Practicing law without a license

[Green_Hornet]

Would a site advertising on the Internet "TheLaw.com - Free legal advice from lawyers since 1995" be guilty of practicing law without a license,if the ones offering the free advice were not lawyers,and the fact that they were not prominently displayed.

If not practicing law without a license,would they be guilty of false advertising?

 

[calalily]

(2) HELP & ASSISTANCE BELONGS IN THE FORUMS, NOT PM!

In the forum rules section on the home page it states under #2: If you are seeking answers to your legal questions then please only post IN THE FORUMS where you will get results. Our forums posts are not legal advice and will not be viewed as private consultations that might create an attorney-client relationship and create liability for the people who volunteer here.

 

[Green_Hornet]

That still does not disclose that those ansewering are in fact not Lawyers in fact all it is doing is promoting the user to use the board,and not a P.M. The fact that the word attorney client privilege is mentioned further creates an illusion,that the users are actually getting Free legal advice from lawyers since 1995.

 

[Scooterdog]

Wouldn't there have to be some "implied representation" to actually constitute practicing law withough a license?

"You cannot provide a definitive answer, however, you could not provide a definitive answer if you were licensed anyway. You can let him know what the caselaw indicates about the constitutional issues. You can give an opinion as to what you think may or may not happen. Since your friend is not the criminal defendant, he is not asking you to represent him and you would not be practicing law."


Paul D. Friedman, M.A., Ph.D., J.D.

 

[Scooterdog]

That still does not disclose that those ansewering are in fact not Lawyers in fact all it is doing is promoting the user to use the board,and not a P.M. The fact that the word attorney client privilege is mentioned further creates an illusion,that the users are actually getting Free legal advice from lawyers since 1995.

Could you show me any lawyer, in any state, that actually has a license to practice law? I would like to see this "law license". I'm not talking about the bar card, an actual license.

As for the rest, I think this sums it up:

In 1997 the Texas Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee (a committee of the Texas Supreme Court) opened investigations on Nolo and similar publishers, inquiring as to whether their publications constituted the practicing law without a licence. Saying the investigation was "the first step toward widespread state censorship", Nolo sued, seeking a declaratory judgement that its publications were legal; it was joined in the action by the American Association of Law Libraries and the Texas Library Association. In response, the Texas Legislature enacted HR 1507, which expressly exempted websites and textbooks from accusations of practicing law without a license, providing they "clearly and conspicuously state that the products are not a substitute for the advice of an attorney." In the light of this, the court committee dropped its contest of Nolo's suit.

 

[Green_Hornet]

I don't know the answer either scooter. It could be practicing law without a license refers to actually appear before the bench,and make the claim.

Nolo was making money,posters hear don't.

 

[Green_Hornet]

I know this outfit Labor Law Center.com has some real bad apples:

Permanent Federal Injunction Entered Against Labor Law Center.com
Lawsuit Stemmed from Website Purporting to Independently Compare Labor Law Poster Providers and Their Products

LAFAYETTE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Employerware LLC, doing business as Poster Compliance Center, issued this press release today:

On July 14, 2006 the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney signed and entered a Final Judgment, Consent Decree and Permanent Injunction ("Final Judgment") against Laborlawcenter, Inc. and Amy Tran, individually, and doing business as Labor Law Poster and Laborlawcenter.com ( "Defendants"). This Final Judgment was entered as part of the resolution of a lawsuit filed by Employerware against Defendants on May 10, 2006, in United States District Court, Northern District of California.

The lawsuit stemmed from the publication by Defendants, Labor Law Center, Inc., of a website purporting to be a review site comparing the products and services of various providers of labor law posters. In the lawsuit, Employerware claimed that the review site, complianceposterreview.com, contained false and misleading information and was in violation of the federal Landham Act and the California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500. Defendants were and are competitors of Employerware. The lawsuit also alleged that the Defendants are doing business as and own/or operate the websites located at the following URLs:

1. laborlawcenter.com

2. labor-law-posters.com

3. governmentposter.com

4. sfollp.net

5. laborlawposter.biz

6. labor-law-poster.us

7. californiastatelaborlaws.com

8. orsllg.com

9. laborlawtalk.com

10. osha-safety.org

Employerware had alleged in its lawsuit that the website purported to be an unbiased review of labor law poster vendors, but was in fact operated not as an independent review site but rather as a vehicle to divert customers to Defendants ' product websites. It was alleged that the website violated federal and state law since it obscured and concealed the fact that the Defendants owned, controlled and operated the "so-called " independent review site and it was also alleged that four of the five top companies on the so-called "top ten list" were owned and/or operated by the Defendants. It was also alleged that the maintenance of the website violated federal and state law because it was an artifice to deceive consumers into believing that the site actually independently reviewed various competitors who sell labor law posters when in fact it was intended to drive business to one of the Defendants ' various sites listed in the purported review.

In the injunction, entered on stipulation as part of an agreed settlement, Defendants are enjoined from continuing to maintain or display the website and are enjoined ". . .from publishing or disseminating, in any formats, media or methods of delivery, including but not limited to any website, any product comparison in the industry of the publication of labor law posters which contains any false and/or misleading information. . . " The settlement included an agreed upon payment of damages.

Employerware LLC, doing business as the Poster Compliance Center, provides labor law poster products nationally

This outfit has a lot of scumbags,I don't know if any are passing themselves off as Lawyers or Judges. Whether TheLaw.com - Free legal advice from lawyers since 1995" would fall in the same pickle as those low life's (contained false and misleading information and was in violation of the federal Landham Act and the California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500. ) is unclear. Possibly the law Professor has the answer,assuming he is a law professor.
I have reviewed some of the Labor Law Center.com the worst in my opinion is #9

 

[muggsyj]

This is not legal Advice!



Hi Geen Hornet,



Where is all this going? Has someone's opinion upset you in the first instance? What wrong advice do you see on here? I have not come across anyone on here trying to deliberately give out bad advice. Most people are here for research into there own problems and just need another angle to look at the situation from. I have never heard of or come across anyone stating that the opinions of any of the volunteers views has been harmful to them either. No money ever changes hands, so where do you see a problem?

Take this situation. Someone is approaching you in the street and say's something like
"Hi i am in trouble and need your opinion on a situation"

Do you

A. Give the best opinion you can on there current situation as you see it?
or
B. Ignore the request because you are not sure where you stand in the laws eyes when it comes to your opinion?


Ummm.... Now what if that person was contemplating suicide has your answer change? You see everyone in life is entitled to there opinion and if there is someone that would like to here mine, then that's all good with me.
My view is that know one on here is practising law they are trying to give an opinion as to the best way forward for the individual. Now if that involves Legal advice which is too difficult to answer without getting involved with the individuals case, then this will be the answer you see. "Seek Legal Advice From a Lawyer!"


As to the site stating "Free legal advice from lawyers since 1995" This would only be false advertising were it not true, so what makes you think this quote is not true? There could be 2 lawyers giving out free advice or 200. Remember the word Advice is only a term used to give ones opinion whether or not someone is interested in the opinion is another matter.
Lawyers are instructed by a client to work for and on behalf of an individual's case and they in turn entrust your complete factual situation. They "Decide" what way is the best to proceed and how you will approach a situation and then charge you for the service, with a smile :yes: !

Good question though for debate, well done Green Hornet.

Take care

Mark.

 

[Green_Hornet]

Where is all this going? Has someone's opinion upset you in the first instance? What wrong advice do you see on here? I have not come across anyone on here trying to deliberately give out bad advice. Most people are here for research into there own problems and just need another angle to look at the situation from. I have never heard of or come across anyone stating that the opinions of any of the volunteers views has been harmful to them either. No money ever changes hands, so where do you see a problem? ................


As to the site stating "Free legal advice from lawyers since 1995" This would only be false advertising were it not true, so what makes you think this quote is not true? There could be 2 lawyers giving out free advice or 200. Remember the word Advice is only a term used to give ones opinion whether or not someone is interested in the opinion is another matter.
Lawyers are instructed by a client to work for and on behalf of an individual's case and they in turn entrust your complete factual situation. They "Decide" what way is the best to proceed and how you will approach a situation and then charge you for the service, with a smile :yes: !

Good question though for debate, well done Green Hornet.

Take care

Mark.

This is not a debate,it is a question:

Would a site advertising on the Internet "TheLaw.com - Free legal advice from lawyers since 1995" be guilty of practicing law without a license,if the ones offering the free advice were not lawyers,and the fact that they were not prominently displayed?

It has nothing to do with the information being wrong. It has to do with the posters assumptions,that they are getting "Free legal advice from lawyers since 1995" I displayed the recent injunction to point out that Internet cites dealing with law have been spanked, for false and misleading information and were in violation of the federal Landham Act and the California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500.
As far as a problem there may not be one,I know that there are laws against false advertising,and practicing law without a license. The question is could a case be made against a website making the claim TheLaw.com - Free legal advice from lawyers since 1995 Your answer to that seems to be:

This would only be false advertising were it not true, so what makes you think this quote is not true? There could be 2 lawyers giving out free advice or 200. Remember the word Advice is only a term used to give ones opinion whether or not someone is interested in the opinion is another matter.

I don't know if that argument would work if a suite for false advertising,or practicing law without a license was filed. I have not seen a single post from an actual lawyer on this site. The easiest way to avoid conflict would be to advertise "TheLaw.com - Free legal advice from Non-lawyers since 1995" The terms : The Law Managing Partner,The Law State Court Judge,The Law Associate,The law Professor and other terms could also be viewed as misleading to the public.

Now as far as giving a friend legal advice,being guilty of practicing law without a license,as scoooterdog mentioned. That is very different your friend is not passing himself off as a lawyers since 1995. A person would not be guilty of practicing medicine with out a license if he told his friend with a headache to take two aspirins because it worked for him. The two people in communication understand the friend is not a doctor. Just as two friends understand the other is "not a lawyer since 1995".

 

[Green_Hornet]

What wrong advice do you see on here? I have not come across anyone on here trying to deliberately give out bad advice. Most people are here for research into there own problems and just need another angle to look at the situation from. I have never heard of or come across anyone stating that the opinions of any of the volunteers views has been harmful to them either.

YO take a look here Muggsyj,tell me if you don't see bad advice. http://www.thelaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16675
If this poster followed Spammerdogs advice the result could be catastrophic.

 

[ladybugs4me]

OK, now I, for one, am very confused. Straight answer, PLEASE!!! Is the legal advice given to posters such as myself legitimate legal advice from REAL lawyers, or is it not? That is a "yes" or "no" question, folks..........

 

[Green_Hornet]

OK, now I, for one, am very confused. Straight answer, PLEASE!!! Is the legal advice given to posters such as myself legitimate legal advice from REAL lawyers, or is it not? That is a "yes" or "no" question, folks..........

NO which is why you see NON LAWYER prominently displayed in my signature.