"Phil Kane" wrote in
ganews.com:

On 24 Dec 2004 14:35:46 GMT, Alun wrote:

One of the first questions on the Bar Admission form in most if not
all states is whether you have ever been prosecuted for the
unlicensed practice of law (which includes giving legal opinions
and interpretations to others).

Phil, you know as well as anyone that a post on a newsgroup is not a
legal opinion.

You know that, I know that, but does the person who is foolish
enough to joust with a better-armed person know that??


So, you're bluffing him?

I have studied the rules covering UPL (unauthorised practice of law) quite
extensively, the reason being that I'm a patent agent and it's a constant
concern for me. My licence authorises me to perform services that generally
are the practice of law, and that's no problem as such, as it's a federal
licence (federal trumps state!). Potential problems arise over certain
services that may or may not be covered by the licence, and/or may or may
not be the practice of law.

The UPL rules vary enormously from state to state. In some states, such as
here in MD, the rules are quite specific, and in some others there are
vague statutes but case law provides a definition of the practice of law.
Generally, however, it seems that providing a legal opinion is the practice
of law, except in Utah!

Other things that law school professors deem to be the practice of law may
or not be, depending on state law. For example, drafting a contract is the
practice of law in many (but not all) states, but if standard forms are
used then it is often still not the practice of law, and here in MD it is
only the practice of law if the contract is for real estate, and not merely
for personal property, at least AFAIK.

Getting back to legal opinions, there has been no practice of law unless
what has been given really is a legal opinion. Generally, there must have
been some consideration (payment!), or failing that, at least some form of
client relationship, which doesn't normally exist in Usenet postings. As
you said, you know that, I know that, but others may not.

One loses that one anyhow by using the "eff" word, indicating a
basic inability to deliver a convincing argument in polite society.

I agree that using the F word is inappropriate, and usually the resort of
someone who has already lost the argument.

I didn't even want to get into the fact that "microbroadcasting" is
really a cover name for the movement to legalize unlawful i.e.
pirate/unlicensed/unlawful broadcasting.....


There is a legitimate argument in favour of licence free broadcasting at
low power levels. You would know the details far better than I do, but I
think the lowest class of broadcasting licence in the US authorises 5kW. I
have known people who were involved in pirate broadcasting at much lower
power levels, say 50 or 100W, and who were not making any money atall from
doing so, just doing it for it's own sake. I could almost have been tempted
to join them if I didn't have a ham licence to put at risk.

Who's to say there isn't a place for that kind of thing? Most of the
proposals I have seen don't really fit very well, though, as they have
talked about 'community' broadcasting with 'community' content, whereas
most of the pirates tend to be music stations, even those who are low power
and carry no ads.

I paid my dues on that battle, and anyhow I have better things to do
than to keep trying to educate the obviously education-resistant. I
may even do some serious ham radio this weekend....

Enjoy the holidays.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane




Happy New Year!

73 de Alun, N3KIP