I'm not scolding or anything. Just trying to be helpful, honestly. So in that spirit, here's an example (not the only one) of something from your post that would likely be deemed legal advice:

"Basically, if you have been using your name prior to 2008, and can prove it, then you are in good shape. If you stared your site between 2008-2010, and they cannot prove that they started in 2008 as they claimed then you're probably in good shape. If you started your site after 2010 then you're reduced to claiming that the marks are not confusing. But you also have the fact that you already have agreement with them (and their failure to attempt to enforce their trademark rights after you changed the name of your service per the agreement) to show they've abandoned it."

In this instance, you're making a lot of conclusions about the OP's case. See for reference:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-advice/

You are, as per that definition, using "application of legal principles to facts" in order to "in effect [predict] a specific resolution of a legal issue."

Again, I'm not trying to make you feel bad or anything like that. I respect that you put in a major good faith effort to help the OP by writing your initial comment.

From the definition you've linked to (emphasis mine):

"The following is an example of one state’s definition of legal advice:

"An _attorney-client relationship exists_ and one is deemed to be practicing law whenever 'one undertakes _for compensation_, direct or indirect, to advise another, not his regular employer, in any matter involving the application of legal principles to facts or purposes or desires.'"

I'm unclear at what point nirvana entered into a client-attorney relationship with the OP, and at what point he was compensated for his legal advice.

> nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a "may" or a "it appears" or some other similar language.

That's called weasel wording.

> Nowhere did I give a single bit of legal advice.

Uh, your entire comment is how to respond to this legal threat, which is legal advice. The only advice anyone on Hacker News should ever give to someone in legal trouble is "consult an attorney", not how to consult an attorney, research to do ahead of time, bupkis.

I do not apologize for responding on the topic and attempting to help this guy. I brought up a lot of possible avenues that could be useful for him building a case.

You have merely engaged in ad hominem and quite successfully derailed the discussion. Thanks for the down vote brigade, by the way.

I must conclude that actually trying to help people on HN is not tolerated if the person attempting to help has offended someone who feels comfortable in the level of dishonesty you are.

>Rather than considering possible ways that he might build a case, as I am attempting to do, you are successfully derailing and discussion of the actual topic with your attacks and dishonesty.

It is not the author's responsibility to build the case. That's what lawyers are for. They're the ones that are supposed to build the case.

Wow. Let me respond point by point:

> You have merely engaged in ad hominem

That's the second time I've been accused of ad hominem attacks in this thread, and the second time it's been flatly wrong. An ad hominem is me refuting your point by implying that you personally are not qualified to give it. I am not refuting your point, at all, and I have been careful to do so except to generally label some of your advice bad. I am telling you to shut up and stop giving advice on a case you're not personally familiar with. You are aware that there is legal liability for YOU being created as we speak, right?

> and quite successfully derailed the discussion

Good. It needs it. Your comment in particular.

> Thanks for the down vote brigade, by the way.

This is a tall accusation, and I do not have a "down vote brigade". I downvoted your parent post and nothing else. I suggest, since you have been around the block of Hacker News a few times, that you step back and take a few breaths and think about what you're saying.

> I must conclude that actually trying to help people on HN is not tolerated if the person attempting to help has offended someone who feels comfortable in the level of dishonesty you are.

Fuck you. I seriously have no other response to that, and I'm ashamed that I've gone there, but really: fuck you, and everything you stand for, with that little remark.

Ignoring the rest of this (very, very sad) thread, this stuck out to me:

> I am telling you to shut up and stop giving advice on a case you're not personally familiar with. You are aware that there is legal liability for YOU being created as we speak, right?

Not everyone cares about creating legal liability for themselves if they believe they're doing the right thing. I've built my career (and life, for that matter) on wading neck-deep into the grey areas of the law where I firmly believed that my actions were positive. Whether or not he's creating liability for himself shouldn't be your concern.

Plus there's the fact that I wasn't giving legal advice, by any stretch.

Further, like you, I'm quite comfortable with what I've said, and I am supremely confident that no liability has attached to me in this discussion.

The claim that he's trying to protect me from such liability is a rationalization. His real intent is that he's offended that someone is talking about legal issues and he want's to shut it down.

If that weren't his motivation, why lie and claim I was giving legal advice?

I think what you're missing is that he's not lying. What you're doing could be construed as giving legal advice, with the way US laws work. That doesn't mean he's right, but I doubt he's thinking "pfft, of course it's not advice", thus lying about it. You guys may differ in opinion, but he's not lying.

Honestly, you guys are talking (screaming) past each other on about a dozen things here. Please, step away from the keyboard. Cool down. Think it through and then if you want to from there, engage in a rational discussion. Both of you are doing a disservice to this thread.

True enough. I'm more concerned with the welfare of the person who blindly follows this advice, and the liability being created for people giving him advice is a close second.

> You are aware that there is legal liability for YOU being created as we speak, right?

You keep asserting this repeatedly without citation (and are now doing so in a separate HN post you made on the issue). Kindly cite cases where damages have been successfully litigated around someone posting friendly advice in a web forum.

I have mentioned several times that I have firsthand involvement with unsolicited advice being given on the Internet resulting in consequences for people. I am simply not legally permitted to talk about it, nor will I say if I was the person found legally responsible.

Remember, a liability does not require a law, and there are such things as torts.

So your professional legal advise is to stop giving legal advise? Are you serious?

then find a case you aren't involved in? can't quote one of those either?

> Let me respond point by point:

I wish you had.

>An ad hominem is me refuting your point by implying that you personally are not qualified to give it.

Your claim that I am not a lawyer and therefore shouldn't be giving legal advice is, by definition "implying that you personally are not qualified to give it."

Now add to that ad hominem the fact that I wasn't giving legal advice, and your repeated insistence that I am, is a dishonest characterization of the argument, akin to claiming I'm not qualified to beat my wife and therefore should stop.

The fact that I'm not actually beating my wife means that your dishonesty about this is an attempt to characterize me in a derogatory fashion. Thus, personal attack as well.

>Good. It needs it. Your comment in particular.

Glad to have you on the record admitting that your intention is to block productive discussion.

>Fuck you. I seriously have no other response to that, and I'm ashamed that I've gone there, but really: fuck you, and everything you stand for, with that little remark.

It is a simple fact that you have been completely dishonest about my remark. You have been characterizing it dishonestly from the beginning, and when I pointed out that I wasn't claiming what you said I was claiming you evade the fact that this proved you to be lying by claiming those were "weasel wordS". Yes, exactly the point of "weasel words" is to emphasize that you don't know all the facts at hand and you're providing possibilities. Which, in fact, shows your claim that I am giving legal advice to be a wholesale fabrication.

You should be ashamed that you are willingly and proudly derailing a conversation whereby a poster to HN might get some advice for how to solve his problem of finding legal council.

Notice that I was attempting to help him get legal council, not giving him legal advise that would render such council unnecessary as you claim.

So, you have lied about what I have said, you have admitted trolling, and you have evaded every counter argument I have made to the point where all you're left with is "fuck you".

I suggest you consider -- just for a second-- the fact that everything I've said is true, that you went off the handle at me for the "crime" of trying to help someone, and that the entire basis for your admitted attempt to derail this thread is false.

I wasn't giving him legal advice, I was trying to help him get enough info to get a lawyer interested.

Shame on you for opposing that!

You are intentionally being disingenuous, now, because you're upset. That's fairly transparent in your reply. Multiple people have told you that you are giving legal advice, and suggested that you stop, and pointed out how I am correct, and yet you're sticking to your guns that I'm a troll.

I can't even begin to attack the amount of stupid in this comment, so I'm cutting my losses, adding your name and company mentally to my personal blacklist for doing business or hiring, and getting out of the thread before this consumes even more of my time.

>You are intentionally being disingenuous, now, because you're upset.

I think curious is the appropriate word to describe my mental state. HN is populated by people who should be able to think fairly logically-- I would assume more logically than the general population.

I understand why you made the false claim originally, and why you have chosen to characterize me in a derogatory fashion at every turn, including this last missive.

What I cannot fathom is why you feel so compelled to prevent productive discussion that you would impeach your own integrity with a lie? Or why, having never supported that lie, failed to provide even a single quote from my post showing me giving legal advice?

Or why, having had this refuted repeatedly you are sticking to your guns. Surely an understanding of logic must compel you to recognize that you cannot provide any evidence of me giving legal advice, let alone attaching liability to myself.

I think its hilarious that your thesis has that lawyers can say "this is not legal advice" as a disclaimer but non-lawyers cannot. But maybe I'm wrong? If you're right, you should be able to provide evidence. You have never done so, as you have never done so for any of your claims.

Again where you have an opportunity pursuade me by providing evidence you choose not to. Hell, even if I rejected that evidence you could have more confidence in your own position.

Why have you not even meet such a low bar for evidence as that, yet you feel comfortable characterizing me?

I am having to guess that you are not equipped to engage in logical debate. I'm curious as to why this is, and why this seems to not be uncommon on HN. I don't observe this phenomena among people of my age group.

----

Responding to your deleted response:

Here's what you actually said: " you just wrote an essay full of legal advice, including conclusions on how the proceedings will go"

All of which is false. Making your claim that the disclaimer is toothless irrelevant. Further, post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

For those of you watching this unfold and wondering what "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" means, check this clip (from The West Wing) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL_vHDjG5Wk/

(I would also like to say that this is in no way legal advice and should only be used as background material in research) I had to :)

You did give legal advice, dude. Here's some legal advice for you to protect yourself in the future, a disclaimer you can place before you do something similar in the future: "The following [X] is/are not legal advice. It/They is/are intended as background material for use in preparing to knowledgeably discuss the situation with the lawyer who will be representing you in this matter."

I know for a fact that this language is sufficient in the Sixth Circuit. YMMV, but a disclaimer is a very handy way to shield yourself. Jsprinkles may disagree, but I've seen and handled cases in which disclaimers were the only thing saving someone from a ruinous malpractice suit for stuff they posted online (or published).

No, I agree, I just think relying solely upon a disclaimer is dangerous. I certainly respect your take more than my own, though, as you do it for a living, and I'm definitely paying attention.

Nirvana, the issue is that you are providing a specific application of laws and rules to the OP's facts and suggesting a specific course of legal action. That is, by definition, the practice of law in every state in America. (Though perhaps not necessarily rising to the level of unauthorized practice, which could result in fines or other penalties.)

If you wanted to be on the safe side, you would have said "Generally, [Law X] says" or "Generally, in a situation like this, many people do [Y]."

In your specific case, I would have said, "Prior to hiring to a lawyer, if you do the following research, you'll be well prepared to talk to whatever attorney you select to represent you in this matter." All of your comment is no longer legal advice, it's merely information about how to prepare to knowledgeably talk to a lawyer who will handle the actual representation. (This could be construed as legal advice. IAAL.)

My understanding is that the "practice of law" is to essentially act as a lawyer. In the United States, every citizen is guaranteed the right to practice law in their own defense. "Practice of law" on someone else's behalf when you are not a lawyer may incur fines, as most jurisdictions try to protect their citizens from being represented by someone who has no idea what they're doing. The line between talking about someone's legal troubles and "practicing law" are somewhat fuzzy, however. Is it really that common for someone who has not represented themselves as an attorney to be held accountable for providing bad legal advice in a posting on a message board?

Yes, in their own defense, but not in the defense of others unless they are licensed to practice.

I have heard of a handful of cases (related to immigration law) where persons who offered legal advice were held accountable for providing bad advice online. They did not hold themselves out to be lawyers, but they did hold themselves out to be knowledgeable about immigration law. It's not common for people to be held accountable for this because not many people go so far as to cross the line into "unauthorized practice."

It seems that one of the tests is whether the person offering legal advice is being compensated somehow, and another is whether there is some kind of ongoing relationship. (I'm imagining a scenario where someone offered their services as an "immigration consultant" for a fee, for example, and they made promises that they could help you navigate the red tape of immigration.)

Maybe if one posted enough legal advice on a message board like this one, some kind of pattern could be established, and the person could get into some legal trouble.