legal-terms
Why is everyone affraid to give &quot;legal advice&quot;? What is the difference between legal advice and personal opinion?
<p>Why is it illegal to give your opinion/advice about a legal problem or case if you are not licensed or do not have a lawyer/client contract?   </p>

<p><a href="https://hirealawyer.findlaw.com/do-you-need-a-lawyer/what-is-legal-advice.html" rel="noreferrer">Findlaw - What is Legal Advice page</a> says it's ok if you are just a friend, or if you give general information but not to a specific case.  </p>

<p>The reason I am asking is because as I look at it for the first time, it sounds a bit in contradiction with the principle of free speech, or the right to engage in a free <em>non-binding</em> exchange of opinions.       </p>

<p>If the main reason is that you may be "dangerously wrong", why isn't the same logic applied to every other aspect of life like cooking, how to fix the foundation of your house.. etc? Putting wrong ingredients in your recipe can poison you. A weak foundation may cause your house to collapse and kill you.  </p>

<p>Edit:  </p>

<p>Why do many explanations about the meaning of "legal advice" include representing someone in court? To me, an advice is more like giving someone an opinion than actually doing something for them. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Why is everyone afraid to give “legal advice”?</p>
</blockquote>

<ol>
<li>It may be illegal to give legal advice if you are not authorised to do so by the regulator. In New Zealand, providing legal advice without being a lawyer may result in <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0001/latest/DLM365762.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a fine up to NZ$50,000</a>.</li>
<li>The person who received the advice could later claim damages for wrong/bad advice. They may not necessarily succeed in this claim but headache is guaranteed.</li>
</ol>

<blockquote>
  <p>What is the difference between legal advice and personal opinion?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Largely depends on the jurisdiction, wording of the corresponding laws and circumstances of the advice/opinion.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>why isn't the same logic applied to every other aspect of life like
  cooking, how to fix the foundation of your house.. etc? Putting wrong
  ingredients in your recipe can poison you. A weak foundation may cause
  your house to collapse and kill you.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The question "why" is not really supposed to be answered on this site. But because I am giving answers to the two questions above, I will comment on this one too:</p>

<p>Laws are written by lawyers. They are often lobbied by lawyers too, especially laws about lawyers and who can give legal advice. Lawyers are directly interested in limiting general public access to the market of legal advice: it simply makes their job more comfortable and highly paid.</p>

<p>Note that this depends on the jurisdiction. In <a href="/questions/tagged/england-and-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" rel="tag">england-and-wales</a>, it is <strong>not</strong> illegal to give legal advice other than in specific cases.</p>
<h2>Reserved and non-reserved legal activities</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/29/section/14" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 14(1) of the Legal Services Act 2007</a> provides that you need to be entitled to carry out &quot;<em>reserved legal activities</em>&quot;. Entitled here means that are either authorised or exempt in accordance with <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/29/section/13" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section 13</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/29/section/12" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 12(1)</a> provides:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In this Act “reserved legal activity” means (a) the exercise of a
right of audience; (b) the conduct of litigation; (c) reserved
instrument activities;(d) probate activities; (e) notarial activities;
(f) the administration of oaths.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/29/section/12" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 12(3)</a> defines legal activities as (emphasis added):</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>(a) an activity which is a reserved legal activity</strong> within the meaning
of this Act as originally enacted, and <strong>(b) any other activity which
consists of one or both of the following (i) the provision of legal
advice</strong> or assistance in connection with the application of the law or
with any form of resolution of legal disputes; (ii) the provision of
representation in connection with any matter concerning the
application of the law or any form of resolution of legal disputes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, legal advice is a legal activity but not a reserved legal activity and as a general rule can therefore be carried out without authorisation.</p>
<p>This general rule is subject to a couple of exceptions.</p>
<h2>Immigration advice</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/33/section/84" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 84(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999</a> provides that &quot;<em>no person may provide immigration advice or immigration services unless he is a qualified person.</em>&quot; In this context, giving general advice is fine; it's giving advice which relates to a particular individual in relation to certain types of immigration matters (e.g. asylum claims, citizenship applications) which is prohibited. See the definition of &quot;immigration advice&quot; and &quot;relevant matters&quot; in <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/33/section/82" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section 82(1)</a> for more details.</p>
<p>There are exceptions to this exception (i.e. circumstances in which you <em>can</em> give immigration advice without being qualified) as set out in <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/33/section/84" rel="nofollow noreferrer">section 84(4)(d)</a> and various secondary legislation passed in accordance with that section, but none of them are likely to be relevant to an average layperson.</p>
<h2>Claims management activities</h2>
<p>Certain types of legal advice are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/8/section/19" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 19(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000</a> provides:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>No person may carry on a regulated activity in the United Kingdom, or
purport to do so, unless he is (a) an authorised person; or (b) an
exempt person.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/8/section/22" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 22(1B)</a> provides that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>An activity is also a regulated activity for the purposes of this Act
if it is an activity of a specified kind which (a) is carried on by
way of business in Great Britain, and (b) is, or relates to, claims
management services</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/8/section/22" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 22(5)</a> provides that &quot;<em>'Specified' means specified in an order made by the Treasury</em>&quot;. <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/544/part/3B" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Articles 89F(1) and 89H - 89M of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regualted Activities) Order 2001</a> provide that &quot;<em>advising a claimant or potential claimant</em>&quot; is a specified activity in relation to the following:</p>
<ul>
<li>Personal injury claims</li>
<li>Financial services or financial product claims</li>
<li>Housing disrepair claims</li>
<li>Claims for a &quot;specified benefit&quot; (see <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/544/article/89F" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Article 89(f)(2)(f)</a> for what this means)</li>
<li>Criminal injury claims</li>
<li>Employment related claims</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/544/part/3B/crossheading/2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Exceptions exist</a> (subject to various conditions) for legal professionals, charities, and other categories again not likely to be relevant for average laypersons.</p>
<p>Note that &quot;<em>carried on by way of business</em>&quot; above means that it is legal to give claims management advice to your friend or relative etc. so long as you are not doing so commercially.</p>
<h2>Other considerations</h2>
<p>Just because you <em>can</em> give legal advice doesn't necessary mean that you <em>should</em>. There is a lot that can go wrong for a layperson who (perhaps after some Google research) may believe they understand the law. Professionals maintain expensive subscriptions to databases such as <a href="https://uk.westlaw.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Westlaw</a> and <a href="https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Practical Law</a> in order to fully research their topics of expertise, including all relevant statutory provisions and case law. The law is constantly evolving and what was good law yesterday can be reversed by a new statute or a higher court. The legal databases are kept up to date in a way that is almost impossible for a layperson to achieve by themselves. While free alternatives exist such as <a href="https://www.bailii.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">BAILLI</a> for cases and <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.legislation.gov.uk/</a> for statutes, the former has a lot of gaps and the latter contains many out-of-date provisions which have subsequently been amended or repealed but not updated on the site. I'm not aware of any free resources (for English law) which are of a high enough quality for a professional to rely on.</p>
<p>If you're giving legal advice commercially as a non-qualified person, then you are probably dealing with consumers as your clients (since businesses are more likely to want someone profesionally qualified). Sections <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/49" rel="nofollow noreferrer">49(1)</a> and <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/57" rel="nofollow noreferrer">57(1)</a> of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provide that &quot;<em>every contract to supply a service is to be treated as including a term that the trader must perform the service with reasonable care and skill</em>&quot; and &quot;<em>a term of a contract to supply services is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would exclude the trader's liability arising under section 49 (service to be performed with reasonable care and skill).</em>&quot;</p>
<p>In my view you are unlikely to be able to provide legal advice with reasonable care and skill unless at a minimum you have some legal training and access to up-to-date databases. It's certainly possible to do that without being legally qualified - that's what the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralegal" rel="nofollow noreferrer">paralegal profession</a> is.</p>

<p>Practice of law is a regulated industry, just like the practice of medicine, engineering, auctioneering, real estate, fire sprinkler system contractors, embalming, barbering, architecture and acupuncture. The fundamental rationale for such regulations is to "keep everyone safe". It's not that you cannot stick needle in to yourself or into friends, it's that you can't make a business of it. The history of business regulation is long and not particularly germane to Law SE.</p>

<p>The inclusion of law in the set of regulated industries is not capricious: it is founded on the correct observation that there are right and wrong ways to engage in the trade, and the degree of harm that might result from incompetent application of the art  is rather high in the case of law, compared to geology (which is <em>also</em> a regulated industry, at least in Washington).</p>

<p>Whether or not it is illegal to give an opinion about a legal question remains to be seen. In Washington, unlicensed practice of law does not preclude telling people what you think the law says.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Why is it illegal to give your opinion/advice about a legal problem or
case if you are not licensed or do not have a lawyer/client contract?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <em>official</em> &quot;reason&quot; is consistently articulated by <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/196718928ad2d1611145" rel="nofollow noreferrer">U.S. courts</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Protection of the members of the lay public of our State, when they
seek legal advice — and that is what defendant purported to furnish —
is the basis of the requirements of licensing of attorneys by the
State, and this protection must be deemed to embrace whatever kind of
law or legal rights the layman seeks advice on</p>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>The reasonable protection of those rights, as well as the property of
those served, requires that the persons providing such services be
licensed members of the legal profession</p>
<p>[...]</p>
<p>And all of this with but one purpose in view and that to protect the
public from ignorance, inexperience and unscrupulousness</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Again, that is the &quot;official&quot; answer or &quot;reason&quot;.</p>
<p>However, it is naive to pretend that licensed membership effectively protects the public from ignorance, inexperience and unscrupulousness. Lawyers will give me downvotes for saying this, but many instances of legal malpractice and incompetence are not duly sanctioned, let alone reversed. Oftentimes a layman just wants to be done with his legal troubles, and therefore he will not even report any unscrupulous lawyer(s) who got involved in his matter. The public knows that, and so do the lawyers.</p>
<p>Furthermore, nowadays legislative provisions, rules of procedure, court decisions, and law journals are available online for free. Thus, a person who is neither illiterate nor <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">functionally illiterate</a> has the ability to verify the accuracy of the &quot;advice&quot; provided to him. Becoming well-versed in legal doctrines and hermeneutics does not happen overnight, but it is definitely more feasible than members of the legal &quot;profession&quot; are willing to admit.</p>
<p>The ulterior motive is as pointed out in the last sentence of <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/37417/why-is-everyone-affraid-to-give-legal-advice-what-is-the-difference-between-l/37425#37425">Greendrake's answer</a>. The legal &quot;profession&quot; becomes less profitable if more people become knowledgeable enough to prescind from a lawyer. An informed, verifiable advice on the person's problem can provide that person a starting point toward prescinding from attorneys, or at least give him elements with which to filter out some incompetent ones.</p>
