Resume Paper

Q: how do I "imply" that I am an attorney? Is not saying that you are not an attorney implying that you are? Is not saying that you are not an atorney and sounding like you know what you're talking about implying that you are? I imagine you mean this kindly, but I find the whole business of UPL in legal forums to be a royal pain in the ass. Especially when one considers that Internet legal forums are complicated by jurisdictional questions. In most states it is not permit for an attorney to practice if he is not licensed in that state. What happens when you have blurred state boundaries as on m.l.m? You have a "client" in one state and an attorney in another? Still, all in all, I think I'll take your comment to heart and change my sig on m.l.m to something that specifically says what I am. At the moment it's just "Bob."

A: No kidding, Bob. I pretty clearly separated the technical from the non-technical analysis. Working for a firm has nothing to do with whether or not it is UPL in a techical sense, nor, obviously, does the fact that one is not engaged in UPL mean that one is competent. In a reply to him, where you gave the sage advice to an accident victim that he should contact a lawyer before a doctor and Marvin pointed out that you had no idea what you were talking about, you referred to yourself as a "non-practitioner." The thread name involved a Ryder truck. Hope that's clearer. Or enough experience. However, that doesn't seem to slow you down much. That's exactly the issue -- it's not just that you can't give licensed advice, but you can't give GOOD advice. I didn't set out to bash you personally -- frankly, I don't have too much invested in your posting style -- but I think casual provision of definitive-sounding opinions to layfolk poses a real issue that is fairly common among law students and young lawyers. You seem to think that it is up to the average schmo who posts to a forum that seems to be full of lawyers

to know the ins and outs of attorney-client law, realize that he's not entitled to legal advice from the person providing it (and that the person may not be competent to give it), and discount whatever is said by the appropriate risk that the poster has no idea what the hell he or she is talking about. That is not realistic, and the person asking the question may well take something that sounds like a lawyer's answer and base something important on it. Is that the same as the UPL issue? No, as I noted (though technically the poster is probably also breaking the law). Does indifference to the effect one may have on real people pose significant moral issues? I sure think so.