9

There is the often cited claim on the internet that giving legal advice will make you liable for damages.

Didn't previously quote an actual claim, but one of the answers is such a perfect example that I will be quoting that one:

Only a court can make you liable for damages. There is nothing to stop anyone from suing anybody for anything. But if you give incorrect advice, then it may become more likely that a court may find you liable. Of course a professional can provide incorrect advice too.

This advice should not be taken as legally representative, and you should seek legal advice in order to receive a professional opinion.

- iantresman (CC license)

Now, the only legal case I was able to find was this one under US jurisdiction where it was ruled that giving generic advice was not unauthorized practice of law. So, to prevent this question from asking legal advice: have there been any cases anywhere in the world where somebody was made to pay for damages because he provided (generic) legal advice.

To be very clear here, I am talking about non-lawyers giving legal advice (being a lawyer comes with a whole lot more responsibilities in some countries).

Community
  • 1
David Mulder
  • 4,124
  • 2
  • 23
  • 41
  • The only way I can see it being a problem here in the UK is if you gave the impression you were legally qualified when you weren't (which would be fraud if you charged for the advice). Hard to prove a negative though. – A E Nov 30 '14 at 22:22
  • 1
    @AE Well, if there has been a legal ruling somebody should know about it I guess~ if no answer turns up that's already pretty telling. Or if somebody knows of an authoritative figure that claims it's fine to make such statements then that could be pretty telling as well. – David Mulder Nov 30 '14 at 22:31
  • @AE If I said to you, "I promise you that the speed limit here is 50 mph" and if you believed me and therefore got a speeding fine, do you think you could successfully sue me for (at least) [negligence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence) even though you didn't pay me? – ChrisW Nov 30 '14 at 22:43
  • 1
    @ChrisW Well, to be honest I am pretty sure at least in the countries I spend most time in that you would loose such a case. It's your own responsibility and no matter what stupid stuff your friends told you, suing them wouldn't get you anywhere. Legal negligence wouldn't at least here come into the picture I am pretty sure. But either way, if you know about cases where somebody has been sued on those grounds (giving advice and sued for negligence) then please do share. – David Mulder Nov 30 '14 at 22:49
  • 1
    @ChrisW, if you're not legally qualified and don't falsely represent yourself as being so, then I don't see that you've done anything wrong in law, here in the UK at least. You were just incorrect (or lying) - that happens all the time. Perhaps someone will prove me wrong. – A E Nov 30 '14 at 22:49
  • I think we should limit this to a particular jurisdiction, because answering it definitively for Lichtenstein isn't going to satisfy anyone. I'd prefer if you did quote some examples; I see a lot of "IANAL", but don't recall seeing the precise claim here. – Oddthinking Nov 30 '14 at 22:57
  • 2
    @Oddthinking: The specific reason I made it generic was because if there is even a single jurisdiction where such a case has been then a valid argument could be constructed to always be super careful as the internet tends to cross borders. And will see whether I can catch a nice quote, the only ones I am able to find now are "IANAL" or "Offtopic, because legal question". – David Mulder Nov 30 '14 at 23:06
  • Having it global means it is highly unlikely anyone can answer "No, it is fine in the US, UK, India, China, Nepal, New Zealand, Somalia, ..." – Oddthinking Nov 30 '14 at 23:10
  • 2
    @Oddthinking So, do you seriously wish me to open 196 questions here? Because the claims tend to say something like "depending on the specific jurisdiction, we might abstain from answering your question, because it might be construed as giving legal advice and thus making us liable for damages" ([that one](http://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/a/6749) was prefaced with "even if we *were* lawyers" though). Examining this claim for a specific jurisdiction is pointless, because lets say it's illegal and enforced in Lichtenstein and you mess up then that means you won't be able to ever – David Mulder Nov 30 '14 at 23:25
  • travel there again if you're unlucky enough that somebody from Lichtenstein (Lichtensteiner?) followed your incorrect advice. Now, personally I have no specific plans of going there, but still, I am just skeptical of the claim in general. Have a hard time believing there really is a jurisdiction out there that would rule that an internet comment/page is enough to sue for damages. – David Mulder Nov 30 '14 at 23:27
  • I assume you don't mean "[unauthorized practice of law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_of_law#Unauthorized_practice_of_law)": i.e. you're talking about non-lawyers but I guess you also mean "not for pay". And I guess you have a non-standard definition of "legal advice" which seems to be [by definition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_advice) "giving of a professional or formal opinion". – ChrisW Dec 01 '14 at 00:00
  • Closely related: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/6852/4020 – Flimzy Dec 01 '14 at 00:26
  • Yes http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/cyber/ccarch/2002/02/01/sinrod.htm is an example of court opinion that a web site can be "unauthorized practice of law" even if its advice is free. – ChrisW Dec 01 '14 at 00:32
  • 1
    You've mixed two different concepts in your question. Unauthorized practice of law is a crime (some places). Liability is civil. Which of the two are you asking about? On further reading, I can't actually find anyone that makes this claim... that giving legal advice makes you liable. Instead, I see stuff like this https://www.reddit.com/r/law/wiki/faq#toc_1: > Attorneys are governed by particular rules of professional practice, with some variation among jurisdictions and countries, but with a consistent theme: A lawyer cannot ethically or competently offer legal advice on Reddit. Where is ther – magnesium Dec 01 '14 at 00:45
  • Let's discuss (especially global vs regional issue) in chat: http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/19072/global-law-question – Oddthinking Dec 01 '14 at 01:08
  • Only a court can make you liable for damages. There is nothing to stop anyone from suing anybody for anything. But if you give incorrect advice, then it may become more likely that a court may find you liable. Of course a professional can provide incorrect advice too. This advice should not be taken as legally representative, and you should seek legal advice in order to receive a professional opinion. – iantresman Nov 30 '14 at 23:44
  • @ChrisW: As we're talking about different jurisdictions here terminology will be all over the place. So yes, I am talking about a non-lawyer giving legal opinions not for pay in a generic way. And that post says the exact opposite of what you're saying. It says that generic advice *is* ok. – David Mulder Dec 01 '14 at 06:51
  • @magnesium Same as with ChrisW, I care little about the specific conceptual implementation and more about the generic practice. Regarding the claim, it's already summed up in the part where they do not dare give legal advice because they are not lawyers. In any other discipline you will find hobbyist etc. who will also gladly give advice, yet when it comes to legal stuff everybody turns *really* fidgety. – David Mulder Dec 01 '14 at 06:57
  • @DavidMulder If someone posts "I have a problem" on a forum and someone else replies to them (i.e. to their situation) with advice, that is not "generic advice": that would be "the tailoring of that advice to the needs of a specific person" i.e. unauthorized. So it's OK to publish generic advice (in a newspaper or a web site) but not OK to reply to people's specific questions with specific advice. – ChrisW Dec 01 '14 at 10:12
  • The main question, in the title is "Does giving legal advice make you liable?". That is what I was answering. No one can answer that question. It is for the courts to decide. – iantresman Dec 01 '14 at 12:06
  • @ChrisW Yeah, except for example here on SE has to be generic by order of the system. And all questions are necessarily generic. But regardless, if a non-lawyer has actually been held accountable for giving even non generic advice then I would gladly accept that as an answer. – David Mulder Dec 01 '14 at 14:56
  • @iantresman Which is exactly why I gave that question a very specific and clear interpretation in the question body, so that the question would actually be answerable... – David Mulder Dec 01 '14 at 14:57
  • @DavidMulder, people get really fidgety about medical advice (or what they perceive to be medical advice) also, e.g. http://meta.parenting.stackexchange.com/search?q=medical The most charitable explanation is that people simply don't want to be morally responsible for someone else following their maybe-bad advice on an important topic (medicine, law) so the IANAL bit you typically see means something like "this is my advice, but what the hell would I know about it - get proper advice from a professional if it's important". Alternatively perhaps it's just an urban myth. – A E Dec 01 '14 at 15:59

1 Answers1

6

Legal advice is by definition not generic. Legal advice is applying the law to a particular set of real facts and giving a conclusion upon which you can reasonably expect the other party to rely. I will assume this is what you are asking about.

The Law Society of Upper Canada maintains a list of prosecutions of people performing the unauthorized practice of law. See this case in particular: He was enjoined to cease the practice of law including providing advice or performing legal research "verbally, in writing, over the internet, or by video".

A good review of the unauthorized practice of law via the internet can be found here.

Anko - inactive in protest
  • 1,991
  • 2
  • 18
  • 29
spoderman
  • 594
  • 4
  • 9
  • Have to read up on it a bit more, but at least the second link seems to be somebody who was asking money for this. Don't have time now to read the last link yet. – David Mulder Dec 01 '14 at 16:11
  • 1
    Sure, but you didn't specify pro bono. Is there are reason why you believe payment would make a difference? I know this is mixing jurisdictions, but see here for example: "Additionally, whether an individual is paid for his or her services is irrelevant." - http://legaladvice.uslegal.com – spoderman Dec 01 '14 at 16:40
  • 2
    In case you're interested, this is what USC has to say about pro bono unauthorized practice of law:http://www.law.sc.edu/pro_bono/ethics.shtml – spoderman Dec 01 '14 at 16:45
  • This is an answer about criminal sanctions for "unauthorized practice of law". The question seems to be about financial liability for the giving of advice which is quite a different thing. UPL seems rather North American (to me) and is certainly not a universal thing. – Francis Davey Dec 13 '14 at 08:44
  • @Francis penalties for the cases in my link include financial penalties. He didn't restrict the question to civil liability. He has confused many legal terms of art in the question, so I'm trying not to interpret any word he used very strictly. Your point about criminal UPL vs civil liability is correct, though. – spoderman Dec 13 '14 at 19:55