Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Illegal practice of law
Message-ID: <5217@alice.uUCp>
Date: Sat, 29-Mar-86 10:17:26 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.5217
Posted: Sat Mar 29 10:17:26 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Apr-86 00:16:47 EST
References: <484@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 28

> I'm new to the net (because UCBerkeley just made it accessible to us regular
> folks.), so please accept my appologies in advance if this has been discussed
> previously.
>
> I'm curious about the legality of the very informative discussions I've been
> reading in net.legal.  In particular, when a non-lawyer gives
> advice or information on the net,  does this constitute the unauthorized
> practice of law?  

When I read something in net.legal, I believe that I am reading
the conceptual equivalent of cocktail-party banter.  If I take
any action based on anything said here, I know I had better
verify it someplace reliable if I want to trust it.

Consider: even though things that appear here are in "writing,"
it is actually very hard to verify that

	(1) what you are reading now is indeed what I wrote, or

	(2) what you are reading was written by me and not
	someone else.

Here's a thought experiment that may be analogous.  Suppose you have
a legal problem.  You run an ad in a magazine with national distribution
describing your problem.  You get back a typewritten letter with no
signature, but with an author's name and return address.  How likely
is it that it would be possible to convict that person of practicing
law without a license?