Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9699602" data-attributes="member: 7023840">headshakeLook. the problem with people just throwing around terms and metaphors is that there is this existing superstructure of ... laws and policies and concepts that already exist ... that means that these metaphors and analogies don't work. At all. And ignoring the fact that different countries operate differently doesn't resolve the issue- it exacerbates it.Very (VERY) briefly.The United States has a system of dual sovereignty. States and the federal government. The licensing of attorneys is done by the states (except when it's not, see, e.g, the patent bar). In order to practice law, you must have a license. But within this country (US), there is also robust protection for freedom of speech. So the ability to opine, even incorrectly, about the law is protected (absent, again, some caveats). So every different jurisdiction (state) will have different rules about what will constitute "the practice of law" that can go up to, but not exceed, the protections of the FA. If someone practices law without a license, that's considered a violation- a UPL (unauthorized practice of law). (There are further distinctions about the authority of the bar and the law to regulate lawyers who engage in UPL, because that's a things, and state laws)The exact contours of what constitutes advice and what constitutes a UPL can vary- for example, generally, a non-lawyer can sell a book that contains general legal information, including legal forms. But it is always the case that to hold yourself out as an attorney, even impliedly, would constitute a UPL. It is also unlawful in most jursidictions for a corporate entity to perform legal services even if those services are performed by a person, because corporations are not people and only a natural person can perform legal services. And so on. And these issues are distinct from those in the medical profession (in the United States) ... and those are distinct from defamation liability ... and those are distinct from the issues that would occur in general products liability .... which are distinct from, inter alia, the possible issues that might arise if these are considered a tool that is used in the medical field (which has to go through an FDA process) ... and so on.In other words, there are a lot of very distinct issues, and we can't just say, "It's like someone giving advice and you act on it." Because it isn't- it's a product, made by a corporate entity (usually) for a mass market, and the different ways in which it is used will have different frames in which to analyse it. </blockquote>

Verification