> I am not a lawyer, and this blogpost does not constitute legal advice.
And here I was about to do just that - get some professional legal advice from a random blog post...
And here I was about to do just that - get some professional legal advice from a random blog post...
that's obviously false, nothing could protect anyone from being threatened (nor from some frivolous lawsuit), and to do CBA you'd need to actually do analysis of what the benefit is
(also, where is your legal liability disclaimer if it's clearly worthwhile? You've made a public legal assessment of the op's legal liability disclaimer)
Apologies - I assumed you had the ability to read between the lines that they were "protected" in the sense that they could safely ignore any such threat because they could be confident that it would fail, whereas without this protection they might feel vulnerable enough to need to defend themselves with it.
"[frivolous litigation] includes presenting an argument with reason to know that it would certainly faill (Wikipedia)
So again, no magic disclaimers can help you here, you still face the risks that someone is going to impose (or threat to impose) the burden of legal proceedings regardless of legal merit on you
> Legal advice requires:
> Education, knowledge, and experience in areas of the law
> The ability and experience to apply that knowledge to specific fact patterns
> An understanding of how the application of the law affects the client's legal rights
> Practical expertise in writing legal documents or other documents to support the client's position
> State or federal licenses that allow legal representation in court
Whether you write "this is not legal advice" or not has absolutely no bearing on whether it actually is legal advice or not. The phrase is used by actual lawyers when they don't want to mislead the general public about thinking that the legal information they provide is legal advice. Non-lawyers use it to feel fancy and sophisticated.
Still, though - the original statement wasn't false, it _wasn't_ legal advice, and the clarification did make that clear in such a way that a reader couldn't be confused into thinking that it was reliable. So - it wasn't a _useless_ thing to write, as the original commenter implied, even if it doesn't have legal weight as I mistakenly thought.