To ask that people STOP giving incorrect Legal advice!!!

IME most bad advice on Mumsnet gets contradicted fairly quickly.

It's a bit misleading to go off a single post that says something like "change the locks" and ignore all the posts that come after saying, "no, you can't change the locks".

Missed it completely, only one coffee this morning 😔

Missed that completely 😞

Ohhh yes, I feel you and agree wholeheartedly!

I deeply cringe when I see replies on mumsnet "I'm a lawyer" and then proceed to give 'legal advice', which I know is totally incorrect...but I have to bite my tongue/sit on my hands.

It will not stop though.

The not putting an unmarried father on a birth certificate can work if you know he would not really be arsed. So put a few barriers in his way that are easily overcome and he will give up.

There is a duty not to mislead the public though under both the SRA CoC and CILEX regulation. Theoretically either can take action against members (or law firm employees who aren’t registered) who call themselves a lawyer without being a barrister, qualified solicitor or CILEX chartered executive. I know firms I’ve worked for wouldn’t allow anyone non qualified to call themselves a lawyer.

I work in employment law though and we all tend to call ourselves “employment lawyers” not “employment solicitors”. I’m not really sure why!

But anyway OP YANBU. The amount of poor advice spouted on the work board is shocking.

“Record the meeting!” being a particular favourite. Along with “it won’t be admissible in court!” plus “speak to ACAS” - no, they’re unqualified call centre workers who read from a script.

Planning is another area where completely incorrect information is given. People got PP for a conservatory 20 years ago and think they know everything. Most don't even understand the difference between PP and Building Regs. Very few seem to know that professional chartered town planners exist and advise speaking to architects, surveyors etc. Are adamant on issues that that can't be considered in objections, usually incorrect again.

I saw what you did there :)

I totally get what you're saying OP but everyone thinks they're an expert. I'm not a lawyer but I do know quite a bit about (for example) the ins and outs of being self-employed, and the ins and outs of DBS checks.

The amount of incorrect advice given is amazing, usually from people who have read something once, or think they know the score and confidently state that it is ILLEGAL not to have a DBS check to be a parent helper on a school trip, or that legally you have to pay your self-employed cleaner when she's off sick.

To be fair though, anyone who takes advice from randomers online on a serious issue such as dealings in the family court or disputes with HMRC is naive at best, downright stupid at worst.

Well said.

I'd go a bit further and say there are people on here who are (or at least claim to be) legally qualified and then go around providing terrible advice on which they know people will rely and base decisions. These posters do it because they've built a bit of a following on certain boards and get off on the praise they receive. I think it's super dangerous (as a lawyer myself) because they've done no compliance before advising, run no conflicts and have taken no proper instructions.

I once saw a thread where one of these characters was advising a man on educational law around school admissions in circumstances where it was red flags galore for DV, and blindingly obvious that the man asking would use what he was being told to try to exert coercive control of his spouse and daughter. The ex wanted to move in with her mum in a nearby town and register for school there (reception year). The OP said it was about 20 minutes away and he wanted to keep them in his town. The OP was blatantly looking for ways to scupper the schools admission process. It was just awful. It got to a point where three the OP had admitted that his ex was unwilling to be in the house with him and slept in a locked room, and on and on the "advisor" went, taking real umbridge at the fact anyone would question him and his credentials. And refusing to acknowledge the issues with what he was doing.

YANBU, often you see people posting
'Don't worry, you can stay in the house, oh and you'll get half his pension, and of course you can stay part time earning low wages, he'll have to support you financially'

Yes of course people should be responsible and understand Mumsnet is not a reliable source of information but I'm staggered by just how crap some of the 'advice' is. I'm sure many people just post what they would like to believe rather than even doing the most basic research

Just for balance, I am going through a difficult time due to my wife's health and I have received some excellent advice in relation to a complex hospital discharge from people who have been through similar circumstances.

I think you have to be selective and apply some common sense and intelligence when using anonymous Internet forums.

I think was a joke @AgnesX ... 👀

The poster was joking!

Right but it's like going to the drs with a weird rash and saying look this is what I'm worried about and showing them a screenshot of a sepsis rash. And then the Dr knows what's on their mind and can go ah no its just the washing up liquid

I agree with you. But loads of people post all sorts of shit on here about things they know nothing about - think it goes with the territory!

Posters should not be relying on what is said on here as literally posters can they're all sorts of qualified and there's no way of checking.

100% this. People have to take their own responsibility. If you ask on mumsnet and take the advice of random unvetted strangers as the truth of the matter then that's on them.

Actually, I'm with VestibleVirgin. The meaning of understate is to reduce the importance or complexity of something.

In the context of legal advice, paralegals understating a case could lead the client to believe their situation could be simply and easily solved in fewer billable hours than would actually be the case. Thus luring them in to accept a contract with a law firm they might not choose otherwise.

Since your clarification, it is now clear this is not what you meant, but understating was not 'clearly a typo' and most certainly does make sense in this context.

As a client of yours, I'd be concerned as to what other typos you'd make ...

People in desperate situations never having instructed a solicitor before turning to an online forum isn't to be unexpected. Of course they get bad advice, same as doctors have to deal with Dr Google, same as every profession has to deal with this now.
You can not stop it. Your profession should be adjusting to dealing with it as start of the process when you are instructed. It's part of life now for professionals.

YANBU. I work in HR and the amount of times I see people on here saying “oh they can’t sack you for that” or “disability related sickness can’t count to triggers” or “you can’t be sacked if you’re pregnant”, “get a union rep and they’ll change their minds” and all sorts of nonsense.

The actually advice in nearly every case is “it depends”. It depends on your contradict, how long you’ve worked there, what’s gone before, the actual circumstances not the paragraph you’ve shared on MN and thousands of other things. But people spout forth.

Also “ ring ACAS” which should be good advice but they are bloody useless

Yep, typos fine, but then to not bother reading my response, but to rant about using a solicitor compunded the issue.
Which as I said, worrying from a solicitor.

“A fee earning Solicitor will not sit there and talk to people who they are not instructed by, legal aid or not as their time is chargeable.”

That simply wasn’t true in my case. It was 30 mins not an hour. And it was hardly detailed free legal advice - more a sense check that you weren’t asking about a divorce having misunderstood what legal process you needed for a fence dispute 🤣 It was 5 years ago. The person I met with (small town satellite office of a medium sized firm) was definitely a solicitor who then went on to handle my case.

You are right that most of what is posted on here is bollocks - but that’s the fun of it sometimes!

I have seen people advising this "free hour" as if you can get an hour with one firm, then go next door to a different firm and pick up where you left off....working through all the local solicitors until you are sorted 😂

The free hour is obviously mostly a loss leader/intro to get new clients in, as well as letting both teh potential client and the firm assess what options there are.
I would choose which firms you go to for this "free advice" carefully because you want to trust it and if you proceed ideally it will be with one them.

I know of at least 2 women who have half an hour free with a solicitor recently.
I wish people would just just stop spouting ill informed opinion as though it were fact.