Threads seeking legal advice...?

billy few mates

We all know the forum rules about seeking legal advice, but some of the threads that have been running here recently have raised some quite interesting discussions but have been closed for breaking forum rules.

I just think it would be better (for some of these threads) if you just deleted the legal advice and let the discussions run so that people could add personal experience or 'layman's opinion' that might be of some use.
Just my personal opinion M'lud....

billy few mates

billy few mates wrote: »

We all know the forum rules about seeking legal advice, but some of the threads that have been running here recently have raised some quite interesting discussions but have been closed for breaking forum rules.

I just think it would be better (for some of these threads) if you just deleted the legal advice and let the discussions run so that people could add personal experience or 'layman's opinion' that might be of some use.
Just my personal opinion M'lud....

Layman's opinion in legal matters is usually equivalent to asking a lawyer to perform a serious medical diagnosis. I might see the symptoms and remember when I had muscle aches and some dizziness but I don't think anyone would want a lawyer to be the one weighing in with medical diagnoses. Nobody who wants to live anyway

johnnyskeleton

Maybe there should be a "Layman's opinion on legal issues" forum. That would get them out of a bind, so to speak.

billy few mates

I just think some of the threads on here are shut down a bit quick while there are still some interesting avenues of debate available to explore. By all means warn people they should seek proper legal advice but most people would be smart enough to know the difference between legal advice and personal opinion which is mostly what you get on here....
Just my 2 cents...

billy few mates

billy few mates wrote: »

I just think some of the threads on here are shut down a bit quick while there are still some interesting avenues of debate available to explore. By all means warn people they should seek proper legal advice but most people would be smart enough to know the difference between legal advice and personal opinion which is mostly what you get on here....
Just my 2 cents...

Where we run into trouble is with the people who don't distinguish between the two.

billy few mates

A simple warning at the top of the page saying something like "the information on this forum should not be construed as legal advice. For proper legal advice always seek the services of a professional" or similar, then let the threads run to their natural conclusion....

johnnyskeleton

billy few mates wrote: »

A simple warning at the top of the page saying something like "the information on this forum should not be construed as legal advice. For proper legal advice always seek the services of a professional" or similar, then let the threads run to their natural conclusion....

In many ways i agree with you. However:
1) DeVore doesnt;
2) He owns and runs the site (well mostly owns, and sorta runs...);
and therefore what he says goes. Maybe takenit up in the feeback forum?

Arbiter of Good Taste

billy few mates wrote: »

A simple warning at the top of the page saying something like "the information on this forum should not be construed as legal advice. For proper legal advice always seek the services of a professional" or similar, then let the threads run to their natural conclusion....

Whilst I would love that, unfortunately, there are too many stupid people out there who really don't grasp the implications of their actions, signing documents, entering contracts, etc, etc. It's just too dangerous.

Tom Young

"I'm here judge and I did what I did because boards.ie advised me so."

Not a great proposition really. Legal advice should be left to lawyers, not back seat passengers, students or folks who like to use their Christian name followed by the expression of "of the family of" or with a TM beside their 'mark'.

Discourse is one thing, reliable advice is another.

Bepolite

To be fair there are morons like me that make long posts and therefore people assume I have the first clue what I'm talking about. Most recently I was asked what it was like when I sat the KI entrance exams when I've just got back from cocking up my 3rd year undergrad.

If medical advice is offered anywhere on the entire site it's shut down quicker than a condom salesman outside the Vatican. I'm surprised we're even allowed this forum. Thankfully due to some very diligent modding it's gone as long as it has, even with me here in my various guises.

If someone is too stupid to frame their question as a hypothetical (a moderately convincing one) they are more than likely too stupid to understand that the advice here is being given by what could charitably be described in many cases as 'enthusiastic amateurs' and uncharitably be described as total gobsh....

Manach

On the other hand, this is a interwebz. Dispensing opinion with only a distant relationships to facts is sort of tradition back since this was a Quake form. Thus a case of Caveat Emptor, and no one gets 2c from their postings.

Maximilian

If we were to allow people to give legal advice on this forum, it is inevitable that sooner or later someone is going to get themselves in trouble. For the same reason Boards doesn't allow people to give medical diagnoses either. Some things in life should be left to the professionals.

I've personally seen people come to ruin following advice from people who had no legal qualifications of any sort. Freemen are a good example of that.

The rule may not be be consistently applied I think its fair to say but that is not of itself an argument in favour of allowing advice. Likewise neither is the the fact that interesting topics are raised a reason either.

Esel

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In many ways i agree with you. However:
1) DeVore doesnt;
2) He owns and runs the site (well mostly owns, and sorta runs...);
and therefore what he says goes. Maybe takenit up in the feeback forum?

I thought Boards was now owned by Distilled Media?

conorh91

billy few mates wrote: »

A simple warning at the top of the page saying something like "the information on this forum should not be construed as legal advice. For proper legal advice always seek the services of a professional" or similar, then let the threads run to their natural conclusion....

The law on this kind of disclaimer when giving legal advice is very vague, following a Supreme Court decision a few years back.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that boards.ie is a revenue-gnerating corporation. Its interest (or partial interest) in people coming here seeking legal advice, and getting it, could amount to creating a duty of care.

Yes it's unlikely that any negligent misstatement action against the site could succeed, but the reliance of this forum on some disclaimer would not be justified.

that's just an uneducated opinion guvnor

Pat Mustard

The simplistic general rule that I follow is:

'If this post turned out to be incorrect, is there a possibility that boards.ie could be sued?'

Whether or not the advice is actually correct has no relevance to the question, at this point.

Leaving aside issues of medical advice, defamation and criminal behaviour, if advice in the Legal Discussion forum could potentially land boards.ie in a lawsuit, it's likely that the mods will regard it as legal advice, and have to take action.

The reason for the rule against legal advice is more important than the rule itself, because the rule can't be understood properly without knowing the reason for the rule. The reason is to protect boards.ie from being sued, potentially.

One poster might give lengthy legal advice on a particular topic, and that person will not get sanctioned. Another poster might say something seemingly minor enough and receive a card. If there is pretty much zero possibility that boards.ie is going to get sued, my guess is that the mods could turn a blind eye to the post. If there is a possibility that boards.ie might be sued if the advice turned out to be wrong, then the mods have to act, in my experience.

I'm open to correction here, but that's my understanding.

Peregrinus

The issue is not actually whether the advice is right or wrong.

It's an offence in Ireland (and most other countries) to give legal advice if you are not properly qualified and registered and regulated. This is so whether the advice is correct or not (although, obviously, you are much more likely to get in trouble over this if the advice is bad). By providing a forum boards.ie may be complicit in this offence. Therefore, they don't want to provide a forum in which legal advice is offered. Discussion of legal issues, by contrast, is fine.

johnnyskeleton

Esel wrote: »

I thought Boards was now owned by Distilled Media?

Daft (who i think are owned by distilled media) bought a shareholding a few years ago. I wasnt aware of them taking over entirely but i stand to be corrected.

johnnyskeleton

The Mustard wrote: »

The simplistic general rule that I follow is:

'If this post turned out to be incorrect, is there a possibility that boards.ie could be sued?'

Whether or not the advice is actually correct has no relevance to the question, at this point.

Leaving aside issues of medical advice, defamation and criminal behaviour, if advice in the Legal Discussion forum could potentially land boards.ie in a lawsuit, it's likely that the mods will regard it as legal advice, and have to take action.

The reason for the rule against legal advice is more important than the rule itself, because the rule can't be understood properly without knowing the reason for the rule. The reason is to protect boards.ie from being sued, potentially.

One poster might give lengthy legal advice on a particular topic, and that person will not get sanctioned. Another poster might say something seemingly minor enough and receive a card. If there is pretty much zero possibility that boards.ie is going to get sued, my guess is that the mods could turn a blind eye to the post. If there is a possibility that boards.ie might be sued if the advice turned out to be wrong, then the mods have to act, in my experience.

I'm open to correction here, but that's my understanding.

Also, what might be correct advice for one person may not apply to the circumstances of another, and if the other follows it they could potentially blame the site.

Esel

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Daft (who i think are owned by distilled media) bought a shareholding a few years ago. I wasnt aware of them taking over entirely but i stand to be corrected.

I think DM is the owner these days, but let us not develop this off-topic issue further.

Indricotherium

"Can't remember/Now on meds for psychosis
Is the subject above, enough to obtain a not-guilty verdict in a court?"

This one came up recently, and was immediately closed. That could be a problem question on a Criminal law paper.

I thought there was a good potential discussion there.

Pat Mustard

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's an offence in Ireland (and most other countries) to give legal advice if you are not properly qualified and registered and regulated.

What is the offence?

Export

The Mustard wrote: »

What is the offence?

Aiding and abetting a criminal lol

billy few mates

All of which begs the question, why have this forum at all....?

Peregrinus

The Mustard wrote: »

What is the offence?

There are a couple of different offences that could be committed, depending on the circumstances, but the main one is an offence against Solicitors Act 1954 s. 55 - "An unqualified person shall not act as a solicitor". Any provision of legal services is "acing as a solicitor". Max. penalty on conviction on indictment is two years. (The same offence, incidentally, is committed by a solicitor who acts while required to have, but not actually having, a current practising certificate.)

There is a separate offence under s. 56 of holding yourself out as a solicitor. You don't have to use the word "solicitor" to commit this offence - it's enought to imply that you are a solicitor by, e.g., offering to do the work that solicitors do.

And, from memory, though I haven't tracked it down, there are specific offences under the conveyancing acts of providing conveyancing services when not qualified to do so.

Peregrinus

billy few mates wrote: »

All of which begs the question, why have this forum at all....?

For the discussion of legal issues - e.g. an abstract discussion of whether it is lawful to provide legal advice when not qualified to do so.

conorh91

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are a couple of different offences that could be committed, depending on the circumstances, but the main one is an offence against Solicitors Act 1954 s. 55 - "An unqualified person shall not act as a solicitor". Any provision of legal services is "acing as a solicitor". Max. penalty on conviction on indictment is two years. (The same offence, incidentally, is committed by a solicitor who acts while required to have, but not actually having, a current practising certificate.)

There is a separate offence under s. 56 of holding yourself out as a solicitor. You don't have to use the word "solicitor" to commit this offence - it's enought to imply that you are a solicitor by, e.g., offering to do the work that solicitors do.

And, from memory, though I haven't tracked it down, there are specific offences under the conveyancing acts of providing conveyancing services when not qualified to do so.

Yeah but those offenses are considerably more restrictive, and of a different nature, to the offence you claimed existed earlier

Peregrinus wrote:

It's an offence in Ireland... to give legal advice if you are not properly qualified and registered and regulated

Peregrinus

"Giving legal advice" is basically what a solicitor does, and therefore anybody giving legal advice is acting as a solicitor, and is at risk of prosecution under s.54. Realistically, a bar-room lawyer is not going to be prosecuted, but anybody who is giving legal advice for money, or in any organised, systematic, publicly accessible way needs to be careful. And this, I'm guessing, is what concerns boards.ie; They are running a public forum where people can post questions and get answers, and of course the whole thing is a commercial operation. And if that extends to people getting legal advice on their own situations then, yes, the whole thing is definitely sailing pretty close to the wind, as far as s. 54 is concerned. Hence the desire of boards.ie. to maintain a clear distinction between (a) hosting discussions about legal issues of general interest, and (b) providing a forum in which people can obtain legal advice relevant to their personal situations.

Export

It's funny how you can seek legal 'advice' or 'opinion' in AH, but you can't ask anything in 'Legal Discussion' lol.... All boards.ie owned and operated

Esel

If replying posters were smart enough/could be trusted enough to compose every relevant sentence of their reply as a question rather than as a statement, would that suffice to negate the possibility of subsequent legal action?

Pro Hoc Vice

Peregrinus wrote: »

"Giving legal advice" is basically what a solicitor does, and therefore anybody giving legal advice is acting as a solicitor, and is at risk of prosecution under s.54. Realistically, a bar-room lawyer is not going to be prosecuted, but anybody who is giving legal advice for money, or in any organised, systematic, publicly accessible way needs to be careful. And this, I'm guessing, is what concerns boards.ie; They are running a public forum where people can post questions and get answers, and of course the whole thing is a commercial operation. And if that extends to people getting legal advice on their own situations then, yes, the whole thing is definitely sailing pretty close to the wind, as far as s. 54 is concerned. Hence the desire of boards.ie. to maintain a clear distinction between (a) hosting discussions about legal issues of general interest, and (b) providing a forum in which people can obtain legal advice relevant to their personal situations.

I believe you are wrong here, holding oneself out to be a solicitor is the offence, giving advice is not an offence. Civil Servants who are not solicitors or barristers advice the minister every day on legal issues.

Accountants as accountants give legal advice and are not in breach of the law. So if a persons says I think the law is X, no offence unless he says I'm a solicitor or portrays himself as a solicitor. To make the giving of advice a criminal act would be impossible and every pub lawyer in the country would be in serious trouble.

Section 55 says "55.—(1) An unqualified person shall not act as a solicitor."

Section 56 says "56.—(1) A person who is not a solicitor shall not pretend to be a solicitor or take or use any name, title, addition or description or make any representation or demand implying that he is a solicitor."

Bepolite

billy few mates wrote: »

All of which begs the question, why have this forum at all....?

I'm sorry to be blunt but if you don't understand the purpose of the forum then you shouldn't be posting in it. There are almost an infinite number of topics that can be discussed without giving legal advice. These range from the abstract to hypothetical situations.

To be utterly frank the most boring threads on the entire forum are the ones where people drop in, ask what's going to happen as they were caught doing X or where injured by Y and then expect the thread to be closed as soon as they get an answer. The only fun to be had is admonishing them for being so stupid as to do X or stand in the way of Y and then to be even more stupid as to ask for legal advice on an internet forum.

Peregrinus

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I believe you are wrong here, holding oneself out to be a solicitor is the offence, giving advice is not an offence. Civil Servants who are not solicitors or barristers advice the minister every day on legal issues.

Accountants as accountants give legal advice and are not in breach of the law. So if a persons says I think the law is X, no offence unless he says I'm a solicitor or portrays himself as a solicitor. To make the giving of advice a criminal act would be impossible and every pub lawyer in the country would be in serious trouble.

Section 55 says "55.—(1) An unqualified person shall not act as a solicitor."

Section 56 says "56.—(1) A person who is not a solicitor shall not pretend to be a solicitor or take or use any name, title, addition or description or make any representation or demand implying that he is a solicitor."

I think s. 56 is the "holding out" offence. S. 55 is the "acting as a solicitor" offence.

I appreciate that the margins of "acting as a solicitor" are a bit vague. The term isn't defined in the legislation. I think an accountant advising on tax or on Companies Act requirements is in the clear; he's acting as an accountant, and everyone understands this. Likewise a civil servant advising a Minister on his statutory position. But I think somebody running a website which answers the questions which are normally put to a solicitor is in a trickier position.

I'm not saying that the offence is being committed. I'm saying I entirely understand why boards.ie. is wary. And their wariness does not depend on whether the advice given here is right or wrong.

Pat Mustard

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are a couple of different offences that could be committed, depending on the circumstances, but the main one is an offence against Solicitors Act 1954 s. 55 - "An unqualified person shall not act as a solicitor". Any provision of legal services is "acing as a solicitor". Max. penalty on conviction on indictment is two years. (The same offence, incidentally, is committed by a solicitor who acts while required to have, but not actually having, a current practising certificate.)

There is a separate offence under s. 56 of holding yourself out as a solicitor. You don't have to use the word "solicitor" to commit this offence - it's enought to imply that you are a solicitor by, e.g., offering to do the work that solicitors do.

And, from memory, though I haven't tracked it down, there are specific offences under the conveyancing acts of providing conveyancing services when not qualified to do so.

If giving of legal advice came under either of these headings, crimes will be committed this evening, in every bar in the country.

Acting as solicitor is different from the above, connected with litigation or conveyancing services, etc. There's a lot more involved.

Impersonating a solicitor is not the same as handing out legal advice either.