Well, I had a link showing that applying legal info to specific facts is legal advice.
You always "had" a link that never works/shows up, dear BOTR (peace to you!). I even helped you out by posting what you claimed was IN a link... the Texas STATUTE regarding the "Unauthorized Practice of Law" (which you didn't even recognize, so I had to point out the TITLE to you)... and then you backpeddled about how statutes are inadequate and, oh, no... it must be case law. So... I posted the requisite cases on which the statute was based. No comment from you on that, though...
I mean report what you did on this forum concerning Texas law. It only happened within the past week.
I did. Above.
If people want to be fools let them be. As for a nonlawyer giving legal advice, I am not through with my actions.
Oh, quit it with the empty threats. If you can find where a nonlawyer gave legal advice on this forum, then as Christ said, "What you are doing, get done more quickly." Otherwise, quit with the threatening about what you're gonna do and "not through" with.
The sad part is that those gullible enough to rely on the info. are the ones likely to be hurt the most.
Report it correctly: nobody relied on anything. The OP said he had access to legal counsel, said he would consult that counsel, and did so.
Mozilla will not let me copy and paste. I'd appreciate some help on how to add links here.
Mozilla doesn't include that feature. You can type out the link (if you IE doesn't work)... highlight it... then click the litle chain "link" in the formatting bar, above. Oh, wait... I just gave out posting "advice." Gonna report me to the moderators? The Bar? Sue me?
IE is my usual browser which worked here fine for months and then failed to work.
The board isn't IE "friendly." Oh, oops... more "advice"...
Most law students learn during their first year research and writing course that one must check case law. Copying links to statutes is meaningless.
Dear one... YOU referenced the statute. YOU did. I only posted it to help YOU out:
BOTR- "I found the unauthorized practice of law provision in the Texas Code. Mozilla will not allow me to copy and paste. IE looks much better. Suffice it to say that the code provision is inadequate. The details are determined by Texas case law. Not simple." http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/218736/2/Any-Texas-Lawyers-in-the-House-or-anyone-else-Need-advice
SA- "Here, let me help you out, dear BOTR (peace to you!): TEXAS STATUTES AND CODES. GOVERNMENT CODE. TITLE 2. JUDICIAL BRANCH. SUBTITLE G. ATTORNEYS. CHAPTER 81. STATE BAR. SUBCHAPTER G.UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW"http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/218736/2/Any-Texas-Lawyers-in-the-House-or-anyone-else-Need-advice
BOTR - "AGuest, You neglected to post the code for Unauthorized Practice of Law, plus the cases interpreting the section." http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/218736/3/Any-Texas-Lawyers-in-the-House-or-anyone-else-Need-advice
SA - "Ummmm... actually, I did post that code, dear BOTR (peace to you!). ..."TEXAS STATUTES AND CODES. GOVERNMENT CODE. TITLE 2. JUDICIAL BRANCH. SUBTITLE G. ATTORNEYS. CHAPTER 81. STATE BAR. SUBCHAPTER G. UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW" http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/218736/3/Any-Texas-Lawyers-in-the-House-or-anyone-else-Need-advice
BOTR - "A Guest, The others might not realize it but you know that the face of the TX statute doesn't determine the law. Statutes are interpreted through codified rules and regulations, and by case law. So I assume you will be the oh so noble and Godly person, and review the hundreds, if not thousands of cases, involved." http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/218736/4/Any-Texas-Lawyers-in-the-House-or-anyone-else-Need-advice
SA - "Neither the statutes, codes, or case law are obscure at all; all are quite clear, actually. And since NO ONE here:
1. Charged or received, either directly or indirectly, any compensation (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.83.htm#83.001);
2. Held himself (or herself) out to be a lawyer with an intent to obtain an economic benefit (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.38.htm#38.122); or
3. Took certain actions with respect to... claims... with an intent to obtain an economic benefit (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.38.htm#38.123)...
Note, the links go directly to the statues, which include, at the bottom, the codified regulations and rules. For the sake of brevity, I didn't post them all here (anyone can look them up through the links). I didn't post the case law because it doesn't really speak to what was being discussed. To wit:
Unauthorized Practice Committee v. Cortez, 692 S.W.2d 47 (Tex. 1985): the courts decide whether an activity is the practice of law; selecting and preparing immigration forms constitutes the practice of law.
Crain v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, 11 S.W.3d 328 (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. den'd), cert denied, 532 U.S. 1067, 150 L. Ed. 2d 211, 121 S. Ct. 2218 (2001): preparing and filing mechanic's lien affidavits constitutes the practice of law.
Greene v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, 883 S.W.2d 293 (Tex.App. - Dallas 1994, no writ): preparing and sending demand letters on personal injury and property damage claims and negotiating and settling the claims with insurance companies constitutes the practice of law.
Fadia v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, 830 S.W.2d 162, 165 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, writ denied): selling will forms and manuals constitutes the practice of law.
Brown v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, 742 S.W.2d 34 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1987, writ denied): contracting to represent persons with regard to personal injury and property damage claims constitutes the practice of law.
There mere fact that courts exist, and that our Supreme Court has nine justices, should indicate that off the cuff remarks are inappropriate.
If one is dealing with the courts, yes. Here... one isn't. That you don't get that indicates to ME that... well, I'll keep that to myself.
Court of Appeals panels are usually composed of three. These our great legal minds, working far below the market rate, and they are unable to reach unanimity. So ask a law graduate who has never practiced. Wise move.
First, this is a social forum. A discussion board. Not a court, not a law office, not even an office, legal or otherwise. Second, no one asked a law graduate. The questions were posed to the board, in general.
We did not truly need to develop the Inns of Court and Englightenment ideals. Just ask someone who is not qualified to mess up your life. Someone with no malpractice insurance.
See, folks? This is why I think "we" need a Legal room. Because only certain ones of us are "qualified" to opine as to certain matters... and only those so "qualified" should do so. Of course, there could be a "hefty" fee, but... well, so long as you don't know who it is... or whether they actually are an attorney... no worries. There MIGHT be malpractice insurance.
Heck, the ABA and other legal interest groups can now shut down their websites and all their operations because A Guest is here!
Because AGuest comments on an relatively small Internet discussion board?? Seriously? Counselor, you are taking this... and yourself... WAY too seriously. Way.
Peace. Really. I think you need a little... just so's you can turn off that whole "I'm the attorney" thing for a bit and ease your mind. No one's questioned that you're an attorney (well, I haven't)... and so you have nothing to prove to ME. You wanna be the only one to comment on threads that have a legal connotation? I have NO problem with that! Indeed, join me in asking Simon to give you your own subforum so that only you can so respond. Otherwise, folks... including me... are pretty much still going to comment to those placed on the public board... and you're pretty much gonna have to learn to deal with it. True, it might be easy, at first, but you'll get the hang of it after a bit.
SA... on her own...
