to think people shouldn't give out legal advice on here when they don't know what they're talking about

[BooBearBoo]

I have read SO MANY threads on here with posted giving out advice as if it is gospel and it is totally wrong.

I've had to clear up nonsense on two threads in as many days.

Why do people think this is ok to do????!!!!!! It's dangerous!

I think Stephen Fry probably is quite clever, actually, although I can see your point. But I've known various people who are superficially like Stephen Fry in terms of having conspicuous erudition bubbing off the tops of their heads at all times, and they have been genuinely clever.

cocoflower you and me both

I think everyone gives advice in good faith, however that advice should always be taken with a pinch of salt and people should get either proper legal advice or medical advice.

This board is no different to any other, whereby people give their advice freely and with no malice intended and just because they are trying to help.

Coco...don't be suspicious.....just ask me for tips on time management!

Ah Boobear congrats!

Good point fabby, it's not as if people are posting thinking 'mwahaha, I'll spout some bollocks now and that'll really confuse the issue'.

I think as well, in the case of this thread, the OP partly wanted reassurance and to chat after what must have been a horribly scary experience - sure, she asked if she should sue, but if she hadn't wanted non-professional sympathy as well, I'm sure she'd have been on a legal forum. Hence the number of people posting with maybe misguided advice, but a lot of warmth and concern.

Two points: as I make a loss on renting out my property (rental income less than mortgage interest), it means no tax is payable on rent received - so in my case, as the mortgageis paid from income anyway, it is advantageous.

Secondly, if advice is posted on CATX for instance, then the LGFA is not hard to look up, and as I did the job for 10 years, I could be said to have understood it, and to be able to answer questions about it. We all have our own areas of expertise and can contribute and suggest (even if we are not lawyers) what worked for us in that situation.

DH is a barrister and even he wouldn't claim to be right on all areas of law. It's dependent on the type of law you work in, and particular circumstances of each case.

He would never claim that barristers are better than solicitors either (though he has been both). You get amazing solicitors and amazing barristers, equally I've met poor barristers/solicitors. Neither one is 'better' than the other,as the work is different. Although it is often perceived that barristers are better (not my opinion).

I've commented on legal threads, but in a general way (am training to be a lawyer) and I always advise people that it's my opinion and to seek real legal advice either via the Law Society or the CAB.

I don't think there's any harm in getting a general legal stance, but I would hope any MNter wouldn't be stupid enough to follow it to the letter without speaking to a professional.

There's also the area of practice thing. Just because someone is a lawyer doesn't mean that they know about all areas of law. A finance lawyer might know how to draft the documents to finance an oil rig in Azerbaijan, and be damn good at it, but would probably know bugger all about the searches required to buy a house, or employment or family law. She may have vague out of date memories from law school or post-grad conversion courses, but that is not something that is reliable years later, and she would be the first person to say that she can only advise on certain areas.

X-post with reindeer. Curse my slow tying!

Haven't bothered to read all but the first few posts.

I got some fantastic legal and financial advice when my shit hit the fan.

I will forever be indebted to Quinne, for one.

I agree there is some dodgy advice but I remain indebted to the lawyers or legals and financial bods who helped me.

(not forgetting the emotional stalwarts)

Oh and quattro who said 'GET YOURSELF A FAMILY LAWYER'

Crikey that was such good advice. I had never heard of such a thing.

I have no idea who these posters are but I worship at their feet

Lisianthus is right, solicitors tend to have a practice area that they specialise in, its not like on Neighbours where Toadie represents everyone regardless of whether its conveyancing or a murder charge, and regardless of whether or not there is a conflict of interest

Hell, even Partners who specialise in a particular practice area will call on associates or PSL's (professional support lawyers) to clarify more complex points of law in the course of their work - the fact is, laws change so often, things move on very fast so if you were working on a particular matter even a year previously that was similar things may have changed a fair bit since then particularly in the corporate world.

Like GP's, they need to keep up to date on their reading and generally larger firms will have teams of people who's job it is to issue amendments to relevant areas and give advice.

its not like on Neighbours where Toadie represents everyone regardless of whether its conveyancing or a murder charge, and regardless of whether or not there is a conflict of interest

Let's not forget Karl Kennedy. GP, psychatrist, Ob's & gyno...

Absolutely. I would never give advice on planning, immigration, environmental, licensing, family law or even criminal law. I havent got a flippin' clue as far as those areas of law go.

Coco - thank you!

Well I don't claim to know everything about anything, but I am one of the few PI lawyers I have come across on MN (one of the few who will admit to it anyway) and I think I was the only actual PI lawyer on that thread. I didn't say the OP had a cast iron case - actually the OP hasn't got a case at all, if anyone has it's her husband but now I am being anal - I just said there were various causes of action (in negligence and statute) that may mean a claim could succeed and she should get in person advice. I had no intention of going into the whys and wherefores with her and didn't expect her to give me lots of detail. If her husband came to see me we would have a very detailed chat indeed about the house, the tenancy, the exact circumstances of the accident itself, the injuries and I would advise based on the facts. Her question was is it unreasonable to sue someone in those circumstances, which is something else entirely.

I have on more than one occasion sat behind counsel in court and wanted to
push them out of the way and do the job myself because they've been so bad at the advocacy even though in cons they seemed really switched on.

I'm a family and wills specialist but have only a basic grasp of contract and tort and know nothing about finance/banking/defamation etc. Anyone who says they're a barrister or, indeed a solicitor so they know everything about the law is frankly talking crap.

Nice to see lawyers or otherwise slinging their experiences at each other.

Who is slinging their experiences at each other? What do you mean by "lawyers or otherwise"?

Being skilled at advocacy is what IMO makes a lawyer/barrister/advocate great. Knowing the law is one thing, convincing others, another.

"I've had to clear up nonsense on two threads in as many days."

Goodness me - and you've go better things to do with your time I'm sure!

I very occasionally dip into legal threads and try to give very basic advice. I think it's dangerous to do more because you cannot get proper instructions in these circumstances. I won't do it again after being trashed by a complete idiot who is currently doing a law degree.

Not if you don't do advocacy it isn't K999.