Unauthorized practice of law?

Question

If someone answers legal questions on Yahoo Answers, holding themselves out to be a "Constitutional Law Expert," when they are really not a lawyer at all, are they committing the crime of unauthorized practice?

If they tell people a lot of crazy, made-up stuff about how courts supposedly do not have "jurisdiction" to enforce the traffic laws, are they committing malpractice? Can you sue them?

It seems like it should be one or the other--either they are breaking the law by giving advice that they are not qualified to give, or they should be subject to lawsuits when they give such bad advice.

I hope someone can help me out--I really want to know.

Answer 1

You don't need a law to be broken to sue someone; in fact, most often it is not the case.

This will help you out the most: don't look for legal advise on an anonymous website; you're a fool for doing so.

Worry less about holding others accountable and more about taking responsibility for getting sound advice.

Answer 2

It's against the law to hold yourself out to be a lawyer unless you've been called to the bar.

But a "Constitutional Law expert" isn't necessarily a lawyer and, on this site, one would presume that they are lying.

So they've not breached any law.

Answer 3

"In general" an action for UPL requires that the person actually engage in "the practice of law" - which requires that his advice be given for compensation.

What is "for compensation" has been interpreted very loosely. A realtor, for example, who helped a client file title papers was found to have engaged in UPL because, although she didn't specifically get paid for doing the forms, the court held it was done as part of the real estate transaction that she 'was' paid for.

Civil suits, however, are different. You 'might' be able to bring a detrimental reliance suit against someone who gave bad advice on here that you relied on, costing you money, but I doubt it - the courts would almost certainly hold that no reasonable person would rely on anonymous advice from strangers on a website.

Richard

Answer 4

Hello, Esther.  I think you have been reading the answers of Daevian, haven't you?

Unfortunately, no one is going to be able to successfully sue Daevian for malpractice, probably for a couple of reasons.  FIrst, his lawyer (provided he has enough sense not to try to represent himself) will successfully argue that no attorney-client relationship was created.  Second, I think that most any jury will conclude that anyone who is foolish enough to rely on that drivel does not deserve their help.

The question of unauthorized practice of law is much closer.  While reasonable minds could differ, I believe he is on the wrong side of the criminal law by holding himself out as an "expert" in an area where a license is required.  Our friend may well find himself in some hot water!  Particularly if he lives in California or Florida, where they really take these things seriously!!

I disagree with Rickinno, or maybe he is reading different UPL statutes than I.  Most statutes I have seen make it unlawful for one to "hold himself out" as qualified to proffer legal advice.

Eric H:  So it is ok to break the law if everyone knows you are lying?  That's not right!!

Answer 5

This is the most thought provoking question I have seen on Yahoo Answers so far.  For one to be guilty of the Unauthorized Practice of Law:

(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to obtain an economic benefit for himself or herself, the person:

(1) contracts with any person to represent that person with regard to personal causes of action for property damages or personal injury;

(2) advises any person as to the person's rights and the advisability of making claims for personal injuries or property damages;

(3) advises any person as to whether or not to accept an offered sum of money in settlement of claims for personal injuries or property damages;

(4) enters into any contract with another person to represent that person in personal injury or property damage matters on a contingent fee basis with an attempted assignment of a portion of the person's cause of action; or

(5) enters into any contract with a third person which purports to grant the exclusive right to select and retain legal counsel to represent the individual in any legal proceeding.

(b) This section does not apply to a person currently licensed to practice law in this state, another state, or a foreign country and in good standing with the State Bar of Texas and the state bar or licensing authority of any and all other states and foreign countries where licensed.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d) of this section, an offense under Subsection (a) of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) An offense under Subsection (a) of this section is a felony of the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has previously been convicted under Subsection (a) of this section.

(This is the Texas statute)

So, there must be some economic benefit, which here there is none.  Following another's (non-lawyer) advice cannot be used by you to excuse your behavior.  Think about it.  If your friend tells you that in order to get rich that you should plant your money in the ground in order to grow a "money tree" (for example), and then you buried it and someone stole it, you cannot do anything to your friend legally to justify your gullibility.  People are responsible for their own choices and you cannot sue someone for giving you advice (non-lawyer) when you performed the act.  Does that make sense?