But Your Honor, Twitter Told Me So

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,

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.

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)?

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.

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:

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.

 

© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.

Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/09/27/but-your-honor-twitter-told-me-so.aspx?ref=rss

criminal lawyer criminal lawyers cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer