Legal Questions: I believe the problem is that they need a well, actually

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: I believe the problem is that they need a well, actually

«‹›1201 »

JohnnyHildo: Jul 23, 2002

Spacewolf posted:

So a random question, inspired by a weird dream or something (it comes from a really weird bit of my head, I dunno):

Take a university with a billion-dollar endowment (for our example, take Notre Dame in South Bend IN). Presume, for some reason, that it shuts down tomorrow - with, as mentioned, over a billion dollars in the endowment. It's owned by a religious order, the Congregation of the Holy Cross.

Where does the billion+ dollars go? In many cases, the donors are long long long since dead, and their estates are wound up.

I realize the answer would vary by the state, but I'm looking for general principles.

Generally what happens to assets of a NPO in the event of a voluntary dissolution are set out in the organization's articles of incorporation or bylaws. For the University of Notre Dame, this is what their bylaws state:

quote:

Upon the dissolution of the University, the Board of Trustees with the approval of the Fellows shall, after paying or making provisions for the payment of all the liabilities of the University, dispose of all the assets of the University exclusively for the purposes of the University in such manner, or to such organization or organizations organized and operated exclusively for charitable, educational, religious, or scientific purposes as shall at the time qualify as an exempt organization or organizations under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (or corresponding provision of any future United States Internal Revenue Law), as the Board of Trustees with the approval of the Fellows shall determine.

# ? May 3, 2015 13:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 15:13

Spacewolf: May 19, 2014

Awesome. Thanks.

So, just to clarify: It depends on the bylaws of that NPO and isn't really governed by state statute in any detail (since we can presume any NPO worth the name has articles in the bylaws dealing with what happens in the case of a dissolution). In the Notre Dame case, what happens with the assets (after liabilities are paid off) is decided by the Board of Trustees and approved by the Fellows, the Fellows being (according to the Statutes of the University) six priests who are members of the Congregation of the Holy Cross, United States Province (including its Provincial ex officio) and six laypeople, with the proviso that there shall always be a priest plurality or majority.

OK, this answers the question nicely. Thanks for helping, JohnnyHildo!

# ? May 3, 2015 15:27

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

Tyro posted:

If someone wanted a will done in Virginia, how well would a simple home made write up that was notarized hold up in court?

Edit: I am assuming it would be perfectly fine if not contested, just kind of curious about the worst case scenario.

The handwritten will is called a "holographic will" and some states allow them and some states don't. When you go to take care of someone's estate via probate, you offer a will up to the Court as the guideline for distribution of the property.

If the Court rejects the will, or another potential heir challenges the will and wins, the Court will toss it out, and split the property evenly among the heirs.

Even without a will, the heirs can all get together and agree how things will be split up, and submit that agreement to the Court, in lieu of the will; even if that agreement contradicts a valid will.

# ? May 3, 2015 15:43

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

Spacewolf posted:

States will have a law regarding what happens to the property of a dissovled entity when there are no viable successors in interest. Most state laws require that the assets of dissolved non-profits be distributed to other non-profits.

The fact that they put it in their bylaws probably means they were copying the language from the statute.

# ? May 3, 2015 15:54

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

blarzgh posted:

States will have a law regarding what happens to the property of a dissovled entity when there are no viable successors in interest. Most state laws require that the assets of dissolved non-profits be distributed to other non-profits.

The fact that they put it in their bylaws probably means they were copying the language from the statute.

Last resort of a trust about to fail and the exception to the rule that gifts are unenforceable - money designated for charity goes to the nearest possible charitable purpose.

8 Years on and that titbit of Equity and Trusts resurfaces.

# ? May 3, 2015 16:20

Tyro: Nov 10, 2009

blarzgh posted:

The handwritten will is called a "holographic will" and some states allow them and some states don't. When you go to take care of someone's estate via probate, you offer a will up to the Court as the guideline for distribution of the property.

If the Court rejects the will, or another potential heir challenges the will and wins, the Court will toss it out, and split the property evenly among the heirs.

Even without a will, the heirs can all get together and agree how things will be split up, and submit that agreement to the Court, in lieu of the will; even if that agreement contradicts a valid will.

Interesting, thanks!

# ? May 3, 2015 17:33

Dr. Arbitrary: Mar 15, 2006; Bleak Gremlin

blarzgh posted:

The handwritten will is called a "holographic will" and some states allow them and some states don't. When you go to take care of someone's estate via probate, you offer a will up to the Court as the guideline for distribution of the property.

In case I die in this mess, I leave all to the wife. Cecil Geo Harris

http://words.usask.ca/archived_ocn/09-jan-23/see_what_we_found.php

# ? May 3, 2015 17:56

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Pay a lawyer $350 to do a real will for fucks sake.

# ? May 3, 2015 19:24

Verdugo: Jan 5, 2009; Lipstick Apathy

DNova posted:

To be fair, it doesn't take much education to say "maybe, maybe not; call a lawyer" which seems to be the default response in this thread.

To be fair, if you read the OP, people are not supposed to ask such specific questions.

# ? May 3, 2015 19:25

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

euphronius posted:

Pay a lawyer $350 to do a real will for fucks sake.

Yeah, fucker shoulfa dragged the tractor to a lawyer.

# ? May 3, 2015 20:01

Ashcans: Jan 2, 2006; Let's do the space-time warp again!

What's the reasoning that holographic wills aren't accepted in some places? Is it just an issue if they are not appropriately witnessed, or is this some sort of 'we don't want to screw up probate worrying about your lovely writing' thing?

# ? May 3, 2015 20:15

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

nm posted:

Yeah, fucker shoulfa dragged the tractor to a lawyer.

If he'd sold his tractor to pay for a lawyer to do a will, he wouldn't have been killed by his tractor. A lawyer isn't just legal protection, he/she will save your life!

# ? May 3, 2015 20:21

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Many states will let you transfer auto titles without probate.

# ? May 3, 2015 20:25

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Ashcans posted:

What's the reasoning that holographic wills aren't accepted in some places? Is it just an issue if they are not appropriately witnessed, or is this some sort of 'we don't want to screw up probate worrying about your lovely writing' thing?

They aren't witnessed so there is no one to testify as to capacity.

I'm guessing here.

# ? May 3, 2015 20:26

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

Ashcans posted:

What's the reasoning that holographic wills aren't accepted in some places? Is it just an issue if they are not appropriately witnessed, or is this some sort of 'we don't want to screw up probate worrying about your lovely writing' thing?

"Hey, look! I 'found' this will from Pee Paw written on a napkin! What's that? It leaves everything to... me?! What a twist!"

# ? May 3, 2015 21:00

ulmont: Sep 15, 2010; IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE

blarzgh posted:

It looks like non-competes used to be unenforceable in Georgia.

https://www.herbertsparks.com/georgia-overhauls-its-non-compete-agreements/

It used to be a real crapshoot, because they were either (rarely) enforced in full or (more commonly) struck down in full. With the constitutional amendment, the courts are now required to scale back an unenforceable non-compete to something that is reasonable, and then enforce that scaled back version.

The OP should still talk to an attorney, though (OP, PM me and I can send some links to people who might be good starting points even if not necessarily the final answerers of your questions).

# ? May 3, 2015 22:45

Motronic: Nov 6, 2009

ulmont posted:

With the constitutional amendment

Wait now.....which constitutional amendment in regards to non competes did I miss? The last I can recall is 27.

Edit: GEORGIA constitution. Got it.

# ? May 3, 2015 22:59

MacMillan: Dec 21, 2013; You're just the afterbirth, Eli. You slithered out on your mother's filth. They should have put you in a glass jar on a mantlepiece.

My father is stalking/tracking my mother. They're in the middle of a divorce and my father hasn't taken it too well.

Location: West side of Houston, Texas (Harris County)

1.) Tracker was found on my mother's car
2.) Father uses innumerable google voice numbers/burners to text/call/threaten her and her boyfriend (1 previous boyfriend, 1 current)
3.) Tells my mother's sister who lives in South Carolina that he "has a bullet waiting for her" over text
4.) Tricked my mother into signing over the house/some assets claiming it was another document for a loan to get through his job loss
5.) Stalks her at night using his girlfriend's car (who by the way, has no clue that he's doing anything of this)
6.) Threatens suicide/violent intent
7.) Has a CHL and owns several weapons
8.) Calls my mother's workplace under different numbers and yells/cries/etc. She's the secretary and has to answer all calls. Sometimes she's afraid to answer knowing it's him. (Police told her they can't doing anything about that)

Now, naturally one asks, "Why the gently caress haven't you called the police?". We have, numerous times. My mother has gone to the police station and begged, but they claimed that he hasn't done anything yet. He was taken by Harris County police into a state institution for a week, but got out somehow. He's slick and he's smart. Unemployed engineer who likes prescription drugs and smokes a lot of weed.

He vehemently denies any wrongdoing. I'm afraid he's going to hurt someone but he's very sly talking to the police.

Any good advice over this situation?

MacMillan fucked around with this message at 08:57 on May 4, 2015

# ? May 4, 2015 08:52

Konstantin: Jun 20, 2005; And the Lord said, "Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.

First of all, have her call the Houston Area Women's Center at 800-256-0551. They will be able to put her in touch with whatever resources are available. Second, document everything. Texas is a one party consent state, so she can and should record all calls. Also save and back up all call logs/emails/any other communication. If she gets a call at work, at the very least she should have someone else listen in, and both parties should write down the content of the call if it can't be recorded. Anything that can show a pattern of harassment will be helpful in future court proceedings.

# ? May 4, 2015 10:37

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

MacMillan posted:

My father is stalking/tracking my mother. They're in the middle of a divorce and my father hasn't taken it too well.

Location: West side of Houston, Texas (Harris County)

1.) Tracker was found on my mother's car
2.) Father uses innumerable google voice numbers/burners to text/call/threaten her and her boyfriend (1 previous boyfriend, 1 current)
3.) Tells my mother's sister who lives in South Carolina that he "has a bullet waiting for her" over text
4.) Tricked my mother into signing over the house/some assets claiming it was another document for a loan to get through his job loss
5.) Stalks her at night using his girlfriend's car (who by the way, has no clue that he's doing anything of this)
6.) Threatens suicide/violent intent
7.) Has a CHL and owns several weapons
8.) Calls my mother's workplace under different numbers and yells/cries/etc. She's the secretary and has to answer all calls. Sometimes she's afraid to answer knowing it's him. (Police told her they can't doing anything about that)

Now, naturally one asks, "Why the gently caress haven't you called the police?". We have, numerous times. My mother has gone to the police station and begged, but they claimed that he hasn't done anything yet. He was taken by Harris County police into a state institution for a week, but got out somehow. He's slick and he's smart. Unemployed engineer who likes prescription drugs and smokes a lot of weed.

He vehemently denies any wrongdoing. I'm afraid he's going to hurt someone but he's very sly talking to the police.

Any good advice over this situation?

These are the sorts of things that Temporary Orders are for. You and your mother need to sit down with her divorce attorney and tell them all these things, give them all the evidence, and say you want to get a protective order.

# ? May 4, 2015 14:28

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

MacMillan posted:

My father is stalking/tracking my mother. They're in the middle of a divorce and my father hasn't taken it too well.

Location: West side of Houston, Texas (Harris County)

1.) Tracker was found on my mother's car
2.) Father uses innumerable google voice numbers/burners to text/call/threaten her and her boyfriend (1 previous boyfriend, 1 current)
3.) Tells my mother's sister who lives in South Carolina that he "has a bullet waiting for her" over text
4.) Tricked my mother into signing over the house/some assets claiming it was another document for a loan to get through his job loss
5.) Stalks her at night using his girlfriend's car (who by the way, has no clue that he's doing anything of this)
6.) Threatens suicide/violent intent
7.) Has a CHL and owns several weapons
8.) Calls my mother's workplace under different numbers and yells/cries/etc. She's the secretary and has to answer all calls. Sometimes she's afraid to answer knowing it's him. (Police told her they can't doing anything about that)

Now, naturally one asks, "Why the gently caress haven't you called the police?". We have, numerous times. My mother has gone to the police station and begged, but they claimed that he hasn't done anything yet. He was taken by Harris County police into a state institution for a week, but got out somehow. He's slick and he's smart. Unemployed engineer who likes prescription drugs and smokes a lot of weed.

He vehemently denies any wrongdoing. I'm afraid he's going to hurt someone but he's very sly talking to the police.

Any good advice over this situation?

Let her attorney handle it. He or she will know best what to do.

# ? May 4, 2015 14:29

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

Konstantin posted:

First of all, have her call the Houston Area Women's Center at 800-256-0551.

Also ask them about protective orders.

# ? May 4, 2015 14:32

Hot Dog Day #91: Jun 19, 2003

Yes, regardless of what the police may or may not do, you certainly need an attorney. If you can't afford one, either contact lone star legal aid and tell them the story, especially the stalking parts, contact the district attorney about a protective order, or beg, borrow, or steal 5000 for a lawyer. Get a credit card if you need to.

Don't try to handle this without an attorney.

# ? May 4, 2015 15:17

Hot Dog Day #91: Jun 19, 2003

DNova posted:

To be fair, it doesn't take much education to say "maybe, maybe not; call a lawyer" which seems to be the default response in this thread.

Actually I think it takes more than you realize. A lot of lay people, and a lot of lawyers even, think there is a "solution" to their legal problems. As in, they think there is some surefire resolution or black and white rule that will answer their questions and they can just write that down or tell a judge and poof! Everything is better.

The reality is that's almost never true. I worked for years trying to help lay people understand that the law doesn't work that way, especially if you don't have money. My advice in this thread is usually tempered accordingly. I want people coming to this thread to realize that there is a risk that even when everything appears to be on their side, they still lose because the judge is cranky or dumb or someone is an rear end in a top hat.

# ? May 4, 2015 15:57

sleepy gary: Jan 11, 2006

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

Actually I think it takes more than you realize.

Actually it takes exactly no education* to make a statement that is true in all cases, such as your response, "They're usually not enforceable, unless they are. Hope that helps!". That's not helpful and you don't need a JD to be able to say that.

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

A lot of lay people, and a lot of lawyers even, think there is a "solution" to their legal problems. As in, they think there is some surefire resolution or black and white rule that will answer their questions and they can just write that down or tell a judge and poof! Everything is better.

The reality is that's almost never true. I worked for years trying to help lay people understand that the law doesn't work that way, especially if you don't have money. My advice in this thread is usually tempered accordingly. I want people coming to this thread to realize that there is a risk that even when everything appears to be on their side, they still lose because the judge is cranky or dumb or someone is an rear end in a top hat.

Yes all this is fine but I just see that and other vague useless answers a lot, when it would only take a few minutes to put some effort in to actually providing some insight or linking resources -- and some of you are doing that, which is very nice and I like seeing your opinions.

*excepting primary school, if you want to be pedantic.

edit: I don't mean to single you out, Hot Dog Day #91, it's just that your post prompted my snarky response and now I'm replying to you directly.

sleepy gary fucked around with this message at 17:15 on May 4, 2015

# ? May 4, 2015 17:07

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

DNova posted:

Actually it takes exactly no education* to make a statement that is true in all cases, such as your response, "They're usually not enforceable, unless they are. Hope that helps!". That's not helpful and you don't need a JD to be able to say that.

Yes all this is fine but I just see that and other vague useless answers a lot, when it would only take a few minutes to put some effort in to actually providing some insight or linking resources -- and some of you are doing that, which is very nice and I like seeing your opinions.

*excepting primary school, if you want to be pedantic.

edit: I don't mean to single you out, Hot Dog Day #91, it's just that your post prompted my snarky response and now I'm replying to you directly.

Sometimes linking resources and providing insight potentially puts our professional licensure and living at risk. When we say "get a lawyer" and nothing else it is sometimes not because we don't want to be helpful, it's because we can't be helpful.

And you actually do need a JD for a lot of even the vaguer advice, as "it's not enforceable unless it is" is itself more information than they had - that it might be enforceable, but it might not be, and a consultation with a lawyer would be useful in figuring out which. In contrast, when people come in with really dumb questions we just tell them they are dumb, we don't send them off to get a lawyer.

# ? May 4, 2015 17:18

sleepy gary: Jan 11, 2006

Ok I have a legal question: is there really this supposed legal trap of an attorney getting in trouble for giving a casual opinion in an online forum to a person with whom they have no professional relationship?

What are the potential traps and consequences? For example, if I ask you for advice in this thread, and you tell me something way, way, way wrong, and then I act on it and things go badly for me and as a consequence I sue you, would I actually, in reality have a decent case? Are there formal laws on this exact issue, or any cases you know of that explore it?

# ? May 4, 2015 17:27

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

DNova posted:

Ok I have a legal question: is there really this supposed legal trap of an attorney getting in trouble for giving a casual opinion in an online forum to a person with whom they have no professional relationship?

What are the potential traps and consequences? For example, if I ask you for advice in this thread, and you tell me something way, way, way wrong, and then I act on it and things go badly for me and as a consequence I sue you, would I actually, in reality have a decent case? Are there formal laws on this exact issue, or any cases you know of that explore it?

It doesnt even matter if your case is good, we are still paying out of pocket up to the deductible to defend it.

There are also ethical issues as well and we can be reported and reprimanded and suspended by state ethics boards.

# ? May 4, 2015 17:29

sleepy gary: Jan 11, 2006

euphronius posted:

It doesnt even matter if your case is good, we are still paying out to defend it.

There are also ethical issues as well and we can be reported and reprimanded and suspended by state ethics boards.

Has anyone been reprimanded for giving honest advice in the manner which I described?

edit: Paying out to defend a case that has no legs is much different than being disbarred or losing your license or whatever career-ending consequences you are afraid of. I'd really like to hear answers to the other questions too. There has to be something if you all feel this way.

sleepy gary fucked around with this message at 17:34 on May 4, 2015

# ? May 4, 2015 17:30

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

DNova posted:

Ok I have a legal question: is there really this supposed legal trap of an attorney getting in trouble for giving a casual opinion in an online forum to a person with whom they have no professional relationship?

What are the potential traps and consequences? For example, if I ask you for advice in this thread, and you tell me something way, way, way wrong, and then I act on it and things go badly for me and as a consequence I sue you, would I actually, in reality have a decent case? Are there formal laws on this exact issue, or any cases you know of that explore it?

You probably wouldn't have a case, but if the local bar council found out about it they would have some probing questions to ask.

Ethics is a big deal for lawyers.

e: because the lawyer-client patient relationship is a really special thing that isn't a mere contractual relationship, the trust that goes into it forms a pillar that keeps all of society together and functioning. Doing stuff that fucks about or that can be perceived to be loving about with the boundaries of that relationship or the degree of trust someone can put into their lawyer is a big professional no-no.

Alchenar fucked around with this message at 18:03 on May 4, 2015

# ? May 4, 2015 18:00

sleepy gary: Jan 11, 2006

Alchenar posted:

You probably wouldn't have a case, but if the local bar council found out about it they would have some probing questions to ask.

Ethics is a big deal for lawyers.

Ok but remove the idea that I was given extremely wrong advice. The realistic scenario in this thread is that a well-meaning attorney gives some or an opinion that may not be 100% applicable in my location or situation. Is the ethics committee going to sanction anyone for that?

Is it unethical to give well-intentioned advice to strangers?

Alchenar posted:

e: because the lawyer-client patient relationship is a really special thing that isn't a mere contractual relationship, the trust that goes into it forms a pillar that keeps all of society together and functioning. Doing stuff that fucks about or that can be perceived to be loving about with the boundaries of that relationship or the degree of trust someone can put into their lawyer is a big professional no-no.

Again, this is strangers on the internet. Not clients. You might not even be an attorney; you haven't provided your credentials or whatever. You could be a fake.

sleepy gary fucked around with this message at 18:08 on May 4, 2015

# ? May 4, 2015 18:05

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

DNova posted:

Ok but remove the idea that I was given extremely wrong advice. The realistic scenario in this thread is that a well-meaning attorney gives some or an opinion that may not be 100% applicable in my location or situation. Is the ethics committee going to sanction anyone for that?

Is it unethical to give well-intentioned advice to strangers?

Yes because without a proper consultation and all the due diligence that entails you have no idea if your advice is actually accurate.

99% of stories people tell in this thread always turn out to have some kind of awkward or embarrassing detail missing that completely changes the answer a good lawyer would give.

# ? May 4, 2015 18:07

sleepy gary: Jan 11, 2006

Alchenar posted:

Yes because without a proper consultation and all the due diligence that entails you have no idea if your advice is actually accurate.

99% of stories people tell in this thread always turn out to have some kind of awkward or embarrassing detail missing that completely changes the answer a good lawyer would give.

"Given the information I have, here is my advice/opinion/recommendation __________________________________. For full/better information retain a local attorney experienced in this sort of matter."

This would end your career if you turned out to be wrong?

# ? May 4, 2015 18:14

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

DNova posted:

Has anyone been reprimanded for giving honest advice in the manner which I described?

edit: Paying out to defend a case that has no legs is much different than being disbarred or losing your license or whatever career-ending consequences you are afraid of. I'd really like to hear answers to the other questions too. There has to be something if you all feel this way.

Yes. There are multiple state bar ethics opinions telling us to be careful, there are court cases telling us less specific communications can potentially form an attorney-client relationship.

Also recognize that unlike most professions, if I accidentally form an attorney-client relationship with someone, every single lawyer I work with (which is about a thousand of them) is likely to be considered to have formed that same relationship. Which means that most likely my firm just says "go to hell" and cuts me loose if we somehow got sued for something I did outside the scope of my employment. Even if they aren't imputed to be representing the client, they'd still probably fire me for violating the moonlighting policy.

And even if I did nothing wrong, we still didn't check to see if you, as a client, create conflicts. Let's say you want to sue (corporation X) which we represent. Well, now we can't without a waiver from you.

These aren't trivial risks for us.

# ? May 4, 2015 18:16

ulmont: Sep 15, 2010; IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE

DNova posted:

edit: Paying out to defend a case that has no legs is much different than being disbarred or losing your license or whatever career-ending consequences you are afraid of. I'd really like to hear answers to the other questions too. There has to be something if you all feel this way.

Losing a lot of money is quite bad enough to avoid giving advice which might create an attorney-client relationship.

DNova posted:

Ok but remove the idea that I was given extremely wrong advice. The realistic scenario in this thread is that a well-meaning attorney gives some or an opinion that may not be 100% applicable in my location or situation. Is the ethics committee going to sanction anyone for that?

Is it unethical to give well-intentioned advice to strangers?

It could be. This is Rule 1.1 (the first rule which isn't just a list of definitions) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct:

Rule 1.1 posted:

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation as used in this Rule means that a lawyer shall not handle a matter which the lawyer knows or should know to be beyond the lawyer's level of competence without associating another lawyer who the original lawyer reasonably believes to be competent to handle the matter in question. Competence requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

DNova posted:

Again, this is strangers on the internet. Not clients.

The line is not as sharp as you think.

196 Ga. App. 318, 319 posted:

an attorney-client relationship may be found to exist where no fee is paid and the payment of a fee does not necessarily demonstrate the existence of the relationship. All that is necessary is a �reasonable belief� on the part of the would-be client that he or she was being represented by the attorney.

DNova posted:

You might not even be an attorney; you haven't provided your credentials or whatever. You could be a fake.

In that case, it would be the "unauthorized practice of law."

EDIT: oh, god, yeah, the anti-moonlighting and conflicts-extending firmwide would totally make any fuckup here career ending (or at least current employment ending).

ulmont fucked around with this message at 18:30 on May 4, 2015

# ? May 4, 2015 18:28

Arcturas: Mar 30, 2011

Kalman posted:

And even if I did nothing wrong, we still didn't check to see if you, as a client, create conflicts. Let's say you want to sue (corporation X) which we represent. Well, now we can't without a waiver from you.

Conflict checks are super, super, super, super important.

# ? May 4, 2015 18:30

sleepy gary: Jan 11, 2006

Kalman posted:

Yes. There are multiple state bar ethics opinions telling us to be careful, there are court cases telling us less specific communications can potentially form an attorney-client relationship.

Also recognize that unlike most professions, if I accidentally form an attorney-client relationship with someone, every single lawyer I work with (which is about a thousand of them) is likely to be considered to have formed that same relationship. Which means that most likely my firm just says "go to hell" and cuts me loose if we somehow got sued for something I did outside the scope of my employment. Even if they aren't imputed to be representing the client, they'd still probably fire me for violating the moonlighting policy.

These aren't trivial risks for us.

Thank you for this, but the case you provided is wildly different to what I'm talking about.

quote:

In a recent case of first impression, Barton v. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an online communication involving an online intake form filled out by prospective clients gave rise to an attorney-client relationship governed by the duty of confidentiality and subject to attorney-client-privilege.

I would agree with this. If I fill out a form on the website of an attorney or law office I think it's reasonable to assume some confidentiality there.

The document does talk more generally about online communication, and gives this advice:

The first point is not applicable unless you are fishing the thread for clients.
The second point is moot. How can anyone expect confidentiality in a public forum?
I don't believe the third point applies unless giving an opinion to a stranger counts as "practice," which I simply don't know.
The Fourth point is not applicable.
The Fifth point is what you are all doing, I guess.

But is that really it? Be conservative in your communication? If you interpret this extremely broadly, then you should not post a single word in this thread or in any legal opinion thread. If you interpret it with some common sense, then I think you can stop stressing about being disbarred over giving honest and well-intentioned advice here.

Has any attorney ever been brought in front of an ethics committee or any other consequences because of honest advice he gave on a public internet forum to a stranger?

# ? May 4, 2015 18:31

joat mon: Oct 15, 2009; I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.

ulmont posted:

In that case, it would be the "unauthorized practice of law."

Which is also what attorneys on SA would be doing by giving legal advice to goons in states where the attorney is not a member of that state's bar.

# ? May 4, 2015 18:32

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

Why are you trying so hard not to believe what we're all saying?

# ? May 4, 2015 18:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 15:13

Bad Munki: Nov 4, 2008; We're all mad here.

Is your goal here to out-argue a bunch of lawyers into them giving legal consults anonymously via an internet comedy forum? What if they just said, "We don't want to," would you give up then? Do you really think any of them are going to say, "ohhhhh, you're right, my bad?"

# ? May 4, 2015 18:34

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: I believe the problem is that they need a well, actually

«‹›1201 »