad it is. These just get buried over and over again.
1 chrisdiaz6 2018-12-13
Biondina closed a thread of mine asking legal advice in the legal advice sub reddit. Power hungry dumb bitch who just supports lawyers. The subreddit is of no help at all and she closed the post in 20 minutes before real lawyers could answer. No way to report it to anybody either.
​
Legal advice reddit is fucking useless.