Constraints on private "practice" while employed elsewhere

[Diplock]

2 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

Totally. And I haven't disputed that. 

My initial comment was basically "Is this a thing?" People agreed it is, and a couple presented rationales, and I responded as a matter of discussion. It's not like I think I'm going to talk these rules out of existence or anything like that. Just curious.

Substantively, many of your points are reasonable. Like this one. I'm quoting it exactly because you haven't done the dumb thing we've seen many times before - which is someone getting an accurate piece of information and then turning it into an argument about why things shouldn't be that way. Good for you.

Much of the snark you're getting in reply, despite this, is still based in a tone you're bringing here. Which is something like this. "I'm trying to be a good person here and help people. Unlike most of the other lawyers in the world (which obviously includes most of the people I'm addressing here) I actually care. So please remember that when you answer my (frequently under-informed) questions. I'm one of the good ones. Not like most of you."

Now, I'm very aware that isn't a direct quote. And I'm not going to defend or even engage with your predictable outrage and objections to describing your engagement in those terms. You're arguing with a solid plurality of the community here at this point. Either you embrace the possibility that your approach may have something to do with that, or not. That's up to you.

All the same, kudos for not falling into every dumb mistake you could make. If you were doing that, I'd have given up long ago and either started ignoring you or playing into your outrage for the sake of entertainment. I believe you're bringing honest engagement here. But you need to realize, the replies you're getting are honest too. And they are what they are for reasons.

[Yogurt Baron]

2 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

🤣

Yeah, I had "CH may beg to differ" in my first draft.

[Yogurt Baron]

3 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

I have less than normal tolerance for being misrepresented or picked at. Sorry, but also... I don't think that's unfair.

All right, taking a step back, here's something I know Diplock and others have already said to you, but I'm going to say it again and maybe you'll hear it.

The people you've talking to have spent decades watching law applicants come in here and say "X", and we have learned that every time someone says "X", they mean "Y". At this point, we are cutting out the middleman and just assuming that when you say "X", you mean "Y". Why you feel mischaracterized is, we are generally just straight-up responding to "Y" as if that is what you had said. Is that unfair if you are the one person in the world who actually means "X"? Yes! And I am sorry if I've distorted anything you've said. But based, again, on long experience of being somebody like you and then dealing with tons of people saying the stuff you're saying, my intent is not to distort. My intent is to respond to the underlying assumptions that generally motivate someone when they say the stuff you're saying. So, again, sincerely sorry if you don't like that or if it's not the advice you're hoping to get.

[CndnViking]

2 minutes ago, Diplock said:

Substantively, many of your points are reasonable. Like this one. I'm quoting it exactly because you haven't done the dumb thing we've seen many times before - which is someone getting an accurate piece of information and then turning it into an argument about why things shouldn't be that way. Good for you.

Much of the snark you're getting in reply, despite this, is still based in a tone you're bringing here. Which is something like this. "I'm trying to be a good person here and help people. Unlike most of the other lawyers in the world (which obviously includes most of the people I'm addressing here) I actually care. So please remember that when you answer my (frequently under-informed) questions. I'm one of the good ones. Not like most of you."

Now, I'm very aware that isn't a direct quote. And I'm not going to defend or even engage with your predictable outrage and objections to describing your engagement in those terms. You're arguing with a solid plurality of the community here at this point. Either you embrace the possibility that your approach may have something to do with that, or not. That's up to you.

All the same, kudos for not falling into every dumb mistake you could make. If you were doing that, I'd have given up long ago and either started ignoring you or playing into your outrage for the sake of entertainment. I believe you're bringing honest engagement here. But you need to realize, the replies you're getting are honest too. And they are what they are for reasons.

K, first, I've said this like 3 times already but I want to reiterate just to be clear: I have appreciated a number of points you've made, both in this thread and elsewhere, and I hope I've conveyed that well enough. If not, let me do it now. I definitely am not lumping you in with the likes of CH or Blocked when I talk about people just looking to troll and pick fights.

The "tone" you ascribed is certainly not one I intend to give off, and I honestly believe is a result of people reading in to what I'm saying things that they've come to expect from previous commenters. But let me clear it up anyway: I have never said, and am not sure where you got the impression, that I think most lawyers "don't care."

CH made a few comments along those lines, characterizing those who feign interest in public interest fields when they secretly just want to make big money as "pretending to care", but that was his way of framing it that I responded to, not my own words.

In fact, I went out of my way at least twice in that interaction to specify that I wasn't trying to talk down to or diminish those who DO work in or want to work in big law, recognizing the value and necessity of their work as well, but saying it just isn't what I'm interested in.

I apologize if you got that impression from my responses to him and his way of framing the sides of that divide. It certainly wasn't what I was trying to say or what I think, so if it's true that people are carrying that over into other unrelated threads and lashing out at me over it, I'm not sure what else to do other than to say AGAIN, that's not the case.

[CndnViking]

35 minutes ago, Yogurt Baron said:

All right, taking a step back, here's something I know Diplock and others have already said to you, but I'm going to say it again and maybe you'll hear it.

The people you've talking to have spent decades watching law applicants come in here and say "X", and we have learned that every time someone says "X", they mean "Y". At this point, we are cutting out the middleman and just assuming that when you say "X", you mean "Y". Why you feel mischaracterized is, we are generally just straight-up responding to "Y" as if that is what you had said. Is that unfair if you are the one person in the world who actually means "X"? Yes! And I am sorry if I've distorted anything you've said. But based, again, on long experience of being somebody like you and then dealing with tons of people saying the stuff you're saying, my intent is not to distort. My intent is to respond to the underlying assumptions that generally motivate someone when they say the stuff you're saying. So, again, sincerely sorry if you don't like that or if it's not the advice you're hoping to get.

K, right up front I want to be clear this isn't meant to be argumentative or anything, but genuinely trying to help bridge the gap of our perspectives here. That will include some push back, but I'd ask you try and hear me out before writing it off as "just another argument" or whatever.

First, respectfully, I don't think it's all that likely that all of those people were conclusively, beyond doubt, lying. Given the sheer scope of people's individuality, it defies all reason that not one of those people ever actually meant X. That feels utterly preposterous, especially if your idea of "X" is something I said, cause it would define me out of existence. But even then, let's grant that for the sake of argument, it still wouldn't mean everyone to come is going to fit that mold.

As soon as you adopt that "Every person who says X is a liar" heuristic you're creating a self-perpetuating cognitive bias. Even if the first 10, 20, 30, whatever people you meet who say X get conclusively proven as liars, if you take that on and start reacting the way you just described, then by the time you tell #100 "I've dealt with 99 of you before and they've all meant Y" you don't know at all what numbers 21-99 actually thought. At that point you're propping up current assumptions on past assumptions, and essentially saying a true X can't possibly exist, ever, in your mind.

If that's really how you want to operate? You do you, I guess. I for one find it incredibly pessimistic and not very intellectually honest, and feel like it would just be setting me up to treat people like shit. 

At this point I feel like I've had so many different things I said distorted and mischaracterized I'm not even sure which X and Y you're referring to specifically at the moment, but I'm not the type to lie to a bunch of random strangers on an anonymous forum. What would be the point in that? If I've said something it's because it's how I felt at that time. Maybe I'll some day change my mind or decide I was wrong, but as of this moment, every bit of it (in the original wording I used, not everyone's paraphrasing there-of) is genuine to my thoughts and feelings.

Edited October 3, 2023 by CndnViking

[Yogurt Baron]

All right, we're kind of making some progress here and seeing where the other is coming from. That's good.

I am not at all accusing you of "lying". Not at all. In my previous "you're saying X, we're responding to Y" analogy, Y isn't necessarily something that contradicts X. It's often a more nuanced version of X.

Tell me if I'm wrong here. You grew up poor. You think you're pretty hot shit (and not without justification). You want to be a lawyer so you can help people like you were when you were a kid - the poor, the marginalized, the struggling. But a part of you also wants to be successful - wants people to finally give you credit for being the smart, capable person you are. Some asshole works on Bay Street and makes big money - well, you know you're better than him, both because you're just as smart and logical, but also because you've had so much sand kicked in your face that you deserve a break for once, and plus you're a good person who cares about poor people, so that's why you deserve to have good things in your life for once. Look in your heart - do I have any of that wrong? When you say 10% of the stuff in this paragraph, but you say it in the way you're saying it, it is very easy for people to perceive the other 90% lurking in the subtext. Either we're seeing through you, which is annoying for you, or we're misinterpreting what we think we see, which is annoying for you. Either way, you're annoyed and you're lashing out at future colleagues and no one is having a fun time.

So when I say "we're responding to Y", Y is nuance. Y is subtext. It's not ill intent on your part or on anyone else's. It's just...we've seen the movie before.

I think you're going to be fine, for the record. I think you're going to get into law school and get less thin-skinned and do exactly what you want to do with your life, unless the anxiety and stress burns you out, which it might. But in the interim, you're going to annoy some people and be annoyed back.

[123]

4 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

First, respectfully, I don't think it's all that likely that all of those people were conclusively, beyond doubt, lying.

You and I took away radically different things from @Yogurt Baron's post. I didn't understand them to say that people are lying. I understood it more as 'people will often ask/say X, but at the heart of their post is issue Y'. For better or worse, that is what this forum does. If people ask about which UK law school maximizes their employment prospects in Canadian Big Law, the responses they'd get are that basically all Canadian JD programs are better than UK law schools for working at major Canadian firms. Because even though hypothetical OP asked a specific question, they made clear that their goal was working in Canadian big law. And the honest answer is that goal is unlikely to be met by going to the UK. 

I'm not wading into the specifics of whatever debates you've been having. I have noticed that you and other posters are accusing each other trolling and misrepresenting each other's points. I haven't been following those closely enough to know what was going on there. But I will say that I took a very different impression from the post you quoted than you. 

[CndnViking]

Definitely getting closer, but there's still a fair bit that you're reading in that I didn't remotely come near saying (and a couple that aren't entirely false, but exaggerated or whatnot. I've indicated and addressed those below.

1 hour ago, Yogurt Baron said:

Tell me if I'm wrong here. You grew up poor. You think you're pretty hot shit (and not without justification). You want to be a lawyer so you can help people like you were when you were a kid - the poor, the marginalized, the struggling. But a part of you also wants to be successful - wants people to finally give you credit for being the smart, capable person you are. Some asshole works on Bay Street and makes big money - well, you know you're better than him, both because you're just as smart and logical, but also because you've had so much sand kicked in your face that you deserve a break for once, and plus you're a good person who cares about poor people, so that's why you deserve to have good things in your life for once. 

So let me clarify.

No, I don't think I'm better than anyone. In fact, I'm hesitant to get this transparent considering how eager some people here are to ridicule and harass me, but as a show of good faith and genuine shot at understanding, here goes nothing:

I actually think remarkably little of myself. I've been interested in law conceptually since I was a kid, but would now be coming into school MUCH older than the norm because I never dreamed I was good enough until VERY recently. Even now, part of the reason I've posted so many things worrying about my admission chances, or the issues I had with the Prometric scheduler, or whatever else is because deep down I still "know" I'm not good enough, not smart enough, not REALLY deserving of the grades I have, and I'm always worried I'm about to screw it all up. So if you think I see myself as "hot shit" and superior to others (especially among groups like lawyers) you've got the wrong guy. I will absolutely push back when I think they're wrong about something, especially if its something about me, or put disrespectfully, but that's not out of a sense of superiority. If anything, it's the opposite.

I also have never said, or intended to suggest, I think the guys on Bay Street are "assholes", or don't care about anything, in fact I've specifically clarified otherwise at least twice now. It's simply not what motivates ME. I want to get into this because I've seen so many times people who were hurting couldn't find help, and each time I felt like I should have been the one to step up and help but couldn't. I'm not all that interested in big law not because I don't think it needs to exist, or because I feel too good for it, but because that's not the part of law that I feel calling to me. That's it. Big law plays an important role, and I'm glad there are people who are interested in that. I'm just not one of them. It's really no different in my mind than how some people are English/Social Studies kids and some were math/science kids. It's not that one is "better" or "worse", they're just different.

And sure I guess you could say I want to be "successful", but I think you have a very different idea of what I consider success than I actually do. If I can get out from under all the debt the education requires, live a comfortable enough life that I'm not constantly stressed about money, and maybe have a little extra to help out the people I care about when they need, that's successful to me. I don't feel the world owes me a fucking Maseratti and a penthouse condo in downtown Toronto or some shit, if that's what you're implying. 

Basically I'm saying if you want to work on Bay Street doing corporate stuff or whatever for the big bucks? Cool. All the power to ya, no judgement's here. I don't. I'd be happier in the middle class, doing more community-centered stuff. Both are important and necessary, but they appeal to different people.

As for this thread, it's not about wanting to moonlight for profit outside the system or anything like that. In fact, a number of people answered it pretty well when they said the kind of stuff I'm talking about likely wouldn't be considered doing legal work. 

Like I said, a big part of what made me want to do this was seeing people with little to nothing struggling with nobody there to help them. My reasoning for asking this is that I would feel little different if I went and got all the education, and licensing, and everything to make myself into the kind of person who could help, but I still had to turn them away because they couldn't afford to pay my boss. At that point, it would feel like I hadn't really accomplished what I set out to, ya know?

Edited October 3, 2023 by CndnViking

[Diplock]

6 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

Definitely getting closer, but there's still a fair bit you're reading a lot in that I didn't remotely come near saying (and a couple that aren't entirely false, but exaggerated or whatnot. I've 

So let me clarify.

No, I don't think I'm better than anyone. In fact, I'm hesitant to get this transparent considering how eager some people here are to ridicule and harass me, but as a show of good faith and genuine shot at understanding, here goes nothing:

I actually think remarkably little of myself. I've been interested in law conceptually since I was a kid, but would now be coming into school MUCH older than the norm because I never dreamed I was good enough until VERY recently. Even now, part of the reason I've posted so many things worrying about my admission chances, or the issues I had with the Prometric scheduler, or whatever else is because deep down I still "know" I'm not good enough, not smart enough, not REALLY deserving of the grades I have, and I'm always worried I'm about to screw it all up. So if you think I have this idea that I'm better than everybody else, holy fuck do you have the wrong guy.

I also have never said, or intended to suggest, I think the guys on Bay Street are "assholes", or don't care about anything, in fact I've specifically clarified otherwise at least twice now. It's simply not what motivates ME. I want to get into this because I've seen so many times people who were hurting couldn't find help, and each time I felt like I should have been the one to step up and help but couldn't. I'm not all that interested in big law not because I don't think it needs to exist, or because I feel too good for it, but because that's not the part of law that I feel calling to me. That's it. Big law plays an important role, and I'm glad there are people who are interested in that. I'm just not one of them. It's really no different in my mind than how some people are English/Social Studies kids and some were math/science kids. It's not that one is "better" or "worse", they're just different.

And sure I guess you could say I want to be "successful", but I think you have a very different idea of what I consider success than I actually do. If I can get out from under all the debt the education requires, live a comfortable enough life that I'm not constantly stressed about money, and maybe have a little extra to help out the people I care about when they need, that's successful to me. I don't feel the world owes me a fucking Maseratti and a penthouse condo in downtown Toronto or some shit, if that's what you're implying.

I'm going to get into this once, and only once, maybe it'll work and maybe it won't. But please remember, if I actually thought you were a waste of time I'd ignore you, not argue with you.

You do have a simplistic view of the stressors we're talking about. Not because you're stupid, and not because you're being dishonest, and not because your values are impaired. It's just a combination of youth (I know you're old for a law student, but you're younger than me I'm sure) and lack of experience in the things you are discussing here. That's why you keep saying things that tempt people to call you on them. And then for whatever reason, you keep arguing with the tone and the way people have called you on certain things, rather than engaging with the substance of their objections. If you'd just bloody stop that, you'd be arguing with fewer people and learning more.

Right now, I'm going to pick on "not constantly stressed about money." Because here's the thing. I know people making far more than I ever imagined being enough to qualify as "rich" who are stressed about money. It's not just the legal profession. It's everyone. You aren't the only person who's ever come here and said something like "I just need enough to buy a detached home in Toronto" (which seems a reasonable lifestyle ambition, from a certain viewpoint) and then has done the math on that and come up with "I just need to earn, you know, between $150-200k/year to be comfortable." From a certain perspective that's a very reasonable thing to say. But from another perspective, it will permanently constrain your professional options and pretending otherwise is absurd. You can't even "afford" to be a Member of Provincial Parliament if that's what you need to earn. Believe me, I know MPPs personally who have struggled with it - and I mean that non-ironically.

My point is, it's a real and a serious problem that mature adults can and will discuss here. It's the blitheness with which you are raising these things that makes people want to smack you. As if you're going to be immune to what we are all struggling with. I drive a dated Civic and make more money than I ever expected to make and I still stress about it. That said, I recognize I am extremely privileged and the things I stress about aren't remotely in the same category that other people stress about. I'm talking about "I'd like to be sure I max our RESPs for my kids and be able to afford nice summer camps for them" rather than "I'm worried about the cost of dental care" much less "can we afford to fill the fridge this week." There are levels to stress. But I know literally no one - and I mean no one - who is at the point where they aren't stressed about money. When you make that your goal in life, it's entirely reasonable for more experienced people who know what we know to say "buddy, you'll never stop chasing the money if that's how you define the point at which you stop." That's good advice. That's advice you NEED to hear.

Your attitude sucks, but I believe you're worth spending the time on. Just remember that.

[Jaggers]

Am I the penthouse guy? 🙂 I don't drive a Maserati, though, it's a compact hatchback.

[CndnViking]

50 minutes ago, Diplock said:

I'm going to get into this once, and only once, maybe it'll work and maybe it won't. But please remember, if I actually thought you were a waste of time I'd ignore you, not argue with you.

You do have a simplistic view of the stressors we're talking about. Not because you're stupid, and not because you're being dishonest, and not because your values are impaired. It's just a combination of youth (I know you're old for a law student, but you're younger than me I'm sure) and lack of experience in the things you are discussing here. That's why you keep saying things that tempt people to call you on them. And then for whatever reason, you keep arguing with the tone and the way people have called you on certain things, rather than engaging with the substance of their objections. If you'd just bloody stop that, you'd be arguing with fewer people and learning more.

Right now, I'm going to pick on "not constantly stressed about money." Because here's the thing. I know people making far more than I ever imagined being enough to qualify as "rich" who are stressed about money. It's not just the legal profession. It's everyone. You aren't the only person who's ever come here and said something like "I just need enough to buy a detached home in Toronto" (which seems a reasonable lifestyle ambition, from a certain viewpoint) and then has done the math on that and come up with "I just need to earn, you know, between $150-200k/year to be comfortable." From a certain perspective that's a very reasonable thing to say. But from another perspective, it will permanently constrain your professional options and pretending otherwise is absurd. You can't even "afford" to be a Member of Provincial Parliament if that's what you need to earn. Believe me, I know MPPs personally who have struggled with it - and I mean that non-ironically.

My point is, it's a real and a serious problem that mature adults can and will discuss here. It's the blitheness with which you are raising these things that makes people want to smack you. As if you're going to be immune to what we are all struggling with. I drive a dated Civic and make more money than I ever expected to make and I still stress about it. That said, I recognize I am extremely privileged and the things I stress about aren't remotely in the same category that other people stress about. I'm talking about "I'd like to be sure I max our RESPs for my kids and be able to afford nice summer camps for them" rather than "I'm worried about the cost of dental care" much less "can we afford to fill the fridge this week." There are levels to stress. But I know literally no one - and I mean no one - who is at the point where they aren't stressed about money. When you make that your goal in life, it's entirely reasonable for more experienced people who know what we know to say "buddy, you'll never stop chasing the money if that's how you define the point at which you stop." That's good advice. That's advice you NEED to hear.

Your attitude sucks, but I believe you're worth spending the time on. Just remember that.

I mean this with the utmost respect, truly, but I really believe you of all people got the wrong idea about me, and for my part in that I'm deeply and truly apologetic. I'm pretty sure this will be at least the 4th time I've said: I think you're largely right, and I appreciate it.... even if the same comment involves a lot of assumptions about me that are incorrect.

That's why I differentiated your response from CleanHands' in that first thread, because what you said was reasonable and (from what I can tell) insightful, and I appreciated it, as I do this one. I get it, and that's the sort of feedback I'm glad to hear - aside from the odd sentence about me personally that are often informed by misunderstandings.

FYI when I say "not constantly stressing about money" PERSONALLY that's a pretty low bar for me.
-You talk about wanting to be able to max out an RESP every year? I've never been able to afford to OPEN one.
-I'd love to be able to travel, but I've only been able to afford to leave the country once (in my teens, cause my parents paid for it.) 
-A check engine light in my car usually means wondering if I'll be able to afford to pay all my bills
-At many points in my life, checking my banking app was the first thing I did every morning, to see if I was in the negatives or not, so I could call the issuers of other bills and warn them if something was going to bounce.

When I say not constantly stressing, I'm talking about not having to live LIKE THAT anymore. The kind of life where I can afford to take a vacation and save for retirement and maybe have a spare room in case family comes to visit. If I can do all of that while doing work that feels meaningful? That's success in my mind, and I'd rather stick at that level than make twice as much doing work that isn't fulfilling to me.

I'm sorry if I came across ungrateful or judgmental or anything like that. I'm in the midst of a pretty stressful month, and some of the comments I've gotten on here surely didn't help, so I'm sure I haven't been at my best, but that was never the intention.

And thank you for the time and for that last line (at least after the "but"). I very much appreciate both.

Edited October 3, 2023 by CndnViking

[Jaggers]

Anyways, I'm an employment lawyer with a big firm background. But I still get my cousins calling me asking me what they should do if they signed up to be a school bus driver and their potential employer wants them to do four weeks of training and pay a thousand bucks for the privilege. And I give them an answer, though I don't give them legal advice. But the line can be hard to draw.

[CndnViking]

58 minutes ago, Jaggers said:

Anyways, I'm an employment lawyer with a big firm background. But I still get my cousins calling me asking me what they should do if they signed up to be a school bus driver and their potential employer wants them to do four weeks of training and pay a thousand bucks for the privilege. And I give them an answer, though I don't give them legal advice. But the line can be hard to draw.

Thanks, that's probably the most apt response yet to the kind of thing I was thinking of. My worry is that I go through all of this in large part to try and help people in the kinds of situations I've seen and been through, and then end up not able to help them anyway cause they can't afford to pay my employers, or something along those lines. I can see how that line would be murky (though I assume it gets more clear with experience) but just knowing that people find ways to help without running afoul of it helps.

[Hegdis]

Here’s something to keep in mind now: your good intentions will not outweigh your responsibility if things go south when you try to help people. 
 

I have only ever practised criminal law. I had a family member call me up one night begging me to show up at his union hearing in my suit because they had found a joint in his locker. He felt he was being bullied and could lose his job and not be able to feed his kids. He didn’t need me to SAY anything! Just show up you know, Be A Lawyer to scare the bullies away. Easy for me to do, right? For family? Wouldn’t even have to study up, right?
 

He still doesn’t talk to me. Because I said no. Because I understood - and he didn’t and still doesn’t - that this would be a really excellent way to fuck up his life even more AND get myself disbarred in the process. 

Once you are a lawyer people will perceive you to be smarter and more capable than they are. And if you try to help them without knowing exactly what you are doing - if you try to bluff your way through - these same people you are trying to help will throw you right under the bus when you screw up. And they should. Because part of being a lawyer is knowing when you are in over your head and just not wading out that far. 
 

Just keep that in mind as you go along. If you get into law school you will start getting those kinds of calls right away. And they never stop. You have to be very very careful not to let your good intentions take over your lack of knowledge. 

[WhoKnows]

Without wading into the other stuff brought up here, and only because Diplock made vague reference to it. Please, please, do not negotiate loans on your families behalfs. Basic loans should be bread and butter for a competent business lawyer, but you hit the walls of your competence very quickly, there are numerous pitfalls, and they are a serious source of liability. You can really, really fuck someone's life up doing them wrong.

[Jaggers]

But again, negotiating a contract or a loan can mean a whole spectrum of different things. Ordinary people negotiate these things every day without the help of a lawyer. There's lots of help you can provide without providing legal advice or holding yourself out as representing someone. You can flag things for someone to think about, ask questions about what they think they're getting into, give them information sources to look at, or tell them when they really need a lawyer to help them. All of those fall short of legal advice*.

*most of the time, but individual circumstances vary! And never tell someone that their issue is simple and they don't need a lawyer. That's legal advice and is a recipe for getting sued or an LSO complaint...

[CndnViking]

Just to be clear because multiple people seized on it, my initial post was written very casually, and thus might have given the wrong impression. I shouldn't have said "negotiating" the contact/loan. When I mentioned buying a car, I was thinking of a specific situation I myself wound up in years ago where a sketchy used car lot (which shortly there after went out of business and had the owner running from charges) had constructed deceptively predatory contracts. I, having never handled a loan contract before, knowing my lack of credit limited my options, and being young and naive, thought they all sounded reasonable at the time and signed the thing, and for years I found myself wishing I had someone who knew what they were doing to look that over and point out the things I didn't understand.

But in retrospect, I think that fits well under what others have said about this not really requiring acting as a lawyer as even now I feel far more equipped to do that than I did at that age, and while having more knowledge of contract law would certainly help, it makes sense that identifying yourself as, and proceding as, a lawyer wouldn't really be necessary.

In hindsight, it was a badly chosen example on my part.

Edited October 4, 2023 by CndnViking

[Diplock]

Let's keep this simple. Anything that isn't legal work, where a lawyer is being a lawyer, is stuff you can already do. Reading a complex document, navigating a bureaucracy, telling someone who can't do that for themselves how to get it done? Sure. But you can do that already, presumably. Anything that requires the credential of having attended law school and being licensed to practice law...you've probably crossed that line.

[123]

1 minute ago, Diplock said:

Let's keep this simple. Anything that isn't legal work, where a lawyer is being a lawyer, is stuff you can already do. Reading a complex document, navigating a bureaucracy, telling someone who can't do that for themselves how to get it done? Sure. But you can do that already, presumably. Anything that requires the credential of having attended law school and being licensed to practice law...you've probably crossed that line.

To be fair, "you can do that already" is a dangerous criteria to give applicants and students. I'll bet lots of law students and potential law students already engage in unauthorized practice of law by doling out confidently wrong legal advice! But assuming some self-awareness and basic knowledge of what legal advice is, then yes, I agree.