I am not your...Doctor, Therapist/Counselor, Attorney/Lawyer, Mechanic, Dentist, Veterinarian... November 7, 2010 9:04 AM Subscribe
I am not your...Doctor, Therapist/Counselor, Attorney/Lawyer, Mechanic, Dentist, Veterinarian...
After reading 1,000's of IANYL and IANYD, and IAMYT disclaimers, I'm wondering if there is a more efficient way avoiding legal responsibility for the advice on the green. Can't we have a general disclaimer on the main page or tagged with every question?
Is anyone going to come on here and say, "I am your doctor giving you legitimate medical advice that will hold me accountable whatever the result?"
I love that we have doctors and lawyers and therapists on here to help us out. But I don't need to be reminded that they are not my hired professional on every answer they submit.
Let's find a way so professionals can feel free to contribute without legal ramifications while avoiding redundant and already assumed implications.
After reading 1,000's of IANYL and IANYD, and IAMYT disclaimers, I'm wondering if there is a more efficient way avoiding legal responsibility for the advice on the green. Can't we have a general disclaimer on the main page or tagged with every question?
Is anyone going to come on here and say, "I am your doctor giving you legitimate medical advice that will hold me accountable whatever the result?"
I love that we have doctors and lawyers and therapists on here to help us out. But I don't need to be reminded that they are not my hired professional on every answer they submit.
Let's find a way so professionals can feel free to contribute without legal ramifications while avoiding redundant and already assumed implications.
I am your doctor and I recommend a course of mercury therapy and bleedings to cure your angst over this problem.
posted by caddis at 9:07 AM on November 7, 2010 [29 favorites]
posted by caddis at 9:07 AM on November 7, 2010 [29 favorites]
I don't think lawyers would let a general disclaimer get in the way of pointing out that they are not your lawyer (and that they are not giving legal advice, etc).
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:08 AM on November 7, 2010
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:08 AM on November 7, 2010
I don't expect anyone from here to be my doctor or lawyer. Likewise, I don't expect their advice to be perfect. I also don't think that any sort of disclaimer is going to stop people from covering their ass.
But maybe that's just because when I have a question like that I'm asking so when I do talk to someone I have some idea of what's going on.
posted by theichibun at 9:12 AM on November 7, 2010
But maybe that's just because when I have a question like that I'm asking so when I do talk to someone I have some idea of what's going on.
posted by theichibun at 9:12 AM on November 7, 2010
IANYM[oderator] but I love these disclaimers not for the reason of some legal responsibility (someone has treated me on the internet!!) but to indicate the status of expertise I feel I have at a certain point.
For example, I have never had the urge to write IANYC[ook], although even in matters of food, liabilities could arise. Think allergies, and the eternally fascinating can-I-eat-this-fluorescent-pork-chop-from-my-student-days issue. I just feel more confident as a recipe-giver than as a twinge-in-your-back commentator, (just an example).
posted by Namlit at 9:13 AM on November 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
For example, I have never had the urge to write IANYC[ook], although even in matters of food, liabilities could arise. Think allergies, and the eternally fascinating can-I-eat-this-fluorescent-pork-chop-from-my-student-days issue. I just feel more confident as a recipe-giver than as a twinge-in-your-back commentator, (just an example).
posted by Namlit at 9:13 AM on November 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
So this ass-covering you suggest, it will be big enough for all of our asses, put together? Impressive. I'll take three.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 9:14 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Salvor Hardin at 9:14 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
I like it too, and I usually read it more as a figure of speech (or ritual) indicating modesty, which promotes the idea that a lot of people are chiming in with partial understandings of the problems being talked about.
posted by Jagz-Mario at 9:21 AM on November 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by Jagz-Mario at 9:21 AM on November 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
This has been discussed before. The amount of time you spent writing this post is longer than you would have ever spent reading over those 5 (or so) characters every time they appear.
posted by inigo2 at 9:25 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by inigo2 at 9:25 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
While I understand that it's repetitive, on the whole, I think it's better for people to be upfront about their qualifications and lack there-of when answering questions.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:25 AM on November 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 9:25 AM on November 7, 2010 [2 favorites]
As a lawyer, but not your lawyer, I will never feel comfortable failing to make that distinction.
posted by freshwater at 9:30 AM on November 7, 2010 [18 favorites]
posted by freshwater at 9:30 AM on November 7, 2010 [18 favorites]
I am not your moderator, but I'm don't see a problem to be solved here. The constant reminder, well, reminds people that the advice is not that of professional who has looked at the specifics of their case and the OP should keep that in mind when reviewing the advice.
posted by nomadicink at 9:30 AM on November 7, 2010 [6 favorites]
posted by nomadicink at 9:30 AM on November 7, 2010 [6 favorites]
Jagz-Mario and nomadicink FTW, IMHO. YMMV.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:34 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Sys Rq at 9:34 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Does this cover make my ass look fat?
posted by amyms at 9:40 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by amyms at 9:40 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
I think in the last big thread about this, it was sort of determined that the whole disclaimer thing was only legally important if you WERE a lawyer or a doctor, to make sure that it was clear that you were not dispensing official medical/legal counsel. And that all the laypeople who rush to point out "IANAL" aren't actually covering their own ass in any very practical way, because it is not legally or ethically unsound for them to offer casual advice. And that in general, the IANAL disclaimer is mostly only useful from the perspective of the OP, so they know who may or may not be worth listening to.
I think it is mainly just useless clutter except in cases where it is professionally warranted, but I mostly stopped being bothered by it.
posted by hermitosis at 9:49 AM on November 7, 2010
I think it is mainly just useless clutter except in cases where it is professionally warranted, but I mostly stopped being bothered by it.
posted by hermitosis at 9:49 AM on November 7, 2010
I am not your motherfucking clown.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:56 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:56 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
I think people who say IANAL are just bragging.
posted by found missing at 9:57 AM on November 7, 2010 [12 favorites]
posted by found missing at 9:57 AM on November 7, 2010 [12 favorites]
I am your moderator.
Having a standard disclaimer is not going to keep people from making the same statements anyhow. Having a disclaimer isn't really going to be legally binding in the crazy off chance that someone takes someone's advice, gets themselves into trouble and decides to sue us or the person giving the advice, whether the advice giver is or is not a professional of any stripe.
So, I sympathize, it seems like one of those repetitive tic things, but it's something that's pretty well woven into the fabric of how the site operates and adding a disclaimer, or something in the terms of service or otherwise wouldn't make people stop saying it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:58 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Having a standard disclaimer is not going to keep people from making the same statements anyhow. Having a disclaimer isn't really going to be legally binding in the crazy off chance that someone takes someone's advice, gets themselves into trouble and decides to sue us or the person giving the advice, whether the advice giver is or is not a professional of any stripe.
So, I sympathize, it seems like one of those repetitive tic things, but it's something that's pretty well woven into the fabric of how the site operates and adding a disclaimer, or something in the terms of service or otherwise wouldn't make people stop saying it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:58 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't need to be reminded that they are not my hired professional
We don't say it for your benefit. We say it for ours.
posted by cribcage at 10:03 AM on November 7, 2010 [25 favorites]
We don't say it for your benefit. We say it for ours.
posted by cribcage at 10:03 AM on November 7, 2010 [25 favorites]
i am not your mother, but your oven is unacceptably dirty and it's time to get a new toothbrush
posted by pyramid termite at 10:04 AM on November 7, 2010 [4 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 10:04 AM on November 7, 2010 [4 favorites]
I'm not my landlord and that's why my oven keeps being dirty (and broken).
posted by Namlit at 10:10 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Namlit at 10:10 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Does this cover make my ass look fat?
No! Of course not!
(effector ↔ effectee)
posted by Sys Rq at 10:13 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
No! Of course not!
(effector ↔ effectee)
posted by Sys Rq at 10:13 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
gets themselves into trouble and decides to sue us or the person giving the advice
I'm kind of curious now. Would there be any actual legal precedent for "I listened to advice on the internet, and as a result, now have no limbs?" I can't imagine any court would take that seriously. I might be missing something, but all the same. Seems to be in the same ridiculous vein of "McDonalds made me fat!"
posted by Askiba at 10:19 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm kind of curious now. Would there be any actual legal precedent for "I listened to advice on the internet, and as a result, now have no limbs?" I can't imagine any court would take that seriously. I might be missing something, but all the same. Seems to be in the same ridiculous vein of "McDonalds made me fat!"
posted by Askiba at 10:19 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Ikkyu2 made some comments about the inappropriate nature of some of the questions that go onto askme before he left. If you're not familiar with what I am talking about, you should look through his comment history, as he did a much better job of explaining the failings of askme than I ever will.
Anyway, as I gain a little more knowledge about actual medicine, and continue to read askme, I can tell you that the when medical question come up on askme, 99% the responses are coming from non-medically educated members. What is being posted is not always wrong, but it is information without context. It is usually one individual who generalizes their personal experience into a possible answer to the question. It is a guess, and it can be no more than a guess because the amount of information that would be needed to come to a real medical conclusion is never present in the paragraph or so of information that constitutes an askme question.
It's a little scary.
The idea that there could be some blanket policy on the site that would absolve any member of a profession of their professional responsibilities of due diligence, and not being a moron and giving complex advice on the internet is a little laughable. If you think a blanket policy would somehow be helpful, and encourage people who have a professional obligation to not be a moron to speak more freely on askme, I would suggest that you're getting what you pay for.
posted by 517 at 10:27 AM on November 7, 2010
Anyway, as I gain a little more knowledge about actual medicine, and continue to read askme, I can tell you that the when medical question come up on askme, 99% the responses are coming from non-medically educated members. What is being posted is not always wrong, but it is information without context. It is usually one individual who generalizes their personal experience into a possible answer to the question. It is a guess, and it can be no more than a guess because the amount of information that would be needed to come to a real medical conclusion is never present in the paragraph or so of information that constitutes an askme question.
It's a little scary.
The idea that there could be some blanket policy on the site that would absolve any member of a profession of their professional responsibilities of due diligence, and not being a moron and giving complex advice on the internet is a little laughable. If you think a blanket policy would somehow be helpful, and encourage people who have a professional obligation to not be a moron to speak more freely on askme, I would suggest that you're getting what you pay for.
posted by 517 at 10:27 AM on November 7, 2010
Would there be any actual legal precedent for "I listened to advice on the internet, and as a result, now have no limbs?"
This is the Big Big Question. It's come up in MetaTalk before.
There are lawyers and other members who feel that anyone giving advice [especially advice that slants in a legal direction like landlord/tenant sorts of things, or family law] is in potential very serious danger of getting in trouble for practicing law without a license. Similarly doctors and other users are concerned about people giving [and taking] medical advice in an open forum full of random people. We've had a few other specialists occasionally chime in with concerns about people giving/getting bad advice about home repair, touchy relationships, and "should I eat this" sorts of things as well as things with hazy legality lines such as copyright violation, immigration issues and drug questions.
While I know it doesn't make a lot of people happy, our feeling is "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" This site has never gotten into any sort of trouble. I'm unaware of other similar sites, sites with much higher traffic than ours, getting into this sort of trouble. We have to assess how much risk we're comfortable, as a site and as a community, taking on and the way things currently work has been working for us. This is not to say that there's an absence of any risk, just that we're okay with the level of risk we feel that we're taking on.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:27 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is the Big Big Question. It's come up in MetaTalk before.
There are lawyers and other members who feel that anyone giving advice [especially advice that slants in a legal direction like landlord/tenant sorts of things, or family law] is in potential very serious danger of getting in trouble for practicing law without a license. Similarly doctors and other users are concerned about people giving [and taking] medical advice in an open forum full of random people. We've had a few other specialists occasionally chime in with concerns about people giving/getting bad advice about home repair, touchy relationships, and "should I eat this" sorts of things as well as things with hazy legality lines such as copyright violation, immigration issues and drug questions.
While I know it doesn't make a lot of people happy, our feeling is "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" This site has never gotten into any sort of trouble. I'm unaware of other similar sites, sites with much higher traffic than ours, getting into this sort of trouble. We have to assess how much risk we're comfortable, as a site and as a community, taking on and the way things currently work has been working for us. This is not to say that there's an absence of any risk, just that we're okay with the level of risk we feel that we're taking on.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:27 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
"Would there be any actual legal precedent for "I listened to advice on the internet, and as a result, now have no limbs?""
That would be Ramsey v Chumkoff, 1999.
Thus explaining the ban here on Metafilter regarding questions related to woodchippers and the fascination with the movie "Fargo".
posted by HuronBob at 10:31 AM on November 7, 2010
That would be Ramsey v Chumkoff, 1999.
Thus explaining the ban here on Metafilter regarding questions related to woodchippers and the fascination with the movie "Fargo".
posted by HuronBob at 10:31 AM on November 7, 2010
That would be Ramsey v Chumkoff, 1999.
Are you spelling that right? Google is failing on it.
posted by neuron at 10:40 AM on November 7, 2010
Are you spelling that right? Google is failing on it.
posted by neuron at 10:40 AM on November 7, 2010
Having a disclaimer isn't really going to be legally binding in the crazy off chance that someone takes someone's advice, gets themselves into trouble and decides to sue us or the person giving the advice, whether the advice giver is or is not a professional of any stripe.
I need to keep this in mind more.
posted by amro at 11:01 AM on November 7, 2010
I need to keep this in mind more.
posted by amro at 11:01 AM on November 7, 2010
The point that's always missed, as far as I can see, by the actual lawyers etc who occasionally throw fits in AskMe about non-lawyers answering legal questions with any advice other than "get a lawyer" is that AskMe is surely just one manifestation of Real Life. And in Real Life, this kind of not very reliable advice constitutes an enormous quantity of all conversations anywhere. The disclaimers act as a helpful reminder that something isn't automatically true just because it's on the internet. But I don't think many people really believe that these days, and I don't think it's Metafilter's responsibility to fret overmuch about the ones that do.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 11:01 AM on November 7, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 11:01 AM on November 7, 2010 [3 favorites]
Isn't asking for advice on forum akin to asking advice in a (oft mentioned) cocktail party full of strangers? I mean, I certainly wouldn't sue Joe Blow of giving me the "wrong" advice in real life, why would I sue someone online? That just seems ridiculous.
posted by patheral at 11:02 AM on November 7, 2010
posted by patheral at 11:02 AM on November 7, 2010
Does this cover make my ass look fat?
Jitter it.
posted by nomadicink at 11:09 AM on November 7, 2010 [7 favorites]
Jitter it.
posted by nomadicink at 11:09 AM on November 7, 2010 [7 favorites]
Thus explaining the ban here on Metafilter regarding questions related to woodchippers and the fascination with the movie "Fargo".
Orly?
posted by Sys Rq at 11:10 AM on November 7, 2010
Orly?
posted by Sys Rq at 11:10 AM on November 7, 2010
cribcage has it.
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 11:12 AM on November 7, 2010
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 11:12 AM on November 7, 2010
While I am not your anus on stilts, I can only hope that any ass-covering going on will include those as well.
posted by elizardbits at 11:19 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by elizardbits at 11:19 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Isn't asking for advice on forum akin to asking advice in a (oft mentioned) cocktail party full of strangers? I mean, I certainly wouldn't sue Joe Blow of giving me the "wrong" advice in real life, why would I sue someone online? That just seems ridiculous.
Well, at least for lawyers: if Joe Blow were an attorney, and he rendered legal advice that you then relied upon, you might indeed sue him if it turned out he was three sheets to the wind at the time and gave you bad advice that screwed you. Depending on the jurisdiction and specific facts involved, of course. (also IAAL but IANYL and this isn't legal advice)
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 11:23 AM on November 7, 2010
if Joe Blow were an attorney, and he rendered legal advice that you then relied upon, you might indeed sue him if it turned out he was three sheets to the wind at the time and gave you bad advice that screwed you.
Right. But that's a risk people take when they become lawyers — not a risk anyone else is taking by having conversations about the law on the internet.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 11:30 AM on November 7, 2010
Right. But that's a risk people take when they become lawyers — not a risk anyone else is taking by having conversations about the law on the internet.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 11:30 AM on November 7, 2010
I think 'words typed for free with a cloud of anonymity hanging over them' might constitute a winning defense for Mr. Blow.
posted by rhizome at 11:33 AM on November 7, 2010
posted by rhizome at 11:33 AM on November 7, 2010
IAKIA, and I like being reminded of who the doctors, lawyers, psychiatrists, and special snowflakes are around here.
posted by iamkimiam at 11:39 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by iamkimiam at 11:39 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Answerers are probably more concerned about adhering to the canons of ethics and professional association bylaws/guidelines in their particular fields than about whether they're being Redundant on the Internet.
posted by FelliniBlank at 11:47 AM on November 7, 2010 [5 favorites]
posted by FelliniBlank at 11:47 AM on November 7, 2010 [5 favorites]
Do these stilts make my ass jitter?
Nope, just your anus!
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:49 AM on November 7, 2010 [4 favorites]
Nope, just your anus!
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:49 AM on November 7, 2010 [4 favorites]
Wow, those comments from Ikkyu2 are brilliant and scary and mostly ignored. His posting history in Ask is also brilliant, wish I'd started reading Ask earlier now.
posted by shinybaum at 12:07 PM on November 7, 2010
posted by shinybaum at 12:07 PM on November 7, 2010
Wow, those comments from Ikkyu2 are brilliant and scary and mostly ignored.
We paid a lot of attention to them, we just didn't agree with his conclusions. His posting history was both brilliant and [at times] exceptionally nasty. I'm sorry he's no longer here, but he made the decision he felt that he had to make and some of his parting shots at mathowie were unkind. People who want to stay in touch with him can find him on Livejournal though I think his stuff there is mostly friendslocked.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:13 PM on November 7, 2010
We paid a lot of attention to them, we just didn't agree with his conclusions. His posting history was both brilliant and [at times] exceptionally nasty. I'm sorry he's no longer here, but he made the decision he felt that he had to make and some of his parting shots at mathowie were unkind. People who want to stay in touch with him can find him on Livejournal though I think his stuff there is mostly friendslocked.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:13 PM on November 7, 2010
IANYIA I Am Not Your Internet Adviser. CYM Call Your Mother.
posted by Cranberry at 12:16 PM on November 7, 2010
posted by Cranberry at 12:16 PM on November 7, 2010
FATHERIST.
posted by nomadicink at 12:36 PM on November 7, 2010
posted by nomadicink at 12:36 PM on November 7, 2010
This is the Big Big Question. ... There are lawyers and other members who feel that anyone giving advice...is in potential very serious danger of getting in trouble for practicing law without a license.
I can't speak for anyone else, but from my perspective, that sentence mistakenly conflates two separate problems. Problem #1, the reason for "IANAL," is that lay advice stated in confident terms might be mistaken for legitimate, informed advice from a professional. Problem #2, the reasons for "IANYL," is that a comment made by a professional migh be mistaken for professional advice.
These are separate issues and should not be conflated. "IANAL" is a courtesy for readers. If you are a lay person talking casually on the Internet, there probably isn't much risk that you will get into trouble for practicing law without a license. However, if you write confidently then readers might assume you know what you are talking about, when in fact (unbeknownst to you) you are dead wrong. "IANAL" is a polite way of admitting up front that you are a lay person, so your comment is not accorded undue weight.
By contrast, "IANYL" is not a courtesy for readers; it is a protection for the author's benefit. If I am a lawyer talking casually on the Internet, then I need to make clear that I am not giving professional advice—because otherwise there is indeed a decent chance that I could get into trouble.
posted by cribcage at 12:43 PM on November 7, 2010 [8 favorites]
I can't speak for anyone else, but from my perspective, that sentence mistakenly conflates two separate problems. Problem #1, the reason for "IANAL," is that lay advice stated in confident terms might be mistaken for legitimate, informed advice from a professional. Problem #2, the reasons for "IANYL," is that a comment made by a professional migh be mistaken for professional advice.
These are separate issues and should not be conflated. "IANAL" is a courtesy for readers. If you are a lay person talking casually on the Internet, there probably isn't much risk that you will get into trouble for practicing law without a license. However, if you write confidently then readers might assume you know what you are talking about, when in fact (unbeknownst to you) you are dead wrong. "IANAL" is a polite way of admitting up front that you are a lay person, so your comment is not accorded undue weight.
By contrast, "IANYL" is not a courtesy for readers; it is a protection for the author's benefit. If I am a lawyer talking casually on the Internet, then I need to make clear that I am not giving professional advice—because otherwise there is indeed a decent chance that I could get into trouble.
posted by cribcage at 12:43 PM on November 7, 2010 [8 favorites]
At least in my jurisdiction, lawyers are explicitly taught to cover their asses in this manner, no matter how tiny the chance is of anything coming back to haunt them. It's even mentioned in our professional code of conduct, which we are legally obliged to follow. So, I'm sorry seeing this phraseology annoys you, but I'm not likely to stop using it any time soon. It's ingrained.
posted by modernnomad at 1:33 PM on November 7, 2010
posted by modernnomad at 1:33 PM on November 7, 2010
No matter how repetitive it seems to you, any comment, any question could be someone's first thing ever read on Metafilter. And that person could be coming from a very different place than you, or might even be a teenager or child. So context is a good thing.
posted by amtho at 1:58 PM on November 7, 2010
posted by amtho at 1:58 PM on November 7, 2010
As your attorney, I advise you to relax and go drink some rum.
This kind of disclaimer is a common element of internet culture (it even has a specific acronym!) and may indeed be useful to people who are clueless enough to be asking Strangers On the Internet for advice. You already know you are not a doctor, lawyer, beggar man or thief but the person asking you for advice really doesn't: Before coming in with an air of authority and a strongly worded opinion, it might be a good idea to set things straight and doesn't really cost anything.
posted by Dr Dracator at 2:01 PM on November 7, 2010
This kind of disclaimer is a common element of internet culture (it even has a specific acronym!) and may indeed be useful to people who are clueless enough to be asking Strangers On the Internet for advice. You already know you are not a doctor, lawyer, beggar man or thief but the person asking you for advice really doesn't: Before coming in with an air of authority and a strongly worded opinion, it might be a good idea to set things straight and doesn't really cost anything.
posted by Dr Dracator at 2:01 PM on November 7, 2010
By contrast, "IANYL" is not a courtesy for readers; it is a protection for the author's benefit.
Is it protection if I don't know what that silly internet acronym means?
I suspect you'd have to write "I am not your lawyer..." to get solid protection.
posted by pracowity at 2:10 PM on November 7, 2010
Is it protection if I don't know what that silly internet acronym means?
I suspect you'd have to write "I am not your lawyer..." to get solid protection.
posted by pracowity at 2:10 PM on November 7, 2010
Also, I forgot to mention IANYL has a slightly different flavor than IANAL: It lets everybody know the commenter is a bona-fidee, honest to god, real live, living breathing lawyer but may still be wrong about this particular question. A true professional is honestly worried about making a mistake, and doesn't want to project a false sense of authority, because they know about all the horrible ways things could go Really Bad if some fine shades of meaning fail to communicate across the internets.
posted by Dr Dracator at 2:11 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Dr Dracator at 2:11 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Is it protection if I don't know what that silly internet acronym means?
That's why I try never to use that acronym - I type it out in full.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 2:35 PM on November 7, 2010
That's why I try never to use that acronym - I type it out in full.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 2:35 PM on November 7, 2010
Anyway, as I gain a little more knowledge about actual medicine, and continue to read askme, I can tell you that the when medical question come up on askme, 99% the responses are coming from non-medically educated members. What is being posted is not always wrong, but it is information without context. It is usually one individual who generalizes their personal experience into a possible answer to the question. It is a guess, and it can be no more than a guess because the amount of information that would be needed to come to a real medical conclusion is never present in the paragraph or so of information that constitutes an askme question.
It's a little scary.
It's scary that physicians consider anecdotal discussion of health and medicine to be scary. A real medical conclusion is not the sole aim of every conversation about medicine.
"One individual generalizing their personal experience into an answer" is a major component of how Ask Metafilter works. It's not a bug.
posted by desuetude at 2:38 PM on November 7, 2010 [3 favorites]
It's a little scary.
It's scary that physicians consider anecdotal discussion of health and medicine to be scary. A real medical conclusion is not the sole aim of every conversation about medicine.
"One individual generalizing their personal experience into an answer" is a major component of how Ask Metafilter works. It's not a bug.
posted by desuetude at 2:38 PM on November 7, 2010 [3 favorites]
My eyes do roll just about out of my head to see people who find it cute? necessary? something? to specify both that they are not A lawyer or doctor and are not YOUR lawyer or doctor.
posted by desuetude at 2:42 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by desuetude at 2:42 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
I concur with cribcage and modernnomad. Even as a clerk it was explained to me in very clear terms not to give advice to a client. (this scenerio could even be applied to a library aide) This is most apt in Family Law. If a client calls with an emergency pertaining to the case, ('im in jail what should i do, she did this, he did that') I could only take the details an offer to call 9-11 such a situation arose. The art is conveying that to a client in an already stressful situation.
“A lawyer's time and advice are his stock in trade”.
-Lincoln
posted by clavdivs at 3:09 PM on November 7, 2010
“A lawyer's time and advice are his stock in trade”.
-Lincoln
posted by clavdivs at 3:09 PM on November 7, 2010
As your attorney, I advise you to relax and go drink some rum.
I can see you have many years before the bar. Bazinga.
posted by misha at 3:11 PM on November 7, 2010
I can see you have many years before the bar. Bazinga.
posted by misha at 3:11 PM on November 7, 2010
As your attorney, I advise you to relax and go drink some rum.
Man, I was just coming here to make an Oscar Acosta reference.
On the other hand, I think I will preface all of my non-medical AskMe answers with "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a...."
posted by TedW at 3:20 PM on November 7, 2010
Man, I was just coming here to make an Oscar Acosta reference.
On the other hand, I think I will preface all of my non-medical AskMe answers with "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a...."
posted by TedW at 3:20 PM on November 7, 2010
I kind of like to say it, because I can also subtly imply that since I do have legitimate expertise in the area, I'm smarter than other answerers and should be listened to.
posted by so_gracefully at 3:28 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by so_gracefully at 3:28 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Let's find a way so professionals can feel free to contribute without legal ramifications while avoiding redundant and already assumed implications.
Okay. That way is, "Change the law in all relevant jurisdictions."
Get back to me when you're done. Jeopardizing a law license isn't worth saving you from a tic. You may not think it is important, but you are not the ABA or the relevant state legislature.
And for what it's worth, THE BEST advice a lawyer can give to someone on the internet who needs legal advice is where to find free or low cost legal services in their jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
Not Your Lawyer.
posted by Marty Marx at 3:41 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Okay. That way is, "Change the law in all relevant jurisdictions."
Get back to me when you're done. Jeopardizing a law license isn't worth saving you from a tic. You may not think it is important, but you are not the ABA or the relevant state legislature.
And for what it's worth, THE BEST advice a lawyer can give to someone on the internet who needs legal advice is where to find free or low cost legal services in their jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
Not Your Lawyer.
posted by Marty Marx at 3:41 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
All I can hear is Mayfield's Pusher Man…
posted by klangklangston at 3:45 PM on November 7, 2010
posted by klangklangston at 3:45 PM on November 7, 2010
There are lawyers and other members who feel that anyone giving advice [especially advice that slants in a legal direction like landlord/tenant sorts of things, or family law] is in potential very serious danger of getting in trouble for practicing law without a license.
Which has always struck me as a little odd. It seems to me that if something is a very serious danger of getting you in trouble it should be possible to point out a couple of examples of something getting in serious trouble for engaging in said activity. Or, you know, one example?
Like if I say that the 2010 Honda Whatever has a very significant chance of exploding when you put it into reverse, you might think that I could point out examples of a 2010 Honda Whatever exploding when put into reverse. If I can't do so, you would be justified in concluding that I am probably incorrect.
posted by Justinian at 4:16 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Which has always struck me as a little odd. It seems to me that if something is a very serious danger of getting you in trouble it should be possible to point out a couple of examples of something getting in serious trouble for engaging in said activity. Or, you know, one example?
Like if I say that the 2010 Honda Whatever has a very significant chance of exploding when you put it into reverse, you might think that I could point out examples of a 2010 Honda Whatever exploding when put into reverse. If I can't do so, you would be justified in concluding that I am probably incorrect.
posted by Justinian at 4:16 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
I am not your nanny, but if you play nicely with the other MeFites, I might be able to find you a cookie.
posted by sonika at 4:26 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by sonika at 4:26 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Like if I say that the 2010 Honda Whatever has a very significant chance of exploding when you put it into reverse, you might think that I could point out examples of a 2010 Honda Whatever exploding when put into reverse. If I can't do so, you would be justified in concluding that I am probably incorrect.
re-phrase the question or buy a chevy?
posted by clavdivs at 4:37 PM on November 7, 2010
re-phrase the question or buy a chevy?
posted by clavdivs at 4:37 PM on November 7, 2010
cause the only problem i see is not reading the manual.
posted by clavdivs at 4:44 PM on November 7, 2010
posted by clavdivs at 4:44 PM on November 7, 2010
That's part of what's frustrating about this, Justinian, at least from the legal perspective. It seems like similar problems would have similar solutions, and that's right, so far as it goes. The trouble is that the very judgment about what makes two situations seem similar is itself a legal judgment. A lot turns on facts that may not be intuitively obvious, and so you end up with a lot of bad legal advice. To get a sense of how dramatically legal and lay opinions can diverge, look at the recent thread on suing a four-year-old. The laypersons denouncing the ruling were as wrong as they were sure. That thread doesn't raise the issue of legal advice, but it does illustrate that highly relevant facts (joint and several liability, availability of insurance, eggshell skull rule) are not always obvious.
That said, most of the things that come up on Ask are the sort that get settled in small claims courts. You can really screw up an otherwise sound case by following bad advice, but it is rarely the end of the world in a forum that expects people to operate pro se. Consulting a lawyer would be helpful, but it's not the usual way of things. So while people might be getting bad advice about how to handle their cases, I don't think AskMe is putting them in a much different position than they would have been otherwise. And while there are always exceptional cases, the nature of small claims puts a limit on how bad the worst case scenario of following bad advice can be.
On the other hand, people who are looking at evictions, convictions, divorces, foreclosures, etc., need more help than AskMe can provide, even if AskMe were staffed entirely by lawyers--none of whom want to risk malpractice by giving out advice on the basis of an internet thread. That's where the referral comes in--it's actually pretty tough to find legal aid offices, but most local lawyers will have a good idea of who does what and whether they are accepting new cases. That information alone can save a lot of stress and headaches. People offering sympathy ("I went through the same thing when I divorced! Make sure you have a support network!") is helpful too, so it isn't like there's no place for lay advice in those questions; there's just no place for legal advice.
I get that people are tired of seeing "Consult a lawyer" "Consult a doctor," "Go to therapy," and "DTMFA." That doesn't mean they aren't the best advice.
posted by Marty Marx at 4:55 PM on November 7, 2010 [5 favorites]
That said, most of the things that come up on Ask are the sort that get settled in small claims courts. You can really screw up an otherwise sound case by following bad advice, but it is rarely the end of the world in a forum that expects people to operate pro se. Consulting a lawyer would be helpful, but it's not the usual way of things. So while people might be getting bad advice about how to handle their cases, I don't think AskMe is putting them in a much different position than they would have been otherwise. And while there are always exceptional cases, the nature of small claims puts a limit on how bad the worst case scenario of following bad advice can be.
On the other hand, people who are looking at evictions, convictions, divorces, foreclosures, etc., need more help than AskMe can provide, even if AskMe were staffed entirely by lawyers--none of whom want to risk malpractice by giving out advice on the basis of an internet thread. That's where the referral comes in--it's actually pretty tough to find legal aid offices, but most local lawyers will have a good idea of who does what and whether they are accepting new cases. That information alone can save a lot of stress and headaches. People offering sympathy ("I went through the same thing when I divorced! Make sure you have a support network!") is helpful too, so it isn't like there's no place for lay advice in those questions; there's just no place for legal advice.
I get that people are tired of seeing "Consult a lawyer" "Consult a doctor," "Go to therapy," and "DTMFA." That doesn't mean they aren't the best advice.
posted by Marty Marx at 4:55 PM on November 7, 2010 [5 favorites]
I am not your doctor.
You should totally eat that five day old fuzzy pizza your room mate left on the radiator to keep warm last week. Yes, aged cheese and pepperoni are supposed to look and smell like that.
Anyway, what could possibly go wrong?
posted by zarq at 5:30 PM on November 7, 2010
You should totally eat that five day old fuzzy pizza your room mate left on the radiator to keep warm last week. Yes, aged cheese and pepperoni are supposed to look and smell like that.
Anyway, what could possibly go wrong?
posted by zarq at 5:30 PM on November 7, 2010
expects people to operate pro se
martymarx...ok... i will just state the case. (not an actual case)
a surgeon drives into a service station with a flat tire were i am a clerk/tech.
Upon offering my services, he verbally refuses and starts to change the tire himself.
I, knowing he is a surgeon, insist i do it because the slight risk that he may damage his hand, the services are even offered for free, no liability.
He refuses continues changing the tire.
I then help him and in that process he damages his hand, he acknowledges this is his fault, i finish the tire, he leaves.
The next day the doctor has decided to sue the station.
the question i have is, am i seeking advice or am I seeking an opinion.
would your answer be the same for both?
no snark...boiled down, is seeking an opinion on a hypothetical legal matter seperate then advice.
logic says i should know this as "you would" posit that an opinion on a legal matter is not binding to liability as the case does not exist, a hypothetical.
posted by clavdivs at 5:41 PM on November 7, 2010
martymarx...ok... i will just state the case. (not an actual case)
a surgeon drives into a service station with a flat tire were i am a clerk/tech.
Upon offering my services, he verbally refuses and starts to change the tire himself.
I, knowing he is a surgeon, insist i do it because the slight risk that he may damage his hand, the services are even offered for free, no liability.
He refuses continues changing the tire.
I then help him and in that process he damages his hand, he acknowledges this is his fault, i finish the tire, he leaves.
The next day the doctor has decided to sue the station.
the question i have is, am i seeking advice or am I seeking an opinion.
would your answer be the same for both?
no snark...boiled down, is seeking an opinion on a hypothetical legal matter seperate then advice.
logic says i should know this as "you would" posit that an opinion on a legal matter is not binding to liability as the case does not exist, a hypothetical.
posted by clavdivs at 5:41 PM on November 7, 2010
Anyway, what could possibly go wrong
this is not a concern if your starving?
:)
posted by clavdivs at 5:43 PM on November 7, 2010
this is not a concern if your starving?
:)
posted by clavdivs at 5:43 PM on November 7, 2010
Actually, the oft-derided "IANYL" disclaimer is a way for lawyers to participate more online, not less, by helping to establish the boundaries of their relationship to the asker and allowing them to provide general information without forming an attorney-client relationship. Although the IANYL disclaimer is not in itself enough to hold the line between general information and legal advice, it's an important component.
But as others have pointed out here, it seems unlike that any lawyer is actually going to get sued over what she writes on AskMe on the grounds that she created an attorney-client relationship. What I think it much more likely is that an asker is going to divulge traceable information about a matter that should remain confidential. And of course, in theory an AskMe could be discoverable...
(I started off a discussion about this almost a year ago here. I learned during that discussion that my jurisdiction (DC) has this really helpful ethics opinion on how lawyers can participate in online discussions. I would recommend that all MeFi lawyers read it, and of course look at their own bar rules too.)
posted by yarly at 5:57 PM on November 7, 2010 [7 favorites]
But as others have pointed out here, it seems unlike that any lawyer is actually going to get sued over what she writes on AskMe on the grounds that she created an attorney-client relationship. What I think it much more likely is that an asker is going to divulge traceable information about a matter that should remain confidential. And of course, in theory an AskMe could be discoverable...
(I started off a discussion about this almost a year ago here. I learned during that discussion that my jurisdiction (DC) has this really helpful ethics opinion on how lawyers can participate in online discussions. I would recommend that all MeFi lawyers read it, and of course look at their own bar rules too.)
posted by yarly at 5:57 PM on November 7, 2010 [7 favorites]
I am not your special snowflake.
posted by ErikaB at 6:03 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by ErikaB at 6:03 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
I evolved from a monkey but I will not be your monkey.
posted by unSane at 6:10 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by unSane at 6:10 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
And then the Feelies can cover it.
posted by FelliniBlank at 6:17 PM on November 7, 2010
posted by FelliniBlank at 6:17 PM on November 7, 2010
I mean, I certainly wouldn't sue Joe Blow of giving me the "wrong" advice in real life, why would I sue someone online? That just seems ridiculous.
But there are people who would. People *can* do all kinds of irrational things that will cost them (and the person they're suing) money for no goddamn reason. Doesn't mean they'll get anywhere, doesn't mean they were right to do so, but they *can*. The problem, then, is the money it will cost the defendant to get to the point where the case is dismissed.
posted by galadriel at 6:19 PM on November 7, 2010
But there are people who would. People *can* do all kinds of irrational things that will cost them (and the person they're suing) money for no goddamn reason. Doesn't mean they'll get anywhere, doesn't mean they were right to do so, but they *can*. The problem, then, is the money it will cost the defendant to get to the point where the case is dismissed.
posted by galadriel at 6:19 PM on November 7, 2010
I'm not sure I follow, clavdivs. What's the question being put to AskMe?
My best shot at an answer is that it wouldn't matter whether the person is seeking advice or an opinion, I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, except to try and point the asker to pro bono and low-cost legal services in their jurisdiction, and even then I'd make as clear as I could that I wasn't endorsing those services or making representations about their quality. I don't want to put things up on the Internet that the asker or someone who comes along later can take as legal advice on what to do in a given situation. (You can't even provide that advice in this hypothetical without more information. Sued for what? In what jurisdiction? Did you give him permission to use your tools? How was his hand damaged? and so on). There's a distinction between legal advice and legal information, but I don't want to even get close to the line.
I love talking about the law, but I want to confine my comments to policy arguments about why we ought to allow abortion rights under the 13th amendment, how joint and several liability works, or why we should support interpretations of the First Amendment that allow hate speech. In fact, I retired my law license (see? Not your or anyone's lawyer!) to pursue an academic career because the policy issues are more interesting to me than the practice. But in any case, I don't want to make statements about what the law in some jurisdiction is or is likely to be, and I'd have to do that even for a hypothetical case.
posted by Marty Marx at 6:45 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
My best shot at an answer is that it wouldn't matter whether the person is seeking advice or an opinion, I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, except to try and point the asker to pro bono and low-cost legal services in their jurisdiction, and even then I'd make as clear as I could that I wasn't endorsing those services or making representations about their quality. I don't want to put things up on the Internet that the asker or someone who comes along later can take as legal advice on what to do in a given situation. (You can't even provide that advice in this hypothetical without more information. Sued for what? In what jurisdiction? Did you give him permission to use your tools? How was his hand damaged? and so on). There's a distinction between legal advice and legal information, but I don't want to even get close to the line.
I love talking about the law, but I want to confine my comments to policy arguments about why we ought to allow abortion rights under the 13th amendment, how joint and several liability works, or why we should support interpretations of the First Amendment that allow hate speech. In fact, I retired my law license (see? Not your or anyone's lawyer!) to pursue an academic career because the policy issues are more interesting to me than the practice. But in any case, I don't want to make statements about what the law in some jurisdiction is or is likely to be, and I'd have to do that even for a hypothetical case.
posted by Marty Marx at 6:45 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
IANAM, but I don't think Jessamyn is focusing on the right issue when she says that "a disclaimer isn't really going to be legally binding". There are two really awful things about being sued. The first is that being sued will cost you so much time and money that you have effectively lost, even if you win. The second is that the barrier to a lawsuit is deliberately set very low, so you can end up being sued even if the case against you is weak.
So the issue isn't "is this disclaimer legally binding". You might end up being sued even if you have a witnessed contract signed in blood saying that the complainant will not rely on the advice and will not sue under any circumstances. All the complainant will do is change the case: instead of being a lawsuit about bad advice it will become a lawsuit about an unfair or unclear contract plus reliance on bad advice. And even though you'll almost certainly win, you will very certainly lose.
My opinion is that the IANA disclaimers are valuable because they emphasise the social aspect of the interaction and they implicitly suggest that the poster seek out a L or a D to solve the problem - good advice in itself. They may discourage lawsuits (I hope they do) but that's because they affect the relationship between the person asking and the person responding, not because someone crazy enough to litigate will be deterred by a five-letter acronym.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:45 PM on November 7, 2010
So the issue isn't "is this disclaimer legally binding". You might end up being sued even if you have a witnessed contract signed in blood saying that the complainant will not rely on the advice and will not sue under any circumstances. All the complainant will do is change the case: instead of being a lawsuit about bad advice it will become a lawsuit about an unfair or unclear contract plus reliance on bad advice. And even though you'll almost certainly win, you will very certainly lose.
My opinion is that the IANA disclaimers are valuable because they emphasise the social aspect of the interaction and they implicitly suggest that the poster seek out a L or a D to solve the problem - good advice in itself. They may discourage lawsuits (I hope they do) but that's because they affect the relationship between the person asking and the person responding, not because someone crazy enough to litigate will be deterred by a five-letter acronym.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:45 PM on November 7, 2010
We could add, "I am not your personal chef" to the food section as well, does that work?
posted by effluvia at 6:47 PM on November 7, 2010
posted by effluvia at 6:47 PM on November 7, 2010
Just in case this was the source of the confusion, the "bad advice" I mentioned people getting for small-claims issues is advice from non-lawyers. I don't think anyone should be giving legal advice in Ask, for small-claims issues or otherwise.
posted by Marty Marx at 6:49 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Marty Marx at 6:49 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I totally understand why people include their own disclaimers. My feeling is that from a site perspective you may as well just say "For entertainment purposes only" for all the good it's going to do for you. Sue-happy people won't care and everyone else will sort of nod and wink like when they show the scales in the head shop catalogs being used to weigh gumballs.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:07 PM on November 7, 2010
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:07 PM on November 7, 2010
Lawyers should just use the simple and easy to remember acronym, IAALBIANYLATCSNBCALAYSCALAIYJ
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 7:33 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by r_nebblesworthII at 7:33 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
"IANYL" has less to do with being sued than with being disciplined. These are (again) two different things.
Let me add something I've said before on AskMe, because maybe it will help clarify the problem for non-lawyers. Somebody upthread commented that lawyers should spell out the entire phrase ("I Am Not Your Lawyer") in order to get "solid protection." But in fact, there is no such thing as solid protection. "IANYL" is useful, but it's not a free pass.
When people ask general questions (e.g., "Explain the concept of punitive damages"), then I can respond with "IANYL, but..." and be reasonably certain that I won't cross any lines. It will be clear that I am conversing, and not offering legal advice. But sometimes people ask very specific questions. For example, "I sold my house and the new owners are suing me because the shower faucet doesn't have an anti-scald valve. I think it's the builder's fault. What should I do?" In this case, it doesn't matter how many times you write "YANML," or how many times I write "IANYL." Because the question is so specific, nearly any response can reasonably interpreted as providing legal advice. "IANYL" won't save me.
It's like the cliched, "No offense, but you're a jerk." The disclaimer isn't a free pass to say whatever you want. As yarly says, it just allows licensed professionals a bit more leeway to converse casually without worrying about losing their license. A license that cost us many years and (ballpark) six figures to obtain, and which is irreplaceable if lost. That possibility scares us a heck of a lot more than "sue-happy people."
posted by cribcage at 7:35 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Let me add something I've said before on AskMe, because maybe it will help clarify the problem for non-lawyers. Somebody upthread commented that lawyers should spell out the entire phrase ("I Am Not Your Lawyer") in order to get "solid protection." But in fact, there is no such thing as solid protection. "IANYL" is useful, but it's not a free pass.
When people ask general questions (e.g., "Explain the concept of punitive damages"), then I can respond with "IANYL, but..." and be reasonably certain that I won't cross any lines. It will be clear that I am conversing, and not offering legal advice. But sometimes people ask very specific questions. For example, "I sold my house and the new owners are suing me because the shower faucet doesn't have an anti-scald valve. I think it's the builder's fault. What should I do?" In this case, it doesn't matter how many times you write "YANML," or how many times I write "IANYL." Because the question is so specific, nearly any response can reasonably interpreted as providing legal advice. "IANYL" won't save me.
It's like the cliched, "No offense, but you're a jerk." The disclaimer isn't a free pass to say whatever you want. As yarly says, it just allows licensed professionals a bit more leeway to converse casually without worrying about losing their license. A license that cost us many years and (ballpark) six figures to obtain, and which is irreplaceable if lost. That possibility scares us a heck of a lot more than "sue-happy people."
posted by cribcage at 7:35 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
So the American Bar Association (relatively) recently published a formal ethics opinion that discusses these issues, ABA Formal Opinion 10-457 [pdf], published August 5, 2010. Although mostly about lawyer websites, the opinion gives some useful guidance on the distinction between legal information and legal advice. It also gives some guidance on disclaimers and qualifying statements. The relevant passage (citations omitted):
And for extra meta: I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice about the law of lawyering.
posted by jedicus at 7:59 PM on November 7, 2010 [5 favorites]
Lawyers may offer accurate legal information that does not materially mislead reasonable readers. To avoid misleading readers, lawyers should make sure that legal information is accurate and current, and should include qualifying statements or disclaimers that “may preclude a finding that a statement is likely to create unjustified expectations or otherwise mislead a prospective client.” Although no exact line can be drawn between legal information and legal advice, both the context and content of the information offered are helpful in distinguishing between the two.And here are two of the more important citations:
With respect to context, lawyers who speak to groups generally have been characterized as offering only general legal information. With respect to content, lawyers who answer fact-specific legal questions may be characterized as offering personal legal advice, especially if the lawyer is responding to a question that can reasonably be understood to refer to the questioner’s individual circumstances. However, a lawyer who poses and answers a hypothetical question usually will not be characterized as offering legal advice. To avoid misunderstanding, our previous opinions have recommended that lawyers who provide general legal information include statements that characterize the information as general in nature and caution that it should not be understood as a substitute for personal legal advice.
Such a warning is especially useful for website visitors who may be inexperienced in using legal services, and may believe that they can rely on general legal information to solve their specific problem. It would be prudent to avoid any misunderstanding by warning visitors that the legal information provided is general and should not be relied on as legal advice, and by explaining that legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to the visitor’s individual situation.
Arizona State Bar Op. 97-04, [(1997), available at http://www.myazbar.org/Ethics/opinionview.cfm?id=480;] (because of inability to screen for conflicts of interest and possibility of disclosing confidential information, lawyers should not answer specific legal questions posed by laypersons in Internet chat rooms unless question presented is of general nature and advice given is not fact-specific); California Standing Committee on Prof'l Resp. and Conduct Formal Op. 2003-164, 2003 WL 23146203 (2003) (legal advice includes making recommendations about specific course of action to follow; public context of radio call-in show that includes warnings about information not being substitute for individualized legal advice makes it unlikely lawyers have agreed to act as caller’s lawyer)And finally, a bit about disclaimers:
Warnings or cautionary statements on a lawyer’s website can be designed to and may effectively limit, condition, or disclaim a lawyer’s obligation to a website reader. Such warnings or statements may be written so as to avoid a misunderstanding by the website visitor that (1) a client-lawyer relationship has been created; (2) the visitor’s information will be kept confidential; (3) legal advice has been given; or (4) the lawyer will be prevented from representing an adverse party.Sorry about the long comment, but I felt it was important to introduce a solid foundation for the (US-based) lawyers and non-lawyers alike. tl;dr: Lawyers should use disclaimers that make it clear that there is no attorney-client relationship and that this is only general legal information, not legal advice specific to the asker's situation.
Limitations, conditions, or disclaimers of lawyer obligations will be effective only if reasonably understandable, properly placed, and not misleading. This requires a clear warning in a readable format whose meaning can be understood by a reasonable person. If the website uses a particular language, any waiver, disclaimer, limitation, or condition must be in the same language. The appropriate information should be conspicuously placed to assure that the reader is likely to see it before proceeding.
Finally, a limitation, condition, waiver, or disclaimer may be undercut if the lawyer acts or communicates contrary to its warning.
And for extra meta: I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice about the law of lawyering.
posted by jedicus at 7:59 PM on November 7, 2010 [5 favorites]
What's the question being put to AskMe?
i should have clarified that. Yes, Askme.
wouldn't matter whether the person is seeking advice or an opinion
thanks i have learned something.
on my own, i tried to differentiate between opinion and advice which seems to me the same thing when a professional uses this Askme...disclaimer? concerning legal matters.
a lawyer joke?...come on.
when my stepfather announced his decision to "go" P.E. my mother said:
"how much is the retainer"?
posted by clavdivs at 8:20 PM on November 7, 2010
i should have clarified that. Yes, Askme.
wouldn't matter whether the person is seeking advice or an opinion
thanks i have learned something.
on my own, i tried to differentiate between opinion and advice which seems to me the same thing when a professional uses this Askme...disclaimer? concerning legal matters.
a lawyer joke?...come on.
when my stepfather announced his decision to "go" P.E. my mother said:
"how much is the retainer"?
posted by clavdivs at 8:20 PM on November 7, 2010
Somewhat tangential to this thread, but MeFi really ought to make a dropdown box appear with country/state if the category selected is "legal". If I only had a penny for each time someone comes in as "anonymous" and poses some delicate legal question without the slightest indication where they're located.
posted by crapmatic at 8:28 PM on November 7, 2010
posted by crapmatic at 8:28 PM on November 7, 2010
We specifically tell people to include relevant information like their location, gender and other pertinent details on the AskMe Anonymous posting page. We should probably change that page up a little to be more clear about some of this stuff.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:49 PM on November 7, 2010
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:49 PM on November 7, 2010
Just in case no one noticed. The OP's account has been disabled.
posted by 517 at 10:50 PM on November 7, 2010
posted by 517 at 10:50 PM on November 7, 2010
Why on Earth would the OP disable his/her account? This was hardly a contentious discussion....
*baffled*
posted by tzikeh at 11:46 PM on November 7, 2010
*baffled*
posted by tzikeh at 11:46 PM on November 7, 2010
hmmm
conjecture interferes with hypothesis
internal matter.
posted by clavdivs at 11:48 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
conjecture interferes with hypothesis
internal matter.
posted by clavdivs at 11:48 PM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
517: "Just in case no one noticed. The OP's account has been disabled."
IANAMAL. (I Am Not A MeFite Any Longer)
posted by gman at 3:13 AM on November 8, 2010
IANAMAL. (I Am Not A MeFite Any Longer)
posted by gman at 3:13 AM on November 8, 2010
IAABOEP*, but IANYBOEP. Any Bible/theology/church history information I provide may be fighty or intentionally misleading, 'cause that's how I roll these days. This is the only disclaimer I will provide, and if you don't find it, I cannot be held responsible for the consequences, up to and including eternal perdition.
*Burned Out Ex-Pastor
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:59 AM on November 8, 2010
*Burned Out Ex-Pastor
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:59 AM on November 8, 2010
This came up in a risk management seminar, and the advice was that psychologists have a responsibility to clarify their roles and the context of any advice given. This applies not only to online discussions but also to casual conversations with co-workers.
The anecdotes cited in the seminar made it clear that lay people sometimes infer that, since a bit of advice came from a person who is a psychologist, that it is psychological advice. Psychologists, therefore, have a duty to ensure that people understand the distinction of casual advice (which is somewhat off the cuff), versus professional help (which arises from a full assessment of the situation, the person's resources, history, needs, etc.)
There are many ways of clarifying context - a simple one for online forums is to just indicate that though I am a therapist, I am not *your* therapist.
posted by jasper411 at 9:43 AM on November 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
The anecdotes cited in the seminar made it clear that lay people sometimes infer that, since a bit of advice came from a person who is a psychologist, that it is psychological advice. Psychologists, therefore, have a duty to ensure that people understand the distinction of casual advice (which is somewhat off the cuff), versus professional help (which arises from a full assessment of the situation, the person's resources, history, needs, etc.)
There are many ways of clarifying context - a simple one for online forums is to just indicate that though I am a therapist, I am not *your* therapist.
posted by jasper411 at 9:43 AM on November 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
OP's wife here.
He did disable his account. It wasn't because of this thread. Mostly, it was because he is a PhD student and is overwhelmed with a huge to-do list and a lot of distractions. Disabling was his way of taking MeFi off the distractions list. (Read: more time for Call of Duty Black Ops.)
He will continue to read but has decided not to post for a while.
posted by morganannie at 9:44 AM on November 8, 2010 [5 favorites]
He did disable his account. It wasn't because of this thread. Mostly, it was because he is a PhD student and is overwhelmed with a huge to-do list and a lot of distractions. Disabling was his way of taking MeFi off the distractions list. (Read: more time for Call of Duty Black Ops.)
He will continue to read but has decided not to post for a while.
posted by morganannie at 9:44 AM on November 8, 2010 [5 favorites]
I don't think these disclaimers are even necessary. If I post something here, and some American follows my ill thought out advice and dies, then it's not my fault.
"My clients, the family of the deceased, claim that an individual identifying him or herself only as 'Biru' suggested to the deceased that he might considerably decrease his commuting time by attaching home-made rockets to his automobile. This Biru did not suggest at any time that there may be danger in strapping said rockets to an automobile, nor did they provide advice on aligning the rockets. The deceased is now in low earth orbit, and his family seek recompense."
posted by Biru at 9:45 AM on November 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
"My clients, the family of the deceased, claim that an individual identifying him or herself only as 'Biru' suggested to the deceased that he might considerably decrease his commuting time by attaching home-made rockets to his automobile. This Biru did not suggest at any time that there may be danger in strapping said rockets to an automobile, nor did they provide advice on aligning the rockets. The deceased is now in low earth orbit, and his family seek recompense."
posted by Biru at 9:45 AM on November 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
I've always read these as a reminder that:
1) This is important stuff we're talking about here (with consequences like death, disability, imprisonment, deportation and/or hefty fines).
2a) I'm not a trained professional so....
2b) I am a trained professional but all I have is your vague description of the situation which may or may not be totally misleading so....
When the situation is 2b and the answer reads something like, "IAAD but IANYD. Youn need one. Now." I would tend to take that person more seriously than I might have otherwise.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:58 AM on November 8, 2010
1) This is important stuff we're talking about here (with consequences like death, disability, imprisonment, deportation and/or hefty fines).
2a) I'm not a trained professional so....
2b) I am a trained professional but all I have is your vague description of the situation which may or may not be totally misleading so....
When the situation is 2b and the answer reads something like, "IAAD but IANYD. Youn need one. Now." I would tend to take that person more seriously than I might have otherwise.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:58 AM on November 8, 2010
...Mostly, it was because he is a PhD student and is overwhelmed...
Hey this was somehow good to know. My SO is in her last weeks of churning her text out, so just now I remember all about that vividly. Good for him.
Also, WANHCM (we are not his committee members); smart move.
posted by Namlit at 11:27 AM on November 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Hey this was somehow good to know. My SO is in her last weeks of churning her text out, so just now I remember all about that vividly. Good for him.
Also, WANHCM (we are not his committee members); smart move.
posted by Namlit at 11:27 AM on November 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
I know you're not my lawyer. If you were my lawyer, I'd have had the customer care letter telling me how to set up the standing order paying over half my salary each month.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:45 AM on November 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:45 AM on November 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Would there be any actual legal precedent for "I listened to advice on the internet, and as a result, now have no limbs?"
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
posted by tomboko at 12:38 PM on November 8, 2010 [6 favorites]
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
posted by tomboko at 12:38 PM on November 8, 2010 [6 favorites]
I'm a mechanic and I answer lots of car questions on AskMeFi. Recognizing the potential for people to take my advice as a diagnosis or to get involved in a repair that's over their heads, I took it upon myself to put a disclaimer in my profile, hoping that people who are about to take my advice might, at a minimum, read my profile before following the advice of a stranger.
It goes like this:
So, working on cars is fun and interesting and I believe that car owners deserve to know as much about their vehicle and its operation as possible. That being said, although I give lots of car advice and answer tons of questions on AskMeFi, please don't consider it an Official Diagnosis. I'm taking an educated guess based on the limited information that you've supplied in your original question. Even if I sound really convincing, please get it looked at professionally In Real Life. Also, please don't operate your car if it's unsafe. If it stalls abruptly, smells like fuel, doesn't go where the steering wheel is pointed, has an uncontrollable vibration or shimmy, or anything else that's frightening, please get a tow and don't drive it.
Additionally, please be safe when your working on your car. I'd hate to find out that you took my crummy advice and then hurt yourself trying to fix your car. Wear safety glasses, follow repair manual procedures, and use the right tools for the job. Always use jackstands, too.
posted by Jon-o at 2:16 PM on November 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
It goes like this:
So, working on cars is fun and interesting and I believe that car owners deserve to know as much about their vehicle and its operation as possible. That being said, although I give lots of car advice and answer tons of questions on AskMeFi, please don't consider it an Official Diagnosis. I'm taking an educated guess based on the limited information that you've supplied in your original question. Even if I sound really convincing, please get it looked at professionally In Real Life. Also, please don't operate your car if it's unsafe. If it stalls abruptly, smells like fuel, doesn't go where the steering wheel is pointed, has an uncontrollable vibration or shimmy, or anything else that's frightening, please get a tow and don't drive it.
Additionally, please be safe when your working on your car. I'd hate to find out that you took my crummy advice and then hurt yourself trying to fix your car. Wear safety glasses, follow repair manual procedures, and use the right tools for the job. Always use jackstands, too.
posted by Jon-o at 2:16 PM on November 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
He did disable his account. It wasn't because of this thread. Mostly, it was because he is a PhD student and is overwhelmed with a huge to-do list and a lot of distractions. Disabling was his way of taking MeFi off the distractions list
I never understand that. If it's so distracting, don't visit! Oh well.
As your attorney I advise you to drink heavily.
posted by norm at 3:08 PM on November 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
I never understand that. If it's so distracting, don't visit! Oh well.
As your attorney I advise you to drink heavily.
posted by norm at 3:08 PM on November 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
I never understand that. If it's so distracting, don't visit! Oh well.
did you not read morganannies' comment? , oh you did.
it is his way not yours. i would not barge in but for the fact he has turned his attention to more pressing matters and this should be respected.
posted by clavdivs at 6:30 PM on November 8, 2010
did you not read morganannies' comment? , oh you did.
it is his way not yours. i would not barge in but for the fact he has turned his attention to more pressing matters and this should be respected.
posted by clavdivs at 6:30 PM on November 8, 2010
Je ne suis pas ta pipe.
posted by stormpooper at 1:22 PM on November 9, 2010
posted by stormpooper at 1:22 PM on November 9, 2010
Askiba: I'm kind of curious now. Would there be any actual legal precedent for "I listened to advice on the internet, and as a result, now have no limbs?"
Askiba, not sure if the case cited upthread was truth or hamburger, but your Q reminded me of
this case from june of this year. No new news on it so can only guess it is wending it's way through the legal maze (IANYLegalMazeWender)
posted by Rube R. Nekker at 6:48 PM on November 9, 2010
Askiba, not sure if the case cited upthread was truth or hamburger, but your Q reminded me of
this case from june of this year. No new news on it so can only guess it is wending it's way through the legal maze (IANYLegalMazeWender)
posted by Rube R. Nekker at 6:48 PM on November 9, 2010
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
I don't think anything we put on there will matter in the slightest. People are going to answer the way they want to answer.
posted by phunniemee at 9:06 AM on November 7, 2010 [1 favorite]