Press 1 if you agree to waive attorney-client privledges and be mocked for the purpose of entertaining others...
March 1, 2008 12:35 PM Subscribe
How do Bill Handle and other radio lawyers comply with their responsibilities as lawyers? Has anyone called in to one of them? What was the experience like before and after the on-air portion?
It doesn't sound like they take the Car Talk approach where people leave their messages throughout the week, the interesting problems are researched, and then calls are returned during taping. It doesn't even sound like the callers are heavily screened, but there must be some kind of informed consent given before they can be put on air. I can't imagine that's a quick process...
Do they only accept calls from jurisdictions in which they are licensed to practice?
It doesn't sound like they take the Car Talk approach where people leave their messages throughout the week, the interesting problems are researched, and then calls are returned during taping. It doesn't even sound like the callers are heavily screened, but there must be some kind of informed consent given before they can be put on air. I can't imagine that's a quick process...
Do they only accept calls from jurisdictions in which they are licensed to practice?
Best answer: someone will respond with "I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice", followed by, frankly, legal advice.
Actually, I think that the vast majority of the time, it's not legal advice, but that difference may only be apparent to other lawyers.
We had a big discussion of the issue here: IAALBINYL.
There is a difference between talking about the law and giving legal advice. Most (certainly not all) of the lawyers on MeFi will tend towards the former, or give pretty explicit dicslaimers about not knowing the law of the other person's jurisdiction and not being qualified to give true legal advice without knowing all of the facts.
The purpose of the disclaimer or the "this is not legal advice" is to make it as clear as possible that the audience (MeFi poster, radio listener, etc.) should not rely on that advice. Lawyers can't control what other people do. If the disclaimer has no effect, then lawyers couldn't answer even the most simple of questions without assuming a fair amount of liability. The only choices in that world would be to establish an attorney-client relationship, with all that implies, or to always say, "I'm sorry, I am not your lawyer and I can't answer that." The disclaimer allows a slight amount of flexibility
I've only heard Bill Handel once or twice, so I don't really know what his routine is. According to his web site, they arrange some calls in advance and take some who call in during the broadcast. How they handle the live ones, I'm not sure. My understanding is that they are generally directing people towards other resources or pointing them in the right direction, rather than actually giving legal advice, despite the "marginal legal advice" slogan.
Of course, if someone really and truly has absolutely no case whatsoever, lots of lawyers will be comfortable saying so, which is part of Handel's schtick. Often before retaining a lawyer, you'll have a short consultation where you talk about the case and they'll give you immediate impressions. If it's viable, you hire them. But sometimes, there's really not even a glimmer of a case, no matter how upset you are. Most lawyers don't charge for telling you have no business being in their office.
Handel's show appears to take calls from outside California. Handel is licensed in California (SBN 90971), I'm not sure about anywhere else or anyone else on his staff.
posted by jewishbuddha at 2:59 PM on March 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
Actually, I think that the vast majority of the time, it's not legal advice, but that difference may only be apparent to other lawyers.
We had a big discussion of the issue here: IAALBINYL.
There is a difference between talking about the law and giving legal advice. Most (certainly not all) of the lawyers on MeFi will tend towards the former, or give pretty explicit dicslaimers about not knowing the law of the other person's jurisdiction and not being qualified to give true legal advice without knowing all of the facts.
The purpose of the disclaimer or the "this is not legal advice" is to make it as clear as possible that the audience (MeFi poster, radio listener, etc.) should not rely on that advice. Lawyers can't control what other people do. If the disclaimer has no effect, then lawyers couldn't answer even the most simple of questions without assuming a fair amount of liability. The only choices in that world would be to establish an attorney-client relationship, with all that implies, or to always say, "I'm sorry, I am not your lawyer and I can't answer that." The disclaimer allows a slight amount of flexibility
I've only heard Bill Handel once or twice, so I don't really know what his routine is. According to his web site, they arrange some calls in advance and take some who call in during the broadcast. How they handle the live ones, I'm not sure. My understanding is that they are generally directing people towards other resources or pointing them in the right direction, rather than actually giving legal advice, despite the "marginal legal advice" slogan.
Of course, if someone really and truly has absolutely no case whatsoever, lots of lawyers will be comfortable saying so, which is part of Handel's schtick. Often before retaining a lawyer, you'll have a short consultation where you talk about the case and they'll give you immediate impressions. If it's viable, you hire them. But sometimes, there's really not even a glimmer of a case, no matter how upset you are. Most lawyers don't charge for telling you have no business being in their office.
Handel's show appears to take calls from outside California. Handel is licensed in California (SBN 90971), I'm not sure about anywhere else or anyone else on his staff.
posted by jewishbuddha at 2:59 PM on March 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: JB, thanks for the information.
posted by the christopher hundreds at 12:22 PM on March 2, 2008
posted by the christopher hundreds at 12:22 PM on March 2, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
Is saying "this is not legal advice" really enough to get them off the hook for their responsibilities regarding dispensing legal advice?
posted by Flunkie at 1:53 PM on March 1, 2008