Forum Feedback.

McCrack wrote: »

I think more leeway/indulgance should be given towards allowing legal advice. I feel it's a missed opportunity not to allow people legally trained to depart their knowledge. Everyone learns. I'm also pretty confident dodgy advice would be weeded out pretty sharpish by the regular posters who are practitioners.

If AAM can do it I cant see why boards cant. Change the rules and allow it. I'm sure a caveat explicitly stating 'your own risk, we will not be liable blah de blah' should do the trick.

Too much of a nanny mentality running through (although it's eased up a bit lately)

Here here!

There is nothing to read here most of the time, as one is barred from engaging in any legal analysis on most of the it-happened-to-me! threads for fear of it being construed as 'advice'.

I genuinely doubt the possibility of an "I read it on boards" excuse ever translating to a defence back in the real world's legal system, much less magically shifting liability onto boards. Anyone for a nice big cup of Ignorantia legis neminem excusat?? People dream up their own legal rubbish all day long and merrily take others' promulgations on board too. If they're stupid enough to believe that it's safe to legally advise themselves on the internet instead of consulting a professional, then that's their own business.

In summary, I don't think the rules are unfair, more pointless. The moderation is done according to said pointless rules and the forum suffers.

hullaballoo wrote: »

I've added an option for 'legal advice should be allowed'. This is one of those things that I can't see happening without a proper petition to the admins being drawn up. Frankly, I think people who are in favour of a blanket discretion to allow legal advice are tragically misguided in relation to the law surrounding negligent misstatement.

I mean, a number of us have openly stated that we are professionals. I can only verify the accuracy of that on behalf of one other user here (I'm sure he'd return the favour), but beyond that, even I have no idea who's really who. I certainly wouldn't be naive enough about the Internet to think that there's no one devious enough to come in here prattling on about being a SC and purporting to advise people as to their rights left, right and centre on some morally-justified premise of freedom of access to the law.

I also wouldn't over-estimate the stupidity of some of the people requesting legal advice. I can easily envisage somebody heading into the district court trying to defend a drink driving offence with, 'a solicitor off the internet told me to tell the judge that I'm a Gary Doyle order, ipso facto, I go free, your honour'.

Hi Hulla

Im rather partial to a bit of negligent misstatement myself but how does a duty of care arise from one babbling internet poster to another babbling internet poster where as you say, anyone could be anybody or posing as anybody? Does case law exist on this point? I'm serious - I'd like to hear of it; I'm not an expert. What I do see though are countless places across the web which facilitate e.g. 12 year olds advising on everything from cancer to drink driving charges to receivership which are not finding themselves in difficulty for allowing stupid people to rely on non-contractual, non-verifiable non-professional internet advice from anybodys.

I can see dangers relating to defamation, privacy, prejudice etc. and all of those are *certainly* valid concerns that should be moderated. Legal discussion here is stifled because without the real-world problem Q's, there is not a lot of motivation for spontaneous intellectual debate.

I see topics with interesting legal questions that get locked daily, yet irrelevant non legal discussion "I'm sooooooooooo pi$$ed off with the Law Soc / Griffith Manuals / Law Corporations I once held dear to my heart / life not working out as I planned" goes on unfettered simply because it's just waffle and suspinion. It's a shame.

hullaballoo wrote: »

Why not construct a few problem questions? Maybe that's what this forum needs - debate around what different people would advise in various situations?

I'd be more than happy to facilitate or even propagate that. But a lot of people have and do come in here looking for legal advice that they intend to rely on. It's a sad reflection on them, but it's the truth. I think the elements are there for someone at least to come up with an arguable case against boards.ie in neg. misstatement. Ok, they might not be successful, but boards.ie's resources are better used other than fighting off (however frivolous etc.) claims against them.

Since it's untested, many lawyers would be happy to break the ice on the whole tortious liability on the internet. The potential for damages is huge. I just won't allow myself to be responsible for that until I'm sure what the outcome would be. I'm writing a thesis on it later this year, so perhaps things will change then.

It has been tried. I remember some time back johnnyskeleton made a big effort and threw up some thought provoking questions but people just don't respond the same way to obscure legal principles as they do to real life questions... They lack either the interest or the expertise or both and as they are not permitted to discuss real legal problems they are left with very little else.

To be honest with you, I disagree re. the potential for liability for online negligent misstatement on generalist public access forums... The obvious questions spring to mind:

Reasonableness: how plausible will it ever be to propose "I read it on a chatroom" as an argument or a defence? I believe the judiciary would have to go simultaneously insane (some are already nearly there ). It's such a non-runner in my book that I think that is why it is untested. Perhaps it has been already tested -somewhere in the American wonderland- and has been decided in the inherently daft negatory?

Floodgates / free speech: the internet is a big place without territorial borders; tens if not hundreds of millions of amateur advisers use it to spread both good advice and bad every hour of the day. Will every bulletin board in the world have to shut down for fear of lurking Irish plaintiffs relying on misinformation that could be construed as 'advice'?

As for boards resources and time, while I see your point in principle ... daydreaming up the billed hours for the dopey loser plaintiff sure would be fun Good luck with the thesis - would like to read it when you're done even

As Rhonda was saying, I can see absolutely no reason why boards.ie could end up liable for advice one of its anonymous posters gives to another poster.

Itd be like trying to sue a guy down the pub you didn't even know who you asked for advice on something. Actually that's not the most accurate analogy because it is painting boards.ie as the entity giving the advice. A better one would be calling someone up at random from the telephone directory, getting advice off them, and then suing Eircom who provided the medium that enabled you take advice from someone you dont even know.