Your Thoughts, Please (Seriously)...

by AGuest 88 Replies latest jw friends

sabastious

I can data dump if someone will walk me through Firefox.
What you are copying and pasting is HTML code which is then interpreted by this Javascript application we type our posts in. As far as these applications go it's actually pretty good, but with HTML copy and paste there is always going to be the possibility of issues. It all depends of what program is generating the HTML code and sometimes they aren't up to standards and this Javascript input field just can't interpret code with errors in it.
If you are on a windows machine click Start > Run (if you don't see run just click on the search field box which is where you can input commands too) and type in NOTEPAD (notepad is a windows shortcut command that opens the notepad application) and a text editor should pop up (if you are not on a windows machine find the operating system's most basic text editor and open it).
Notepad is also located in the Accessories directory in the start menu on windows machines.
Copy and paste your document text into the open blank notepad document. Then select the text you have copeied within the document and copy it AGAIN. This will strip any hidden HTML and just return the rich text. Then paste the text from the notepad document into the JWN poster. A lot of the formatting will be gone so you might want to give it once over and put in line breaks and bolds yourself, etc.
Hope that makes sense.
-Sab
Justitia Themis

Source: ST037 ALI-ABA 443American Law Institute - American Bar Association Continuing Legal
WHAT'S A LITTLE TWEET AMONG "FRIENDS": ETHICAL AND LIABILITY RISKS POSED
August 15 - 16, 2011 (Approx. 8 pages)
Inadvertent creation of attorney-client relationship or improper solicitation : Social networking sites allow for instant interactive communication in an informal context. The risk for lawyers who participate in real-time discussions online or direct communications with a third party through a website or a blog is that such communications may trigger duties owed to prospective clients, including a risk of disqualification from representation of a adverse party, fiduciary obligations and malpractice liability (as well as the possible unauthorizedpractice of law where an attorney provides legal advice in a jurisdiction in which he or she is not licensed.) [FN10]
In most jurisdictions, a key factor in determining whether an attorney-client relationship has been formed is whether the client reasonably believed he or she was consulting the lawyer in the lawyer's professional capacity. [FN11] Regardless of the specific medium of communication, the risk of inadvertently creating an attorney-client relationship arises from the same factors: the more specific the inquiry from the prospective client, the more the attorney invites such specific inquiry, and the more specific the attorney's response, the more likely that a relationship will have been formed. [FN12] Of course, confidentiality of the communications is a necessary component to find that a would-be client has a reasonable belief that an attorney-client relationship has been formed. Accordingly, the more public the exchange (i.e., if it is available to others), the less likelihood of an implied relationship. This risk has been examined previously with respect to communications between law firms and prospective clients through law firm websites. For the most part, ethics committees and courts have concluded that, with the proper disclaimers in place and care given not to render specific legal advice, lawyers face little risk that unsolicited communications would create an attorney-client relationship. [FN13] Of course, it is difficult to utilize standardized disclaimers in the context of real-time communications.
Some practical steps can minimize risk. First, attorneys should limit the content of their communications to more generalized legal information rather than specific legal advice tailored to a specific circumstance. Second, lawyers should make clear that their responses are not intended to serve as legal advice, and should recommend that the user seek the advice of an attorney in his or her jurisdiction. Third, attorneys should not provide legal advice without doing a conflict check and entering into an attorney-client relationship. These same rules apply whether the potential client is at a cocktail party or on LinkedIn.
Conclusion
Social media will increasingly become part of all lawyers' professional marketing toolkits. The same professional and ethics rules apply to these modes of communication as any other. However, to ensure compliance with ethics rules, lawyers need to understand the features employed by the specific social media applications they use and their functionality, and monitor their own specific uses of these features. Above all, lawyers should not leave the issue of ethics compliance up to their marketing department or consultants. Ultimately, lawyers need to use common sense and good judgment - these, as always, will go a long way to helping lawyers avoid trouble. Nothing new about that.
[FN1] . See, e.g., the survey of lawyers' use of technology done by Lexis/Nexis in 2009, at http:// www.lexisnexis.com/community/lexishub/blogs/legaltechnologyandsocialmedia/archive/ 2009/09/18/survey-reveals-substantial-growth-in-online-social-networking-by-lawyers-over-the-past-year.aspx

[FN2] . The ABA Journal maintains a blawg directory organized by subject matter (116 categories as of March 2011), author type, region and law school. http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs. As of December 2010, the publishers reported the directory contained over 3000 active blogs. The 4 th Annual ABA Journal Blawg 100 list may be found here. http:// www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_2010_aba_journal_blawg_100/

[FN3] . [FN5] . North Carolina Proposed Formal Ethics Opinion 7 (Apr. 15, 2010) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30399343/NC-FEO-2010-7

[FN6] . [FN7] . The Illinois State Bar filed a disciplinary complaint against the lawyer, Kristine Ann Peshek, on August 25, 2009. A copy of the complaint can be found at https://www.iardc.org/09CH0089CM.html.

[FN8] . http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/trial_from_hell_prosecutor_ posts_on_facebook_jurors_text_bailiff_chats_in_d/

[FN12] . See ABA Formal Opinion 10-457(Discussing the various factual scenarios under which communications through an attorney's website could create an attorney-client relationship and ways to limit that risk, including the use of disclaimers)

[FN13] . See Iowa State Bar Ass'n. Form Opn. 07-02 (Web page detailing lawyers information and contact details does not by itself support claim that lawyer consented to the sharing of confidential information). However, care must be taken not to provide legal advice. See, Cal. State Bar Form. Opn. 2004-165 (Written disclaimer does not by itself prevent the existence of an attorney-client relationship); Florida State Bar Form. Opn. 00-4 (2000); Ohio S. Ct. Form. Opn. 99-9 (1999); New York City Bar Ass'n Form. Opn. 1998-2 (1998).

[FN14] . See Model Rules 7.1 (Communications concerning a lawyer's services), 7.2 (Advertising), 7.3 (Direct contact with prospective clients, including “real-time electronic contact”) and 7.4 (Communication of fields of practice and specialization); CRPC 1-400 (Advertising and solicitation). In California, electronic media advertising is subject to special regulation. Cal. B&P Code §§ 6157-6159.2, and 17529-17529.9.

[FN15] . See e.g., California State Bar Formal Opinion 2001-155.

[FN16] . A further possibility attorneys need to be aware of is that an online communication with a potential client may, under the right circumstances, constitute improper solicitation in certain jurisdictions. See State Bar of California Form. Opn. 2004-166 (Lawyer's participation in chat room for disaster victims). However, a recent opinion by the Philadelphia Bar Association's Professional Guidance Committee opined that communications in chat rooms do not constitute “real-time” communications that would violate Model Rule 73. Phil. Bar Assn. Opin. 2010-6. [FN17] . What responsibility do lawyers have for information that third parties may post on an attorney's profile? A South Carolina ethics opinion suggests that attorneys are responsible for information contained in a profile the attorney “claims.” South Carolina Ethics Opin. 09-10.

[FN18] . http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13lawyers.html? partner =rss&emc=rss

[FN19] . http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/akin_gump_chair_hits_ partners_personal_blog_post_on_ugly_indian_prayer

[FN20] . http://64.38.12.138/News/2011/000360.asp

[FN21] . See, e.g., California Jud. Canon 2B(1), 3B(7), 4A.

[FN22] . http:// www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/jsc/publicreprimands/jsc08-234.pdf

[FN23] . See California Judges Association Judicial Ethics Committee Opinion 66 (November 2010)(judges may not include in their social network lawyers who have a case pending before the judge); Supreme Court of Ohio, Advisory Opin. 2010-2(judges may friend lawyers who appear before them but must be careful how much interaction they have); N.Y. Advisory Committee opinion 08-176(judges free to “friend” lawyers as long as they comply with rules governing judicial conduct); Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opinion No. 2009-20(judges may not ethically “friend” lawyers who may appear before them); South Carolina Advisory Comm. On Stands. Of Jud. Conduct, Opin. 17-2009(judges may friend lawyers as long as they do not discuss anything related to the judge's judicial position.)

[FN24] . http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/089050p.pdf

[FN25] . http:// www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/ethics2020/pdfs/clientdevelopment_ issuespaper.authcheckdam.pdf

[FN26] . http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_ build/ethics_2020/20110124.authcheckdam.pdf

[FN27] . Courts are increasingly allowing parties to obtain social media evidence from an opposing party in litigation, as long as the evidence is relevant to the lawsuit. See McCann v. Harleysville Insurance Co. of New York, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 08181 (party seeking such discovery must demonstrate its relevancy); Romano v. Steelcase Inc., 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 20388 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Suffolk City Sept. 21, 2010)(held, plaintiff could not hide relevant information “behind self-regulated privacy settings.”) At least one court has required a social network site providers to produce information from a party's social network account. Ledbetter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2009 WL 1067018 (06-cv-01958-WYD-MJW) (D.Colo. April 21, 2009)(social networking sites ordered to produce information stored on the private portion of plaintiffs' accounts.)

[FN28] . See, N.Y. Comm. on Prof'l Ethics, Op. 843 (“Obtaining information about a party available in a [public] Facebook or MySpace profile is similar to obtaining information that is available in publicly accessible online or print media, or through a subscription research service such as Nexis or Factiva, and that is plainly permitted.”) See also N.Y. City Comm. on Prof'l Ethics, Formal Op. 2010-2; Philadelphia Bar Ass'n. Opinion 2009-02 (lawyers may not use deception to gain access to social network information.)
ST037 ALI-ABA 443
AGuest

First, I hear you, dear JT (peace to you!). You are right, of course. Unfortunately, I'm flawed in many, many ways... and this is but one manifestation. But... I hear you. Truly. Having a hard time listening, though - LOLOLOLOL! Please... forgive me!
this case's outcome is considered quite shocking.
Perhaps, but I get it. It's the court's extreme interpretation... but it makes sense to ME... because the person benefitted. Sort of like maybe the old lady said, "Well, I don't have any money to pay you now, but if you help me with this legal matter, I'll leave you something." Still "compensation," albeit perhaps belated. I can see where the court might interpret what occurred under that "light."
Don't you mean the lack thereof? You're not a lawyer, yet you represent to others here that you have legal training and knowledge.
Ummmm... dear BOTR (peace!) brought my legal training up, dear One (peace to you!), which I concluded in May 2008. Apparently, she doesn't doubt it (or she wouldn't have brought it up!), however; she just takes issue with it NOT because I am not a licensed attorney and happened to opine on a matter related to my PROFESSIONAL training... but because she has a personal issue with me as to my spiritual "training" (as perhaps you do, as well, given your comments to me, lately). I mean, c'mon... let's start getting honest here. The dear folks on the board deserve that...
If you had been silent about your background, there would be no issue.
I didn't bring it up. I only responded as to it after someone [else] did. Obviously, you haven't a clue as to the course of this matter... because my legal training was/is her POINT... not mine. Her position is that, unlike those who have NO legal training... or are licensed attorneys... I am the only one who should NOT respond because I have training but no license. And, to be honest, she is correct... when it comes to giving legal advice. She is NOT correct when it comes to stating what I know regarding a matter... due to my personal and professional experience.
But instead, you referred to your education and training in an effort to bolster the credibility of the opinions you have expressed here.
No, seriously, I didn't. As I stated, my opinions are mine. Based on my professional experience... and not my legal training. I addressed the subject of my legal education in conjunction with my professional training after it was brought up to discredit me and the validity of the PURPOSE for sharing the information I did. Most know about my education and training, though, as unlike, perhaps you... I have nothing to hide. I posted the board when I went to school... when I graduated... when I received my degree, etc. I've posted what I do for a living and, on occasion, for whom and where. It's all a part of my life and I openly share it from time to time. Now, regarding my professional EXPERIENCE... which is the basis for what I shared... I did refer to that... because it was on that basis... and NOT MY LEGAL TRAINING... that I commented as I did. Why? Because there are nuances to LL/T law/issues that aren't even addressed in law school. Something she knows... and something you apparently can't comprehend.
Law school deals with estates... including leasehold estates... but primarily commerical leaseholds. Why? Because rental leaseholds are subject to more local laws... as well as local, state, and federal agency regulations. There is a HUGE disparity, however, in legal representation in the field of LL/T issues. All kinds of attorneys represent landlords - very few represent tenants. Most tenants have to go to agencies like Legal Aid, Housing Rights Advocates, etc. Most of these... are inundated with cases and so only see about 15% of those who need legal assistance.
For that reason, UD matters can and often are... handled by non-attorney "Unlawful Detainer Assistants", as well as through ADR or mediation. Since LL/T-UD is NOT dear BOTR's field of practice, however, she apparently doesn't know this.
If you're going to appeal to authority, you should not be surprised when rival authorities call you out.
Ummmm... what? What "rival authority"? Surely, you don't mean BOTR. Oh, wait, perhaps you did... because you made that mistake once before. Shall I correct you on that again? Again, LL/T-UD is not her area of expertise... so I'm not surprised that she isn't aware of how this field is often handled these days. Heck, Fair Housing claims are always handled by attorneys. Rather, they are handled by Fair Housing Specialists, not all of whom even work UNDER attorneys. Indeed, many of the EDs for Fair Housing agencies aren't attorneys. Landlord-Tenant/Unlawful Detainer/Housing law is not the same "animal" it was when BOTR went to school. It's certain not what she thinks it is in California.
Do you know Sarah Palin? God talks to her too! You should run for political office!
No, I don't know here... good (He doesn't talk to me, though)... and, no thanks (my hair turns grey fast enough on its own; besides, I like what I do for a living: help homeless, seniors, and families get into... and stay in... stable housing; however, I also put them out if they give me no choice... which requires knowing LL/T-UD law, something I did long before I ever went to law school).
I hope no one is taking this rubbish seriously.
Apparently, some are. Including you (elsewise, why are you even bothering to comment? What's it to YOU? Oh, right, I know: your personal "problem" with me...)
Please provide some California authority (since you're in California) to support this definition that you have agreed with.
I will do you one better: so that I am not accused of advising or interpreting or any other "no-no"... I will just refer YOU to the California Business & Professions Code. You can find what you're looking for there. Now, I don't know where YOU live, but much of what I shared that came under question here can be found online. For example, here is a typical California website that posts a lot of pertinent UD information:
http://www.caltenantlaw.com/
I would like to say that had I stated, "I read on the Internet"... there would've been no problem. I highly doubt it, though. As long as it didn't come from BOTR... there would have been a problem.
My definition was NOT meant to be an exhaustive definition of the practice of law;
Most of us know that, dear JT (again, peace to you!). The same way we "know" no one here (well, almost no one) is really stepping into the realm of giving legal advice but just participating on a social discussion board.
I can data dump if someone will walk me through Firefox.
Apparently, your prayers weren't answered...
How many members care about what some anonymous person thinks.
Well, since I'm not the anonymous one here... apparently even less than you thought.
Okay, 'nuff said, IMHO. Points have been made... through and through. Time to let this birdie fly away. Of course, if you can't (i.e., your prayers to do so go unresponded to)... I totally understand. I would pray FOR you to that end... but, what's the point: you probably wouldn't listen to the answer anyway... would you?
My wish for peace remains...
SA, on her own... who obviously didn't much better to do... today. Tomorrow's another day, though...
AGuest

Thank you, dear JT (again, peace to you!)! A couple of things I noticed:
1. In Washington, apparently only a COURT can determine what constitutes UPL/if UPL has occurred... not an attorney who happens to participate in an online discussion board; and
2. I know YOU know this (which is probably why you posted it)... but your last posts appear to address, are with regard to, and relate to attorneys:
" Inadvertent creation of attorney-client relationship or improper solicitation : Social networking sites allow for instant interactive communication in an informal context. The risk for lawyers who participate in real-time discussions online or direct communications with a third party through a website or a blog is that such communications may trigger duties owed to prospective clients, including a risk of disqualification from representation of a adverse party, fiduciary obligations and malpractice liability (as well as the possible unauthorized practice of law where an attorneyprovides legal advice in a jurisdiction in which he or she is not licensed.) "...
and...
[FN16] . A further possibility attorneys need to be aware of is that an online communication with a potential client may, under the right circumstances, constitute improper solicitation in certain jurisdictions. See State Bar of California Form. Opn. 2004-166 (Lawyer's participation in chat room for disaster victims). However, a recent opinion by the Philadelphia Bar Association's Professional Guidance Committee opined that communications in chat rooms do not constitute “real-time” communications that would violate Model Rule 73. Phil. Bar Assn. Opin. 2010-6."
Although, it seems reasonable that the "recent" opinion of the PBA's PGC... would apply to others, as well. At least, others in PA.
Again, thank you! It is a little sad to me that this discussion has taken some of the "tack" it has, but I actually think it was worthy. Again, we discuss all manner of things on this board... and give all manner of opinions... and so we (posters) need to know. Especially since some believe they have some kind of grounds to correct... and report... those they THINK may be violating some code/law/rule.
Again, thank you... and peace to you!
SA, on her own...
AGuest

Goodness, a martini would taste (and feel!) good right about now...
Peace!
SA, on her own...
Justitia Themis

I know YOU know this (which is probably why you posted it)... but your last posts appear to address, are with regard to, and relate to attorneys:
Yep. ...just posting why attorneys might be more skittery than the general public...not commenting on anything else.
144001

Please provide some California authority (since you're in California) to support this definition that you have agreed with.
I will do you one better: so that I am not accused of advising or interpreting or any other "no-no"... I will just refer YOU to the California Business & Professions Code. You can find what you're looking for there. Now, I don't know where YOU live, but much of what I shared that came under question here can be found online. For example, here is a typical California website that posts a lot of pertinent UD information: http://www.caltenantlaw.com/
That's what you consider "better?" The only relevant portion of the California Bus. & Prof. Code I could find is Section 6125, which provides as follows:
"No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar." CA Bus. & Prof. Code Section 6125.
So, Aguest, in your opinion, this is the end of the analysis? No need to review case law, eh? Maybe you should resort to toplessness. It can't be much worse than your legal analsysis, can it?
Berengaria

Whoa. I last read page 1.
tec

Goodness, a martini would taste (and feel!) good right about now...
I hear you.
Not for a martini... but I was craving anything with alcohol today, just to unwind after an annoying day (sick, all the amazon sellers that I had set up for my son's awesom christmas package don't ship to Canada, couldn't call in sick because no one can work for me, then snapped at my husband - who asked me if I was 'b*tchy because I was sick, and then calmly suggested that we discuss finances at another time... to which I at least had the sense left to defer to the wisdom in that suggestion, lol) I am currently drinking a chai green tea instead though. Its still pretty good :)
And yeah, this seems much more of a personal thing than an actual law thing (not referring to you, Justitia). The law thing just 'covers' the personal thing.
Love to you Shelby, and of course peace to all,
Tammy (who thanks you for letting me whine on your thread, lol)
TheClarinetist

This argument is kind of insane. I asked a badly worder question, and y'all keep fighting about it. The fight is doing nothing to help me except to make the situation more stressful. Basically, don't be a douche, and don't represent yourself as being a valid legal opinion coming from a lawyer. Since none of you did that, I don't understand what the continued strife is about. I didn't take your opinion as any more than the opinion of random people on a forum that I have a lot of respect for. If you are fighting on my behalf, please stop.
Also, I'm drunk, and this is exceptionally hard to type, so you may safely disregard this if it is not applicable.
By the way, the specific situation you have been arguing about has resolved amicably. I thought you might want to know that.

Your Thoughts, Please (Seriously)...

Share this