[Legal Discussion] Did judge Judy write the forum charter when she was on crack?

Cody Pomeray

Ok since it isn't possible to ask any questions on the charter thread I'm just going to ask it here because I really think clarification is needed.

To say that the charter is eh, hysterical... is putting it mildly.

We now have more shrieking, large font, asterisks, red letters and hyperbole than Bieber's fan mail.

Obviously, it's so over the top that a quick read will show you none of it gets enforced. Just as well, because if it did, the whole place would be shut down.

For example, when was the last time somebody got stung for not citing a judgement properly? The charter makes it out as though legal advice is punished, I have never seen anyone infracted for blatantly offering advice, even if couched in hypothetical terms, but every so often another clear legal advice thread will be locked at random.

Some things seem completely acceptable to the charter - casting personal judgement on someone, or handing down personal abuse, for example.

On the other hand, there's this big no-go area regarding recommendations of practicing lawyers who might be able to help someone - this is the only such rule I have seen site wide.

I'm not criticizing anyone in particular, I'm just saying the rules seem totally arbitrary, hysterical and in sone cases a bit nonsense. What is this forum for?

hullaballoo

Link to the Legal Discussion forum Charter: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054891512

Overheal

So just like real modern law: in order to read the thread containing the rules for the forum I also need to read two other threads in parallel?

Seriously?

I mean I even got to post in one of those threads (it makes me warm and fuzzy) but still theres no reason the information from the trio of threads cant be reconsolidated is there?

chops018

While I understand the reasons for what's in place in the charter I do feel it is a catch-22 in that the majority of the threads will be those seeking legal advice. It is very rare someone has come on and asked for a discussion on the comparative criminal justice systems between Ireland and America.

Even when some people do come on asking about interpretation of an act or a case they are told to go away and do their own homework.

It will become a pointless forum if it is regulated too stringently.

Apart from the FE1 thread and a few others like the freemanism one it will serve no real benefit as I rarely see any proper legal discussion, just people seeking advice. It's a pity, a legal discussion thread would be great. But then again, the ramifications would be too great for boards.ie not to put those rules in place, so as I said it's a catch-22.

johnnyskeleton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

To say that the charter is eh, hysterical... is putting it mildly.

We now have more shrieking, large font, asterisks, red letters and hyperbole than Bieber's fan mail.

It's because:
1. The charter is quite long because there are many rules, which all new posters have to read and at the same time to provide enough answers that those in doubt can look up their issue.
2. For older posters the changes are highlighted.
3. Since some rules are simply being ignored, they are being highlighted.

Obviously, it's so over the top that a quick read will show you none of it gets enforced. Just as well, because if it did, the whole place would be shut down.

Threads are closed every day, hardly not being enforced. Equally, genuine discussion threads remain open and lively. Many other fora have faded away but LD has been ongoing for 6/7 years now.

For example, when was the last time somebody got stung for not citing a judgement properly?

There's no rule for incorrect citation, the rule is against not attributing an original source.

The charter makes it out as though legal advice is punished, I have never seen anyone infracted for blatantly offering advice, even if couched in hypothetical terms, but every so often another clear legal advice thread will be locked at random.

Just today a poster was infraction for seeking advice on a section 3 assault. You wouldn't see an infraction for giving legal advice because the post would normally be deleted or a ban would ensue.

If you see any threads seeking/giving legal advice you should report them. The mods can't keep track of every thread.

Some things seem completely acceptable to the charter - casting personal judgement on someone, or handing down personal abuse, for example.

Again, report post if unacceptable. I'm allowed cast judgement and hand down personal abuse because I am jonny of the family skeleton. But straw men are not allowed do so and should be reported.

On the other hand, there's this big no-go area regarding recommendations of practicing lawyers who might be able to help someone - this is the only such rule I have seen site wide.

Got me there. Used to be no pimping permitted but a little discrete touting was permitted.

I'm not criticizing anyone in particular, I'm just saying the rules seem totally arbitrary, hysterical and in sone cases a bit nonsense. What is this forum for?

There is an old thread from about 4 years ago started by DeV in one of his bohemian-interested-in-law phases that goes through all that. It's for discussing legal issues. Students wanting help with wilkinson v downtown; people wanting to understand why X person got Y no of years in jail, the "is a title deed to the moon legally enforceable" type general questions; practicing lawyers talking about recent developments in law or practise.

That sort of stuff. Feel free to start up a few threads on your favourite legal conundrums.

johnnyskeleton

chops018 wrote: »

While I understand the reasons for what's in place in the charter I do feel it is a catch-22 in that the majority of the threads will be those seeking legal advice. It is very rare someone has come on and asked for a discussion on the comparative criminal justice systems between Ireland and America.

Even when some people do come on asking about interpretation of an act or a case they are told to go away and do their own homework.

It will become a pointless forum if it is regulated too stringently.

Apart from the FE1 thread and a few others like the freemanism one it will serve no real benefit as I rarely see any proper legal discussion, just people seeking advice. It's a pity, a legal discussion thread would be great. But then again, the ramifications would be too great for boards.ie not to put those rules in place, so as I said it's a catch-22.

It's only as good as people make it. Why not start a few discussions, ask a few questions or put up a few article links for comment?

chops018

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's only as good as people make it. Why not start a few discussions, ask a few questions or put up a few article links for comment?

That's very true.

I usually stick more to the FE1 thread. With an odd look at some of the others that are there.

I'd rarely kick start my own one on an issue.

johnnyskeleton

chops018 wrote: »

That's very true.

I usually stick more to the FE1 thread. With an odd look at some of the others that are there.

I'd rarely kick start my own one on an issue.

Well what floats your boat (legally speaking, save the other stuff for the s&s forum)? If you start a thread it will attract views. I'll see if I can start one now for the banter.

hullaballoo

The "no solicitor recommendations" rule is very simple. In order to recommend a solicitor for X person, I would need to 1.) know each and every solicitor in the state (~7.5k people) personally enough to know what they are like to deal with; 2.) know exactly what the client expects to get from their action; and 3.) be completely and utterly unbiased in my recommendation, which is based on 1.) and 2.). It's both a conscience thing and also a business thing because if I recommend someone I think is good from my own personal experience but they turn out to be completely incompetent with respect to the member to whom I have provided the recommendation, I have egg on my chin.


I ought to say that I had drafted a fairly lengthy response to the OP that was supposed to go in before the link to the Charter but I accidentally the whole thing. I will try and get around to addressing specific issues again tomorrow.

Tombi!

One thread basically said "no necro posts" and the other was explaining what is seeking legal advice and not to ask for it.

The main thread just seemed to be explaining things in detail. Which, given how serious the forum is I can understand.

All I got out of it was basically: here are the rules with explanations on what some of them mean. If you don't understand, PM a mod.

padd b1975

hullaballoo wrote: »

Link to the Legal Discussion forum Charter: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054891512

Think you need to streamline the bejaysus out of that bad boy:cool:

johnnyskeleton

hullaballoo wrote: »

but I accidentally the whole thing.

I also like the way you accidentally deleted the word "deleted".

Insect Overlord

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I also like the way you accidentally deleted the word "deleted".

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-accidentally

Cody Pomeray

Johnny Skeleton, I respect your response but for the sanity of all concerned I'm not getting into a long drawn out quote war on this.

My point is simple. The forum charter is too lengthy, often not enforced, and sometimes offensive to common sense, all of which make it bad regulation.

One feature that does not necessarily make it a 'bad' charter, but is still pretty stunning, is how confrontational it is. (Why are you screaming at me before I've even contributed to the forum?)

I said I didn't want to make this personal but the charter looks like the stream of consciousness of a 1st year law student.

Contrast this with how personal abuse is treated on the forum.

How many people have been punished for personal abuse, say in the last month? Maybe they are being punished without any infractions or bans, that's possible i guess.

Hullaballoo - if you don't want to give out solicitor's contacts, don't. I have occasionally been PMd asking if I know someone who could advise a site user and I have been only too happy to pass on the details of a solicitor I would recommend. These kind of personal recommendations are part of any normal community, and are widespread on this site. By banning it to the extent that you can even do so, you're discouraging legal professionals from engaging with the legal discussion forum imo. I'm not even suggesting that the forum become a legal billboard free for all, but if someone mentions in a post that they need advice on a solicitor competent in immigration cases, it's hardly too much for someone to say, oh yeah, I know someone who could help him or her, I'm going to get in contact.

Annasopra

It does look like it needs to be cleaned up and rewritten.

I don't see the point of having 2 separate threads that have to be read in parallel - why not just incorporate them into the charter.

FreudianSlippers

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The forum charter is too lengthy

I don't disagree, but at the same time, you have to understand that you're viewing it from the outside as an average poster who isn't slightly unhinged. Looking back at the charter, I saw that I actually had to post that publishing the contents of a private message was against the rules. Why? Because the person who did it, upon receiving a deserved ban, complained that the charter didn't prohibit it. It's truly facepalm stuff, but when you're dealing with that type of character... sometimes you have to state the obvious.

What's in the charter that shouldn't be? Genuine question - what would you remove? Do you feel it's not important to ensure that it is clear what types of discussions regarding drugs will be allowed? What about the fact that despite there being clear rules in the charter and in the threads in question regarding selling items, literally 10s of posts in breach are deleted every day (and this is from people who are supposed to be taking their FE1s :eek: if they can't follow simple instructions...)

It's easy to criticise, but I don't see any viable alternative suggestions flowing.

often not enforced

I disagree, and I would love to see examples of this. Many times in the past month or so, I've gotten notification of a reported post and within 20-30 mins when I go to action it, it has been done already. If we don't know about it, we can't action it.

and sometimes offensive to common sense

Again, I'm not clear on the specific sections to which you are referring. If this is going to be of any use, I'm afraid you will need to be more specific. Most (all?) the mods are practising lawyers and, while I don't presume to speak for all of them, I certainly don't have time to sit down and read the charter and guess to what you are referring. Let's make life easier for everyone and get down to the brass tacks.

One feature that does not necessarily make it a 'bad' charter, but is still pretty stunning, is how confrontational it is. (Why are you screaming at me before I've even contributed to the forum?)

I find LD to be one of the least confrontational forums actually.

I said I didn't want to make this personal but the charter looks like the stream of consciousness of a 1st year law student.

I'm no expert, but it seems that making it personal is exactly what you're doing. It's clear to whom you're referring and (again whilst I have no intention of speaking for anyone) it seems as though you're totally overlooking the fact that it is a 7 year old charter which has been amended approximately 10 times by various people over those 7 years.

Contrast this with how personal abuse is treated on the forum.

How many people have been punished for personal abuse, say in the last month? Maybe they are being punished without any infractions or bans, that's possible i guess.

If you can provide examples of personal abuse that hasn't been dealt with, please provide links so I can see what was done. Keep in mind, the public doesn't see forum bans or the fact that strongly worded PMs get sent frequently. It's no secret that I'm no great fan of the card system - that's a different discussion and I'm sure if you're really interested you can do the research yourself... it's all public on this site - I frequently tell posters who have a typically good post history and who occasionally post stupidly (and I'm certainly not one to cast the first stone) to cop themselves on.

Hullaballoo - if you don't want to give out solicitor's contacts, don't. I have occasionally been PMd asking if I know someone who could advise a site user and I have been only too happy to pass on the details of a solicitor I would recommend. These kind of personal recommendations are part of any normal community, and are widespread on this site. By banning it to the extent that you can even do so, you're discouraging legal professionals from engaging with the legal discussion forum imo. I'm not even suggesting that the forum become a legal billboard free for all, but if someone mentions in a post that they need advice on a solicitor competent in immigration cases, it's hardly too much for someone to say, oh yeah, I know someone who could help him or her, I'm going to get in contact.

That's something that could change IMHO, but it involves the advertising policy that goes all the way up into the corporate level. I see some validity in allowing people to ask what solicitor may be good for a certain area, but it's a short walk to "don't use xyz, they're shíte and botched my cousin's girlfriend's case" etc.
I don't want to get involved with that level of carry on, and I'm sure that boards.ie ltd doesn't want to either. It's much easier to ban it and allow people to do whatever they want by PM.

Cody Pomeray

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't disagree, but at the same time, you have to understand that you're viewing it from the outside as an average poster who isn't slightly unhinged. Looking back at the charter, I saw that I actually had to post that publishing the contents of a private message was against the rules. Why? Because the person who did it, upon receiving a deserved ban, complained that the charter didn't prohibit it. It's truly facepalm stuff, but when you're dealing with that type of character... sometimes you have to state the obvious.

Yet I don't know of any other forum that has a charter as extensive and dare I say as rambling as the Legal Discussion forum charter(s). Why is this? Aside from, I suppose, an extra bit explaining contempt of court, I don't see why the Legal Discussion forum should need such a disproportionately long series of rules.

One poster identified such verbosity with the natural order of things in the legal world. Far from it. Nobody would get away with going on such un-necessarily long, meandering tirades in the real world, I don't think a serious legal discussion forum should stand over a charter like that (those).

What's in the charter that shouldn't be? Genuine question - what would you remove?

You don't need a post on how to cite references (nobody actually does this, nobody actually gets punished for omitting official cittations etc, this is an absurd rule). You also don't need a whole new thread clogging up the front page for android users just to say please dig up zombie threads where appropriate. This thread, another useless auxiliary, is essentially just repeating what is already in the main charter. As for the "main charter", instead of just consolidating the thing and deleting double references, its been allowed to accumulate and get messy and repetitive.

I would also question the ban on "hypothetical" legal advice requests. In some cases, these could actually be genuinely interesting hypothetical case studies. In any case, there appears to be no serious attempt to clamp down on legal advice requests (just look at the forum today, or any day, some of these "hypothetical requests" and other thinly veiled requests for advice are responded to by mods)

So yes, the forum charter is almost completely redundant, too long, and lacks any direction for users on what we genuinely can and cannot do, with the ban on "legal advice" (in all its forms) a particularly vague Damocles' sword.

I disagree, and I would love to see examples of this. Many times in the past month or so, I've gotten notification of a reported post and within 20-30 mins when I go to action it, it has been done already. If we don't know about it, we can't action it.

I've seen personal abuse going (apparently) unpunished, much of which has been reported.

To take that one step further, I'd be interested to get your opinion on people who are apparently totally oblivious to the fact that the law is a matter of academic and deductive reasoning, and not something you employ to make judgements on other people's characters. I don't even care who I offend here - there are a couple of regulars in legal discussion who know, and care, absolutely nothing of nor about the law. They are there to judge people on their apparent trangressions.

The idea of me going into the Welfare forum, or the Smokers' forum, or the Seperation and Divorce forum, and lecturing people on their personal lives would be beyond offensive. Amidst all the useless rules in LD, not only is there no rule to discourage this (which really denigrates the whole meaning of 'legal discussion'), but it is openly tolerated and - as far as I see - never punished. No, not even when reported.

That's something that could change IMHO, but it involves the advertising policy that goes all the way up into the corporate level. I see some validity in allowing people to ask what solicitor may be good for a certain area, but it's a short walk to "don't use xyz, they're shíte and botched my cousin's girlfriend's case" etc.
I don't want to get involved with that level of carry on, and I'm sure that boards.ie ltd doesn't want to either. It's much easier to ban it and allow people to do whatever they want by PM.

Again, that's fine. I don't advocate that the site becomes ratemysolicitor or whatever. I'm just suggesting that the forum should operate like any normal community and allow private, discrete submissions of legal practitioners to be invited from time to time.

I can remember the day the ban was instituted. I presume it followed on from previous cases just like the one I am about to describe, which seems to have been the 'last straw'. One poster asked for information about some family law problem. He asked if anyone knew a good family law solicitor in Kerry.
I happen to know an excellent firm in Tralee and got in contact via PM, and said so on thread. Almost immediately, there is an update to the charter forbidding anyone from asking for recommendations of solicitors. What exactly is the benefit of doing this? What cause does it serve except alienate the legal community?

johnnyskeleton

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't disagree, but at the same time, you have to understand that you're viewing it from the outside as an average poster who isn't slightly unhinged.

It makes perfect sense to me.



Oh wait...

[-0-]

Christ that charter is horrible.

P. Breathnach

[-0-] wrote: »

Christ that charter is horrible.

I have some interest in legal matters. About a year ago I was faced with a problem which I would have liked to understand better. It was in the hands of a lawyer, so I would not have been looking for legal advice. So I resorted to the Legal Discussion forum, read a few threads and noticed some strong mod interventions that I thought repressive; I then read the charter and thought the content and tone were such that I would settle for my solicitor's brief explanation of the problem rather than try to get a better handle on it with the aid of Boards participants.

Cody Pomeray

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

So yes, the forum charter is almost completely redundant, too long, and lacks any direction for users on what we genuinely can and cannot do, with the ban on "legal advice" (in all its forms) a particularly vague Damocles' sword.

Co-incidentally (!!), I notice this lunch time that I have been infracted for giving legal information (not advice) specifically directed at the OP in this thread, while the OP asking for the information and giving personal details was not infracted, or at least, not visibly so.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057047324

How many infractions for giving legal advice have been handed out in the week prior to today ?

FreudianSlippers

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Co-incidentally (!!), I notice this lunch time that I have been infracted for giving legal information (not advice) specifically directed at the OP in this thread, while the OP asking for the information and giving personal details was not infracted, or at least, not visibly so.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057047324

How many infractions for giving legal advice have been handed out in the week prior to today ?

If you have a problem with moderation, this is not the forum for it.

Cody Pomeray

I will be asking in the DRP forum why you only gave the OP a (yellow card) infraction after post suggesting unfairness was published above. Maybe you only read my posts. I am flattered.

In any case, that's not for here. What is for here is my renewed suggestion of an unevenly applied, unfair, long winded forum charter that must be changed.

FreudianSlippers

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I will be asking in the DRP forum why you only gave the OP a (yellow card) infraction after post suggesting unfairness was published above. Maybe you only read my posts. I am flattered.

In any case, that's not for here. What is for here is my renewed suggestion of an unevenly applied, unfair, long winded forum charter that must be changed.

I have explained why you were carded first and why you received a harsher card in my PM to you and will explain it again in the DRP when you set it up. Again, this is not the place for this discussion.

FreudianSlippers

Now, back on the topic at hand, I do agree that the charter could use a bit of work and it is clear that there are criticisms which are fair and deserved. I propose, subject to agreement from the other mods, that we take a poll on the Legal Discussion forum where we ask a few key questions:

1) Do we need a streamlined charter?

If yes,

2) What do we remove from the charter?


The charter has to reflect the community - so if the forum community isn't happy with it, it must be rewritten. Issues such as recommending solicitors is a tricky issue and we would need serious guidance on that from the Admins.

Cody Pomeray

It will also be imperative to clearly define legal advice.

johnnyskeleton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It will also be imperative to clearly define legal advice.

There is a definition already in the charter. If someone wants to know about a real world example, so long as it is phrased as a hypothetical and the word hypothetical is just thrown in as a smokescreen.

I think the best way to look at it is to say "supposing my post is wrong, is it possible, however unlikely, that I will be sued?" If the answer is yes it is legal advice, if no then it's not.

Cody Pomeray

I don't think that satisfies the definition.

For example, this is unacceptable legal advice, but this is not.

I am genuinely confounded by this. I hesitate to use one of my own posts here, but I'm using it to demonstrate that it's not easy to predict what will be considered legal advice even where (in both cases) Tom Dunne and I said our remarks were not legal advice.

P. Breathnach

I'll venture an opinion.

If a poster tries to explain what the law is, that should not be construed as legal advice; if a poster tells somebody how to proceed in a dispute, that could be construed as legal advice.

FreudianSlippers

Although it entirely depends on the context of the situation, another clue is that if someone asks a question and you say "section X of Y Act says _________________", it's not legal advice.
If you simply give the "correct answer", with no additional context or reference, it certainly appears as your opinion and therefore legal advice.

Let's not live in a fantasy world where we all know everything about every type of law... if people are giving answers to obvious requests for legal advice, they are giving legal advice. Whether correct or incorrect, maybe I'm not sure and I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to look it up.

Beasty

A suggestion on how you may wish to structure a new charter (which I find works well for more complicated situations)

Have an OP that sets out the rules in bullet point form. For anything that requires further explanation link to a separate post in the same thread with the relevant info (or to general Boards Terms and Conditions if relevant)

That way everyone can see a general summary of what is and what is not acceptable and can dig into the detail of specific areas easily without having to wade through stuff they perhaps already know or is not relevant to anything they wish to say

nesf

Let's not also live in a fantasy world where your very broad definition doesn't mean we've legal advice being given out all over the site without attracting any moderator action.

Gordon

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Now, back on the topic at hand, I do agree that the charter could use a bit of work and it is clear that there are criticisms which are fair and deserved. I propose, subject to agreement from the other mods, that we take a poll on the Legal Discussion forum where we ask a few key questions:

Let me know if you want this thread moved over.

P. Breathnach

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Although it entirely depends on the context of the situation, another clue is that if someone asks a question and you say "section X of Y Act says _________________", it's not legal advice.
If you simply give the "correct answer", with no additional context or reference, it certainly appears as your opinion and therefore legal advice.

That's an extremely restrictive guideline (or is it stronger than a guideline?). Imagine an exchange on this pattern:
Poster 1: Is <some action> prohibited by law?
Poster 2: Yes. See <specific reference to legislation>.
Poster 1: What if the person affected by the action consents to it?
Poster 2: It's still not allowed.

The first response passes the test; the second one does not.

Let's not live in a fantasy world where we all know everything about every type of law... if people are giving answers to obvious requests for legal advice, they are giving legal advice. Whether correct or incorrect, maybe I'm not sure and I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to look it up.

It can very reasonably be argued that any question pertaining to the law can be construed as a request for legal advice. I don't see that there is an need to clamp down on that. I think the line needs to be redrawn in a different place.

I give advice in the Consumer Issues forum. I am quite sure that many of my posts there would attract the wrath of the Legal Discussion mods. I am satisfied that my posts in Consumer Issues do not harm anybody, perhaps do some good (that's my objective, anyway) and do not expose Boards to any vicarious legal liability.

FreudianSlippers

My point is that it isn't formulaic... it's a judgment call on the situation. I put forward an example, but it wasn't a definitive rule.

nesf

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

My point is that it isn't formulaic... it's a judgment call on the situation. I put forward an example, but it wasn't a definitive rule.

Which is mostly my point. You're actioning things that are never actioned elsewhere. Now I understand the argument that a "Legal Discussion" forum has to be more strict on this due simply to the forum topic but one could easily argue the same in Motors, Consumer Issues, Construction & Planning amongst others. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that there's quite the disconnect here and that's not a good thing generally, as it'll mean well-meaning people getting tripped up when they switch forums and general confusion as to where the Boards.ie line is drawn on this issue.

FreudianSlippers

nesf wrote: »

Which is mostly my point. You're actioning things that are never actioned elsewhere. Now I understand the argument that a "Legal Discussion" forum has to be more strict on this due simply to the forum topic but one could easily argue the same in Motors, Consumer Issues, Construction & Planning amongst others. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that there's quite the disconnect here and that's not a good thing generally, as it'll mean well-meaning people getting tripped up when they switch forums and general confusion as to where the Boards.ie line is drawn on this issue.

Accepted, but my understanding is that the no legal advice rule is one that was imposed from the top. is it a boards.ie rule; if so are we implementing it correctly? If not, should we allow legal advice with a clear disclaimer that they should see a solicitor and that boards and the posters cannot be held liable for actions taken as a result of relying on that advice (I think ask about money does something like this).

I don't have a position either way. That's an admin decision - but the simple answer is that we use our best judgment as to when to warn/infract/ban/close. Where it is well meaning we usually just let the poster know - then we have to deal with complaints that we aren't doing enough because they don't see the actual action. then when we do do start taking action as suggested, you end up with a DRP thread as has happened. F'd if you do, F'd if you don't.

nesf

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Accepted, but my understanding is that the no legal advice rule is one that was imposed from the top. is it a boards.ie rule; if so are we implementing it correctly? If not, should we allow legal advice with a clear disclaimer that they should see a solicitor and that boards and the posters cannot be held liable for actions taken as a result of relying on that advice (I think ask about money does something like this).

I don't have a position either way. That's an admin decision - but the simple answer is that we use our best judgment as to when to warn/infract/ban/close. Where it is well meaning we usually just let the poster know - then we have to deal with complaints that we aren't doing enough because they don't see the actual action. then when we do do start taking action as suggested, you end up with a DRP thread as has happened. F'd if you do, F'd if you don't.

Yup, I'm not saying its your knot to untangle.

Cody Pomeray

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Although it entirely depends on the context of the situation, another clue is that if someone asks a question and you say "section X of Y Act says _________________", it's not legal advice.
If you simply give the "correct answer", with no additional context or reference, it certainly appears as your opinion and therefore legal advice.

So a necessary ingredient of that which is "not legal advice" is that it cites an authority or statutory provision?

So I can't say, for example, "the SoL on simple contracts is 6 years", because that is legal advice, but I can say

"the SoL on simple contracts are six years, according to s. 11(1) of the Statute of  Limitations 1957?

Is that correct?

Cody Pomeray

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'll venture an opinion.

If a poster tries to explain what the law is, that should not be construed as legal advice; if a poster tells somebody how to proceed in a dispute, that could be construed as legal advice.

That's true, but we are not fortune tellers. If someone comes in with an interesting, random question like "when can a plaintiff get discovery on documents material to an ongoing criminal prosecution?", how are we to know whether that person intends to use the information to any legal ends, or whether he or she is simply interested in legal discussion?

A huge amount of legitimate legal discussion will be employed in litigation; asking posters to peer into crystal balls and decide what the intent of the asker is may be expecting a bit much.

I think the test should be very simple: you cannot tell the poster what he or she should do. You use the indefinite article, and keep it general "a debt is statute barred when...", "a motion of discovery can be successful when...", and so on. This is simple and everyone can understand it.

Ken.

What I don't understand is why we are not allowed recommend solicitors?.
For example if I'd been up in court in X court for drink driving and someone comes on and starts a thread "I'm up in X court for drink driving,anyone know a good solicitor". I'm not allowed recommend the solicitor I used and found good.

johnnyskeleton

nesf wrote: »

Which is mostly my point. You're actioning things that are never actioned elsewhere. Now I understand the argument that a "Legal Discussion" forum has to be more strict on this due simply to the forum topic but one could easily argue the same in Motors, Consumer Issues, Construction & Planning amongst others. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that there's quite the disconnect here and that's not a good thing generally, as it'll mean well-meaning people getting tripped up when they switch forums and general confusion as to where the Boards.ie line is drawn on this issue.

Based on the views of DeVore as set out in this thread, specifically here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59025205&postcount=48

Basically, unless a lawyer is prepared to advise boards.ie that there would be no liability on the company for negligent advice given by a user, the "no legal advice" rule stays in place. Unlike askaboutmoney who seem more than happy to allow legal advice.

Anyone who wants free internet advice can ask in askaboutmoney, but the problem is that free legal advice can often be more expensive than paid for advice.

drkpower

I vaguely remember raising this kind of issue years ago and I remember a fairly vague (and from some, defensive) response - not much has moved on since.

What is & what is not legal advice is probably too difficult to particularise in detail in charter guidelines; in that respect a huge amount needs to rely on moderator discretion. But i think as P Breathnach says the line needs to be redrawn somewhat because what we have now is a little silly and the rules, such as they are, are inevitably inconsitently applied because they really dont make much sense. Personally i think that all legal advice/opinion/discussion should be fair game except where there is a specific request for legal advice in a specified real-life situation. Obviously there will be hard cases that will unfairly be considered to fall foul of that line too but it is at least more clear than the current status quo and it is very hard to imagine any real risk of liability (for boards or anyone else) for advice/opinion/discussion given outside of those parameters.

Of course, the difficulties extend wider than Legal Discussion; there is inconsistency everywhere:
- Legal advice in Legal Discussion is (often) strictly applied - but legal advice is given out elsewhere with gay abandon (the consumer forum being the most obvious place).
- Medical advice is very very restrictively applied in the Health Sciences forum - but medical advice is quite often given without reproach in the Travel forum, the long term illnesses forum, the Ladies Lounge and elsewhere.
- (Bad) Legal and medical advice have the capacity to cause serious harm, for sure, and it is right that Boards regulates them; but financial advice in the economics fora (where should i invest my life savings?), or mechanical/engineering advice (how do i do X or Y to my car engine...) equally can have serious financial or physical ramifications, yet advice of that nature is effectively unrestricted (im open to correction on that).

It's all a bit messy to be honest; you can never have a fully consistent approach for sure (where you rely on volunteer mods with vastly different skill-sets to run the place) but i get the feeling that the current approach can be improved and perhaps streamlined. It seems that Cody has possibly inadvertently fallen foul of the inconsitent approach - hopefullly this might kickstart a real attempt to tidy up the forum-wide approach to these issues.

Cody Pomeray

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Based on the views of DeVore as set out in this thread, specifically here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59025205&postcount=48

Basically, unless a lawyer is prepared to advise boards.ie that there would be no liability on the company for negligent advice given by a user, the "no legal advice" rule stays in place. Unlike askaboutmoney who seem more than happy to allow legal advice.

Anyone who wants free internet advice can ask in askaboutmoney, but the problem is that free legal advice can often be more expensive than paid for advice.

That's an interesting thread thanks for that.

This post is the one I would most agree with at present
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58917756&postcount=4

Look at the forum now, this afternoon, there is a situation where the people who give the most emphatic advice in LD are people who seem to understand very little of what they are saying. The people who know that the advice is rubbish may be reluctant to step in, because we don't want to be seen to be explicitly giving legal advice. It would be unfair to pick on a thread to use this as an example, but I can assure you there are current examples on the front page of LD at present, threads I wouldn't dream of replying with a 'correcting' post to since I was infracted.

As you know yourself, no regular user who is able to have a genuine legal discussion - you, inforsys, TomYoung, fred swanson, bePolite, noquarter, lowkeyreturn, drkpower off the top of my head, or whoever - is shy to intervene and say when we think an opinion errs. If there were more leeway in giving *general information* in response to a specific hypothesis or statement, which I always thought was the situation heretofore, that would be sensible.

It wouldn't discourage people who know what they are talking about, and it WOULD provide less of a breeding ground for unsound information being disseminated by people who don't even care if they get banned because they aren't legal practitioners or students, nor interested at all!

drkpower

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Basically, unless a lawyer is prepared to advise boards.ie that there would be no liability on the company for negligent advice given by a user, the "no legal advice" rule stays in place. Unlike .

One of the difficulties is that that rule isnt actually applied in Boards or in the legal discussion forum. Or at least if it is applied, noone knows what the heck legal 'advice' means!

If Boards ever ends up getting sued, if i was their lawyer i'd much prefer to point the judge to a well defined consistently applied at least rationally based guideline (even if that guideline was in fact legally flawed) than a legally accurate guideline ('no legal advice') that was simply ignored in some fora, and woefully inconsitently applied in others.

johnnyskeleton

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's an interesting thread thanks for that.

This post is the one I would most agree with!

I'm sorry if this sounds offensive or patronising - it's not meant that way - but just so everyone is clear DeV is one of the founders of boards, a significant shareholder and director of the company. He was, until the new "boards.ie:X" representatives came along, the voice of boards.ie.

As such, his views are not only his personal views but the official position of the site. He's actually a fairly approachable guy and I'm sure his offer still stands - that is to say that if a qualified and insured lawyer is prepared to give boards.ie legal advice to the effect that a relaxation of the rules on legal advice will not lead to people suing boards.ie, then he will relax the rules. But otherwise they stay the same.

Flick him a PM and see what he says. Speaking for myself, I am extremely apprehensive of the potential consequences of giving legal advice by proxy because even correct advice might be misinterpreted/misapplied to the facts. However, I may be different in that I don't hold myself out as a practising lawyer so maybe practitioners would have a different view. Maybe legal advice could be given by anyone who verifies their identity with boards.ie

johnnyskeleton

drkpower wrote: »

One of the difficulties is that that rule isnt actually applied in Boards or in the legal discussion forum. Or at least if it is applied, noone knows what the heck legal 'advice' means!

If Boards ever ends up getting sued, if i was their lawyer i'd much prefer to point the judge to a well defined consistently applied at least rationally based guideline (even if that guideline was in fact legally flawed) than a legally accurate guideline ('no legal advice') that was simply ignored in some fora, and woefully inconsitently applied in others.

I think it comes from the rule in hedley Byrne ie a person can be liable for a negligent misstatement if they hold themselves out as having particular expertise in that area. A person asking/receiving an opinion on the law in after hours is obviously in a different position to the same thing being said in LD.

Cody Pomeray

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm sorry if this sounds offensive or patronising - it's not meant that way - but just so everyone is clear DeV is one of the founders of boards, a significant shareholder and director of the company. He was, until the new "boards.ie:X" representatives came along, the voice of boards.ie.

As such, his views are not only his personal views but the official position of the site. He's actually a fairly approachable guy and I'm sure his offer still stands - that is to say that if a qualified and insured lawyer is prepared to give boards.ie legal advice to the effect that a relaxation of the rules on legal advice will not lead to people suing boards.ie, then he will relax the rules. But otherwise they stay the same.

Ok thanks for the clarification, but in fact I agree with Dev's post as well.

He said,

DeVore wrote: »

If no one is willing to come forward and say "yeah you are on firm ground and I'll put my ass on the line and stand over that advice"... then I think its disingenuous to chide us for not taking that risk either.

.. which is quite reasonable, depending on how you read it.

I started this thread because I felt we the users needed clarity across the board, whether going more liberal or tightening things up, but clarity.

My preference would obviously to be a bit more liberal. And going back to Dev's stated opinion, my suggestion does not amount to giving out and out legal advice, e.g. "Your supervisor has defamed you at work", or "Gardaí had no right to search your car". No, we should simply be allowed to re-state the information we have learned: "A defamatory statement at work can arise when ...", or "a Garda may search a person's car when..." and so on.

These are just recent examples off the top of my head, whereby real-life or hypothetical cases were answered in the indefinite, and have never caused a problem. The situation is also compatible with Dev's comment which you posted. But the charter, and recent mod comments on hypotheses, and further comments here seem to throw all of that into doubt.

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Based on the views of DeVore as set out in this thread, specifically here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59025205&postcount=48

Basically, unless a lawyer is prepared to advise boards.ie that there would be no liability on the company for negligent advice given by a user, the "no legal advice" rule stays in place. Unlike askaboutmoney who seem more than happy to allow legal advice.

Anyone who wants free internet advice can ask in askaboutmoney, but the problem is that free legal advice can often be more expensive than paid for advice.

DeV doesn't draw a line there regarding what's being discussed, he was asking specifically where the line was and got no answer. All we know is that I can't come on, provide proof that I'm a solicitor and dole out advice left, right and centre whilst purporting to be a legal professional.

This is kinda the problem with this whole thing. We know the extreme of legal professionals acting as legal professionals that is not allowed, we have little idea what to do about the middle ground.


I'm not arguing for legal advice by the way. I just would like to see more consistent implementation of the rule across forums.

drkpower

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think it comes from the rule in hedley Byrne ie a person can be liable for a negligent misstatement if they hold themselves out as having particular expertise in that area. A person asking/receiving an opinion on the law in after hours is obviously in a different position to the same thing being said in LD.

Sure, but very few posters who give 'advice' on LD express those opinions as legal professionals. So it's hard to see that they could be holding themselves as such. But in fairness, it would be very easy to put in place a rule prohibiting posters from posting in their capacity as lawyers, which would be a very clear cut and easily policed rule.

Cody Pomeray

In any case, even where a user is justified in being convinced of another user's professional status, Hedley Byrne, which Johnny skeleton mentions, is overcome by an appropriate provision in a charter which sets users at a distance from each other by denying that there is a duty of care.

Your man in Hedley Byrne failed because the defendant disclaimed any responsibility the statement, he disclaimed it in about 10 words or less. A lesson to all of us.