AIBU to be frustrated by the sheer volume of bogus legal advice on Mumsnet?

[Ladyoftheloch]

I am ceaselessly amazed by the amount of absolute tripe people spout about the law on AIBU, from people who clearly do not know what they are talking about and have no justification for the ‘advice’ they give.

People state as factual certainties every vague, half-formed belief they hold as though they’re practicing lawyers working in the field every day. I truly think some posters believe that because their opinion seems sensible to them, it must be the true legal position.

It’s wildly irresponsible, and people do it without giving any thought to the potential harm they could be doing by giving someone bogus advice.

There is a reason lawyers have to have degrees and professional qualifications. There is a reason they have to do a minimum amount of CPD every year. There is a reason they have to carry hefty insurance in case of mistakes.

So please, stop this nonsense. Stop starting sentences with the word ‘Legally...’ if you aren’t actually a lawyer practicing in the relevant field. Stop telling people what they are doing is legal or illegal. Stop insisting that everyone is entitled to half an hour of free legal advice as though it’s a human right. Stop confidently making proclamations about property disputes, wills, divorce, court procedures or whatever else based on your woolly sense of what you think is right. You have no idea of the harm and confusion you might be causing.

Unless you know who they are in real life you actually dont know what their experience is or isn't? Its an anonymous forum no-one has to prove their credentials.

No, that’s true. But I have seen people make apparently factual statements about the law which I know to be incorrect, because they are about the area of law I work in. And I have seen several situations where even though I am not an expert in that area of the law, I know that those posting can’t all be right because there is contradictory information from another poster in the same thread.

I don’t have any problem with someone saying ‘this is what I would do’. I don’t even mind people saying ‘I think the legal position is...’. But I have a big problem with people who present information as a fact when that information is wrong.

I think that it is, fundamentally, morally wrong for a person to say they know what the legal position on something is when actually they don’t know. Do you disagree?

He can't stop you moving.

but he can stop your joint child moving. Potentially. If he takes it to court and obtains a prohibited steps order.

You can move if you like. But you can't automatically assume that you'll be able to take your child.

It really frustrates me as well. I am a qualified solicitor. I do something comment where it is my area, but outside my areas of law I wouldn't have a clue.

Some general points perhaps, but I would never offer advice on employment or more detailed family matters as I am not an expert and would not want to mis-advise. It seems that those who are not qualified or do not have expertise (I know planning consultants for example who would know a lot more on a planning consent query than a property solicitor would for example) do not seem to care about that.

My favourite one at the moment is a thread about a father leaving money to grandchildren 6 years ago and lots of people advising that she should give half of the children's inheritance to her sister's children, completely ignoring the law.

Well.

Firstly, if lawyers always agreed with each other, many would be out of a job.

Secondly, if lawyers didn't charge an arm and a leg for advice people wouldn't turn to anonymous internet sites like Mumsnet.

Finally, most people do actually realise that advice given on such a site may not be accurate. But it can be interesting to seek opinions.

YANBU to feel frustrated but YAB unrealistic.

Firstly, if lawyers always agreed with each other, many would be out of a job.

I’m a litigator, so I don’t disagree

But, there is a world of difference between disagreeing over the application of the law to a particular set of circumstances, and just being factually wrong about what the law says.

When I’m defending a professional negligence claim in court, I’m arguing that my client did not meet the test for negligence. I’m not confidently asserting that a bogus definition of negligence is the truth.

I really worry about the health advice people give. A recent thread many posters were telling the OP not to ring an ambulance and not to waste the NHS's time as it was not an emergency but to get a routine GP appt.
luckily she spoke to a friend who was a health professional, was advised to call an ambulance and was admitted.
Sorry to change the subject but this annoys me as much as legal rubbish being spouted.

Oh the Will thread going on at the minute is ridiculous, so many people saying the Wil was badly written and throwing the word trust around when they clearly don’t know the first thing about writing wills and trusts!

I think that it is, fundamentally, morally wrong for a person to say they know what the legal position on something is when actually they don’t know. Do you disagree?

No. But i think there are a few issues to that argument

i come back to the fact (nothing personal) how do i know that your opinion is correct? How do i know you have any experience of the law either?

The murky underside of your argument, is the assertion that im a professional so im the only person with a right to comment, my opinion must be held with higher regard by virtue of my training and credentials.

Some of the very worst experiences ive had have been with professionals who have carried that through into their real life practice. I have found it to be considerably more damaging and morally reprehensible than dodgy advice on an anonymous forum.

The thing about the internet is that it democraticises advice. How do i know your opinion is more useful or has more validity when you cant simply use your professional status to pull rank? Can you link me to official information...

The best professionals ime have no problem explaining their opinion and justifying it.

But, there is a world of difference between disagreeing over the application of the law to a particular set of circumstances, and just being factually wrong about what the law says*

I have been given factually incorrect advice by a barrister that I paid for advice. Luckily I researched the specific area of law myself, I also went back and asked for my money to be refunded.

My favourite one at the moment is a thread about a father leaving money to grandchildren 6 years ago and lots of people advising that she should give half of the children's inheritance to her sister's children, completely ignoring the law

They weren’t advising on a legal point though, it was a moral one. That’s completely different.

I feel fairly qualified to talk about what is legal/illegal in terms of policing (I'm a Supt in the Police) but I wouldn't even attempt at anything civil. I know my limits!

I do quite often enjoy the assertion that I must allow a pregnant lady to piss in my hat or similar now and then.

i come back to the fact (nothing personal) how do i know that your opinion is correct? How do i know you have any experience of the law either?

You don’t! Which is why any person should take advice given on the internet with barrels of salt. But also, crucially, I don’t give legal advice on anonymous Internet forums - and I don’t think any sensible lawyer should.

There is no way you know enough information from a Mumsnet post to accurately advise someone, so even if the area of law is your speciality, you still aren’t really in a position to give advice.

I expect lots of lawyers feel this way. It probably intensifies the issue. Those who know the law know better than to give legal advice without all the facts, and those who don’t know the law feel justified in spouting bullshit about it!

I think it should be easy to agree that people should make statements about the law - or indeed anything - if they don’t actually know it to be true. It is morally wrong to do so.

I have been given factually incorrect advice by a barrister that I paid for advice.

This is very poor, and I’m sorry you had such a bad experience. However, I think this is a separate issue to that of whether it’s ok for people on Mumsnet to make factually incorrect statements about the law and pass them off as being actual knowledge.

The advice on the relationship threads when the OH has behaved badly is nearly always to change the locks on the doors.

I feel bad about this one.

15 years ago I stopped legal studies, and my jaw would drop when I would read things on MN. The number of times people posted utter bollocks on family law would make me twitch, and it upset me because it was often aimed at vulnerable people in tricky situations. I had this mantra: we are not lawyers. The law changes so fast, undergrad textbooks are outdated within three years. The law is so complex, a specialist in one area may know nothing about another. If someone with recent legal studies knows sod all, why do you know more?

Fifteen years later, I realise I've joined them. I've forgotten more than I ever knew, and even that was so long ago it's dark ages, and even then my view was mostly that I only knew enough to teach me that I really, really did not know enough to comment, and they needed to seek expert legal advice. I'm glad you posted this, because I wanted to do a mea culpa on the wills thread after reading your post(s) (and also, from sheer curiosity, to ask what options might still be open to the sisters in that context, because my own vague memories of equity and trusts led me to believe there was no remedy, now?).

I have become that which I once, correctly, abhorred. I will sin no more. Thank you for the reminder/check.

I think this thread has derailed slightly but getting back to the original point being made: YES! This drives me mad on here (and IRL). The SS ones are horrific as well. Just because your mate's aunt's husband's brother had this happen and then the other happened doesn't mean anything! 1. If you are not a lawyer/ SW/ doctor/ police officer you shouldn't be giving advice insisting anything and 2. If the poster giving you advice were a lawyer/ SW/ doctor/ police officer they should only be loosely advising you as they know they're only getting one side of the story on here and would need a detailed investigation into your individual circumstances in order to give you proper advice. Why would any solicitor give an hour's free advice that would solve your problem? They'll give you an hour (perhaps) to listen and tell you if they can help but no-one would ever pay if that was all it took!
That's not bashing posters who need advice (and the OP wasn't doing that either) as obviously some posters are in very sad situations and need help and have no idea where to turn. It's bashing the people who say 'Legally they can't...' 'Legally he can..', 'Change the locks' on a house he owns etc etc. It's very unhelpful.

I have been given factually incorrect advice by a barrister that I paid for advice.

Then you have legal recourse against them. They are legally required to have professional indemnity insurance in case of claims against them. You can start a small claims court claim (or whatever it's called no) cheaply and easily.

Well I didn’t need to. I pointed out the incorrect advice and my bill was refunded. Job done with no unpleasantness