At the Trial Warrior Blog, Antonin Pribetic writes about an idea so novel, so daring, so outrageous, that it’s got to capture the imagination of someone. Just not Nino.
In his post over at Legal Cheek, “Twitter Set To Drive ‘Free-Of-Charge Ferrari Through The Horse And Cart World Of Law’, i@n davison (trendily pronounced iatn”) forecasts a ”Twitter legal advice experiment taking place today could prove a turning point for the way legal services are delivered”. Davison writes,Built into this daring concept are two wholly unrelated, yet entirely curious, notions. The first is that the advice is free. Ask and get an answer. No cash, no check, not even Paypal needed. The law belongs to all of us, so why shouldn’t it be free? i@n davison (his spelling) explains the disruption in the force:In a few hours, family lawyer Lisa Collins, of Colchester law firm Birkett Long Solicitors, will take to Twitter to offer free legal advice. The pioneering session, which takes place today between 12pm and 2pm, will cover conventional family law matters, plus issues faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.Well, the question is not “why pay for legal services when they can be provided for free on Twitter”?, but rather “who in their right mind would pay for free legal advice on Twitter?” There’s no such thing as a free lunch, when someone else has to pick up the tab.
One question springs to mind: why pay for legal services when they can be provided for free on Twitter by lawyers like Collins who live in low cost areas of the country like Essex (where they can be sustained by their savings and practise law as a hobby)?
Ten years ago, the internet suddenly made music free, shredding the business model of the music industry. A similar thing happened to journalism soon after, as newspapers – facing competition from blogs – were forced to place their content online for free. That same disruptive force now seems set to wreak havoc on law.
Of course, his facts are a little wrong. The folks who shared music got in big trouble for doing so. Then came iTunes which charged $1 for a song, and that was a disruptive force that turned out to work pretty well. As for journalism, he appears unaware of the business model, which relied on advertising rather than subscriptions to earn income, such that more readers meant higher ad rates.
The question of “why pay” turned out to be his bottom line argument. The snarky answer is “why not?” since it’s a pretty silly question on its face, but it wouldn’t be a helpful answer anymore than “why pay” is a good argument in favor. The answer is that this is how lawyers, who have to eat too, not to mention go to and pay for law school, earn a living. Everyone could give everything away, but it creates some economic issues that would likely mean there would be no iPhone 6. If that happened, could i@n live with himself?
But there is a second problem with the concept, and one that is far more disturbing than the disruption in the economy caused by someone who prefers to play lawyer as a hobby than a vocation. Can twitter serve as an adequate medium for the transmittal of sound legal advice?
Before addressing the primary question, a bit of foundational perspective. In my view, the written word is an exceptionally imperfect medium for communication, which no doubt sounds disingenuous from a guy who writes as much as me. But most people are very imprecise in their writing. They are similarly imprecise in their ability to comprehend what others write. It depends on the ability of both sides to convey a message and receive a message clearly, which is by no means easy.
The problem with writings is that one can never be certain that they message conveyed is the one received. For the most part, it’s not critical. If it happens with a blawg, no harm done. This isn’t a substitute for competent legal advice, but just a blawg. While legitimate blawgers may try their best to provide helpful information, there is no legitimate blawger who believes his posts offer an alternative to the personal and individualized advice and counsel of a good lawyer. None.
Then comes the deeper level of concern, that even the “I just have a quick question” phone calls regularly turn into a half hour of one’s life. They require poking and prodding, details, background, circumstances and context in order to provide a reasonably accurate response. Lawyers can’t rely on the person asking the question to be accurate; that’s our job, not theirs.
Are there simple questions? Sure. Is a police officer constitutionally required to inform a person at the time of arrest of the crime for which she is being arrested? No. If a cop fails to give Miranda warnings at the time of arrest, does that mean the arrest is unlawful? No. If it doesn’t say “In God We Trust” over the judge’s bench, does that make the proceedings unlawful? No.
Is that what i@n is talking about? If so, then maybe Twitter is the right medium.
But if anyone has a question that goes beyond that, the use of an electronic forum which limits twits to 140 characters is inane. More to the point, any lawyer risking the welfare of another because they want to be an innovator using a medium that can’t pass muster under even the most superficial grasp of their responsibilities presents an entirely different issue. Trying to come up with the next big thing, something novel that will distinguish you from the mass of lawyers doing what lawyers always did is.
There is a large and loud fan base on the internet for novelty, and for lawyers trying to become a “thought leader” among the innovators, the opportunity is tempting. By combining it with something we all know that non-lawyers love, free legal advice, the chance of it being embraced is hugely enhanced. If people love it, doesn’t that make it a winning combination?
No. Our responsibility isn’t contingent on things that make the people asking us questions happy. It’s doesn’t depend on ease of use. If you want to play lawyer for free, that’s your call. Nobody requires you to charge for your advice. But that doesn’t mean 140 characters is good enough.
And to the happy person who got his legal advice off twitter, consider what you will say when it doesn’t fly with the judge, and he asks “who told you that was a good idea?” No, legal advice on twitter is not a good idea. Not at all.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
For what it’s worth, this experiment appears to have been a complete flop. Only one user asked a question publicly, although I suppose she might have gotten a ton of DMs.
I thought about raising the issue of confidentiality, but saw that there was some suggestion that questions had come in via DMs. I’m not quite sure how that would work, since she would have to be following someone to get a DM from them, but whatever.
Regardless, once the seed of an idea like this is planted, there will be some fool who latches onto it because they want to be an innovator, thought leader or chief of their own tribe. You know how that works.
Edit: Nino was kind enough to send me a link that explains why even DMs aren’t private.
“The Law” is pretty free, eh? You can look up the Ohio Revised Code, find “the law,” run a search for “mechanics lien” and get a bunch of hits- the analogy which fits better, to me, is me in a hardware store, buying a hot water heater – I can buy one – I have no idea whether its the right one, a good one or a bad one – and I have absolutely no idea how to install one so that it works, it is up to “Code,” whatever that means and won’t burn, or flood, the house… I could rely on a 140 character response to my questions – but then I’d be an idiot – as would anyone relying on 140 characters of legal advice…
Any lawyer who thinks she/he can tweet 140 characters of legal advice might as well just have a perpetual “notice” for their malpractice carrier in the hopper and send one out with every tweet – the 893 characters I’ve used here have already opened me up to too much scrutiny…
So how’s your side business consulting on water heater installations coming? Heh.
the water heater biz? it’s blowing up!
The thing that comes to my mind about this is how the friendly, helpful, Twittering lawyer can be licensed to practice law everywhere Twitter reaches.
Isn’t Ms Collins, Esq. courting sanctions from the Bar? Maybe the Bar in the UK works differently…
Once someone asked me “How will we know when the practice of law has truly hit rock bottom.”
Jokingly, my answer was “When lawyers start giving legal advice over Twitter.”
And we had a chuckle.
Now this is real life.
There is no such thing as jurisdiction on twitter. It takes up too many characters.
And Leo says you can’t tell a joke to save your life.
One of the things that’s never discussed is the real reason that lawyers are looking for new and “inventive” ways to practice law – they can’t do it the way it’s been done. They can’t afford to buy anything other than an iPhone or iPad and so they use the “we are helping the masses” argument to cover up for the fact that they are simply finding a cheap (not inexpensive) way to practice law.
This is the problem – these lawyers clothe themselves in the notion that they are providing access to people that would not have access to lawyers when what they are really doing is finding a cheap way to make money.
Now I have to go on twitter and tell people whether to plea guilty.
Nobody told me today was blind squirrel day. Now I have to go check my clocks to make sure they’re running. I hate it when you say something deep and thoughtful.
Do you know that squirrels can’t see the color red? I learned that at an MRI clinic yesterday.
Stop it! You’re destroying my entire worldview. Why were you at an MRI clinic yesterday, and what did they do to the Tannebaum we know and love?