A question for attorneys, or anyone with a basic knowledge in law.

[Ataturk]

Originally Posted by yirayira

If your BAC is 0.8 you're dead.

Heh, yeah, good catch.

Pennsylvania . . . specifically criminalizes having a BAC of a certain level (.08 or over) within 2 hours of the last time of driving.

Interesting.

 

[otc]

Originally Posted by HEWSINATOR

***Not legal advice and not to be relied on

Why haven't you lawyers figured this out? I can see non-lawyers having to put up with the hassle of putting a disclaimer before everything that might be construed as legal advice but you would think the lawyers would get tired of it.

Can't you guys figure out some de facto rule where legal advice given on a online forum amongst pseudo-anonymous people is not in any way similar to giving actual direction to a paying client (and lets face it, advice is being given here...you just don't want responsibility for it)...

 

[DNW]

Originally Posted by otc

Why haven't you lawyers figured this out? I can see non-lawyers having to put up with the hassle of putting a disclaimer before everything that might be construed as legal advice but you would think the lawyers would get tired of it.

Can't you guys figure out some de facto rule where legal advice given on a online forum amongst pseudo-anonymous people is not in any way similar to giving actual direction to a paying client (and lets face it, advice is being given here...you just don't want responsibility for it)...

It's actually the non-lawyers who can say whatever they want without having to fear repercussions.

It's been drilled into our heads since day 1 of law school that stupid people will rely on things you say just because you're a lawyer, and as such, you might be liable for people misinterpreting what you say or apply it in a different context.

There's always a case or two every now and again about some lawyers being sued for giving advice on some online forum. I suppose the disclaimer doesn't really provide much of a defense, but it makes me feel better.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by Ataturk

That's...unusual. What's the rationale? I'm curious--do you have a cite? Or is it a statutory thing?
State v. Tischio, 107 N.J. 504; State v. Weber, 220 N.J. Super. 420; State v. Downie, 117 N.J. 450; State v. Snyder, 337 N.J. Super. 59; State v. Bernhardt, 245 N.J. Super. 210. All of these cases say that as long as the breath test is administered within a reasonable time after defendant operated the motor vehicle, extrapolation evidence is inadmissible. According to the Court in Tischio: "Those who drive after drinking enough alcohol to ultimately result in a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of the statutory limit are a menace to themselves and to all others who use the roadways of this State. There is no rational reason why prosecution of these individuals must depend upon the entirely fortuitous circumstance of the time they were apprehended by the police...an interpretation of the statute that would require or permit extrapolation evidence would produce anomalous results inconsistent with the intent of the Legislature."

 

[Trenditional]

I'm wondering how much a "pinch" over the legal limit is?

 

[HEWSINATOR]

Originally Posted by DNW

It's actually the non-lawyers who can say whatever they want without having to fear repercussions.

It's been drilled into our heads since day 1 of law school that stupid people will rely on things you say just because you're a lawyer, and as such, you might be liable for people misinterpreting what you say or apply it in a different context.

There's always a case or two every now and again about some lawyers being sued for giving advice on some online forum. I suppose the disclaimer doesn't really provide much of a defense, but it makes me feel better.

If you specifically say not to rely on you do not think it would provide much of a defence? I put it there because it is not advice, but information that may be wrong. So, as such, do not rely on my musings on an online forum. And, I am not a lawyer.

 

[otc]

Of course that is the problem with lawyers (and/or the people who hire lawyers to sue people for things that are really their own stupid mistake) in this country...we shouldn't need reminders that something said in a casual conversation is not the same as well researched legal advice or giant warning signs on obvious dangers.

 

[FLMountainMan]

Originally Posted by otc

Of course that is the problem with lawyers (and/or the people who hire lawyers to sue people for things that are really their own stupid mistake) in this country...we shouldn't need reminders that something said in a casual conversation is not the same as well researched legal advice or giant warning signs on obvious dangers.

People are stupid and will look for someone to blame when ings go wrong. Attorneys are a good scapegoat. Keep in mind, it's usually not lawyers that come up with the idea for a stupid lawsuit, it's a plaintiff. Additionally, what if an attorney decides to spread disinformation?

Hell, I did something mind-numbingly stupid the other day. I'm working on a friend's divorce (pro bono and he's getting what he paid for

) and another friend asked me how it was going. I filled my other friend in on how it was going until I suddenly realized I was breaching Chris' (the divorcee) confidentiality and stopped. Luckily, Chris and the other friend are really close and Chris is open, but I still felt like an ass.

It's best to make it absolutely clear to everyone not to rely on a lawyer's advice unless you're an actual client.

 

[MarkI]

Met with my attorney today.

Seeing as its my first offense and im under 21 its pretty much cut and dry.

Im expected to get a under 21 plea deal, meaning if i complete 6 months of "therapy" they will reduce it to what amounts to a traffic violation.

liscense revoked for about a year

a grand in fines and fees etc

not to mention paying for the lawyer.

could be worse, could also be better. whatever, a good wake up call for an 18 year old.

 

[otc]

On a related note, what's the deal with those confidentiality notices in emails?

Some people at work have them and some of our law firms seem to like to attach them...if you bonehead out and send me an email with confidential information, is there really any expectation that I actually immediately delete it and never disclose/copy/distribute it or is this just some mumbo jumbo thrown on there to catch people who don't know better.

I mean...if the email is addressed to *me* and I have never entered into any sort of confidentiality agreement or signed any contract (not to mention that email is a plaintext unencrypted medium), how can I be responsible for deleting it?

Of course the winner bit is that it always starts with something like "*may* be confidential...disclosure *could* be prohibited" and ends with something like "thanks for cooperating." Makes me think they actually have no clue what they are talking about and they just want to scare people who are worried by big words and lawyer speak.

 

[z7f9q]

Originally Posted by otc

Of course the winner bit is that it always starts with something like "*may* be confidential...disclosure *could* be prohibited" and ends with something like "thanks for cooperating." Makes me think they actually have no clue what they are talking about and they just want to scare people who are worried by big words and lawyer speak.

I don't think it makes an iota of difference, myself. Maybe, remotely, it'll help out, but I doubt it.

As far as advice on the internet goes, I don't think a reasonable person would rely on anonymous internet advice. Then again, a disclaimer might save a foolish lawsuit, so again, no harm no foul.

 

[Reevolving]

Originally Posted by odoreater

There are lots of defenses to a DUI, regardless of what you blew. In fact, I've beaten 3 DUIs this month. Them spelling your name wrong on the ticket is not a defense. Hire a lawyer. If this happened in New Jersey, hire me.

We gotta hear how you beat 3.

 

[crazyquik]

Originally Posted by Reevolving

We gotta hear how you beat 3.

OE; did you request to examine/subpoena the technician who calibrated the breathalyzer? It seems the news coming out of Washington DC is that they failed to maintain their breathalyzers for a while, and some would give a 20% erroneous reading (someone who was really a .07 could end up blowing nearly a .09).

 

[odoreater]

Here is how I was beating them: In New Jersey, the State police was ******* up by only doing their calculations to three decimal points. Each time blowing into the machine measures your BAC using two different methods (the machine has an infrared optical sensor that takes one reading and an electrochemical sensor that takes a second reading), and you need two valid blows for the machine to calculate a valid BAC, so that means you have 4 readings (two valid blows x 2 ways of measuring for each blow). All four of those readings have to be within a certain tolerance of each other. The highest reading cannot be higher than the mean+ 0.005% and the lowest reading cannot be lower than the mean -0.005%. Well, it turned out that in some cases, when you did the calculations to three decimal points and the readings were done to three decimal points, it seemed like they were in tolerance, but if you did the calculation out to four decimal points, the readings were not in tolerance. Here's an example from an actual case. The four readings for the client were 0.103, 0.102, 0.093, 0.094. When the State police did their calculations to three decimal points, they found that the high tolerance was 0.103, so they determined that the reading was valid because none of the four readings are higher than 0.103. But let's see what happens when you do the calculations to more decimal points: The sum of the four readings is: 0.391 The arithmetic mean is: 0.09775 The upper tolerance is: (mean x 1.05): 0.102638 The lower tolerance is: (mean x 0.95): 0.009286 So, if you look at the highest reading (0.103) it is higher than the upper tolerance (0.1026). That means that the reading is unreliable and must be thrown out. Voila, case beaten.

 

[BP348]

Originally Posted by FLMountainMan

One of our funnier quirks is that they can't draw blood from you without your consent. However, if you are unconscious by reason of intoxication, they assume you consent to the blood test. So don't pass out!

I know in my city they advertise before certain weekends, mostly the big drinking weekends, that between certain dates they can draw blood from any suspected DUI whether you consent or not.