On a matter of significance, one shouldn’t take legal advice for their specific situation from someone off an Internet message board—whether they claim to be a lawyer or not. Even if the poster is a lawyer, they are not your lawyer, they are not speaking to your individual situation, they are probably speaking outside their field of expertise, and their Internet musings are likely not up to the standards of rigor they would apply in their day jobs. If someone is giving you what sounds like specific legal advice about your specific situation (other than to consult a lawyer), they are probably not a lawyer.
People should consult their own lawyer before taking action on a matter of significance. Ask the lawyer why they are giving the advice they are giving. People are of course free to disregard their lawyer’s advice for any reason they find appropriate, but they should at least know what the “orthodox” advice is and why it is being given.
This seem far too conservative to me. I think the advice from Molly (Open Phil’s lawyer) will likely be substantially better than the advice by random people trying to find their own lawyer (but not having much experience with choosing a good lawyer), even without access to context. Separately, law is not a magical magisterium, and “legal advice” is not a natural category. Many parts of law can be understood to a totally sufficient degree by laymen, and can be explained to each other, and indeed is often superior to talking to lawyer who are often notoriously bad at communicating certain aspects of the law (like the likelihood of enforcement of various laws).
On a matter of significance, one shouldn’t take legal advice for their specific situation from someone off an Internet message board—whether they claim to be a lawyer or not. Even if the poster is a lawyer, they are not your lawyer, they are not speaking to your individual situation, they are probably speaking outside their field of expertise, and their Internet musings are likely not up to the standards of rigor they would apply in their day jobs. If someone is giving you what sounds like specific legal advice about your specific situation (other than to consult a lawyer), they are probably not a lawyer.
People should consult their own lawyer before taking action on a matter of significance. Ask the lawyer why they are giving the advice they are giving. People are of course free to disregard their lawyer’s advice for any reason they find appropriate, but they should at least know what the “orthodox” advice is and why it is being given.
This seem far too conservative to me. I think the advice from Molly (Open Phil’s lawyer) will likely be substantially better than the advice by random people trying to find their own lawyer (but not having much experience with choosing a good lawyer), even without access to context. Separately, law is not a magical magisterium, and “legal advice” is not a natural category. Many parts of law can be understood to a totally sufficient degree by laymen, and can be explained to each other, and indeed is often superior to talking to lawyer who are often notoriously bad at communicating certain aspects of the law (like the likelihood of enforcement of various laws).