Talk:IANAL

[Retrofitted section for contribs from users who mistake WP talk pages for a ListServ]

DIgg is so much better than slashdot
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.92.128 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2006‎

[Talk editors just wanna have fun]

I added the link to wikipedia:legal advice so that if people say "blah blah blah, but IANAL...", then the link is helpful. Martin — Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 20 May 2003‎

I anal? Shouldn't that read I am anal? --Dante Alighieri 19:36 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It's for "I'm anal" :) Martin — Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 28 June 2003‎

So... IANAL is an acronym for "Martin's anal"? ;) --Dante Alighieri 20:07 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

   Editors concerned about edits to this talk page (all, as it happens, part of the humor to which this section consists of) that are not documented as to time and editor by the time-stamps and sigs placed by those corresponding editors may want to note the following:

1.    An (offensive &) misplaced contrib (that would at least have been correctly placed in this section) was added at 17:44, 8 February 2006‎ by Keenan Pepper and removed at 05:00, 24 March 2006‎ by Rhobite.
2.    (Merely sophmoric) nonsense added at 21:52, 14 March 2006‎ by 82.41.169.206 was removed in an edit i'm not bothering to track down.
3.    A (slightly clever, but) off-topic talk response, via 2 edits at 14:39, 5 December 2006‎ by 201.239.182.145, was removed at 14:54, 5 December 2006‎ by Utcursch

--Jerzy•t 07:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

[Retain?]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, much less a dictionary of net slang. Someone should VFD this. -- Tarquin 20:26, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

better than deletion would be a redirect to wikipedia:legal advice, imo. Martin 21:29, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• I think it serves a purpose and merits staying here. --AStanhope 20:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• even worse, the internet kiddies cant seem to perceive that people do not use such language when in an actual conversation about real legal issues. Kotika98 (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Slashdot by FAR favors IANAP over IANAL... and there's no discussion of IANAP here... (I Am Not A Physicist.) Shame — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.15.254 (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2005‎

Google disagrees by a factor of 20 [IANAL is much more common]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.121.233 (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well why would a non-physicist ever talk about physics? -Empyrealmortal (IAAP)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.154.63.186 (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2006‎

People love to talk about time travel and teleportation even though they have no idea what they're talking about. —Keenan Pepper 17:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would a non-lawyer ever talk about law? --Malirath 18:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (A frequent typer of IANAL.)

I've also seen IANACR for "I Am Not A Commodities Regulator", but doubt it could be sourced well enough to add to the article. 14:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.211.161 (talk • contribs)

"It may be used by non-lawyers seeking to avoid accusations of unauthorized practice of law or lawyers clarifying that they do not have enough information to provide advice" ---- for fucks sake this is an article about internet slang , there is zero chance any real lawyer will use it, or in fact that anyone will ever use it outside of a listserv. At the minimum I will be deleting the second part of the sentence. Kotika98 (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

[I am a lawyer, but only a hack lawyer] [??]

IAALBOAHL is not sourced. I can find no definition. I'll cut it in hopes another can define. rewinn 22:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)rewinn

   I've added my speculation as to what it abbreviates as part of the section title, in adding a heading for his section.
--Jerzy•t 07:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

[Off on a tangent]

How about a link to the Star Trek phrase, I'm a doctor, not a .... Seems to me this is clearly derived from the Star Trek phrase. 85.217.44.99 (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

   For the record, i did consider making this a subsection of the "fun" section (separate from what would have become the "Anatomical fun" subsection). Arguably i am speaking ill of a colleague by assuming they did not intend to lighten our day with a bit of lame parody.
--Jerzy•t 07:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Examples of violations?

IANAL, but I understand it's illegal in the U.S. to give legal advice while posing as a lawyer, and maybe even in situations where people might assume the adviser is presenting him/herself as a lawyer (such as on a "legal advice" forum). However, is there any justification for using this disclaimer in everyday conversations? E.g. someone asks a question on a web development site and another user responds with "that's illegal" or "there's nothing illegal about that" without giving such a disclaimer -- has anyone ever landed in trouble because of this? Isn't a person assumed NOT to be a lawyer unless they say (or imply) that they ARE a lawyer? Maghnus (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It may depend on the jurisdiction, but in some states (Texas, for example) (A) falsely holding oneself out as a lawyer, and (B) engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, are two separate (but inter-related, and often partially overlapping) criminal offenses. However, we have to consider the precise wording of the law.

From the Texas Penal Code:

Sec. 38.122. FALSELY HOLDING ONESELF OUT AS A LAWYER. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to obtain an economic benefit for himself or herself, the person holds himself or herself out as a lawyer, unless he or she is currently licensed to practice law in this state, another state, or a foreign country and is in good standing with the State Bar of Texas and the state bar or licensing authority of any and all other states and foreign countries where licensed.

(b) An offense under Subsection (a) of this section is a felony of the third degree.

(c) Final conviction of falsely holding oneself out to be a lawyer is a serious crime for all purposes and acts, specifically including the State Bar Rules.

More from the Texas Penal Code:

Sec. 38.123. UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to obtain an economic benefit for himself or herself, the person:

(1) contracts with any person to represent that person with regard to personal causes of action for property damages or personal injury;

(2) advises any person as to the person's rights and the advisability of making claims for personal injuries or property damages;

(3) advises any person as to whether or not to accept an offered sum of money in settlement of claims for personal injuries or property damages;

(4) enters into any contract with another person to represent that person in personal injury or property damage matters on a contingent fee basis with an attempted assignment of a portion of the person's cause of action; or

(5) enters into any contract with a third person which purports to grant the exclusive right to select and retain legal counsel to represent the individual in any legal proceeding.

(b) This section does not apply to a person currently licensed to practice law in this state, another state, or a foreign country and in good standing with the State Bar of Texas and the state bar or licensing authority of any and all other states and foreign countries where licensed.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d) of this section, an offense under Subsection (a) of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) An offense under Subsection (a) of this section is a felony of the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has previously been convicted under Subsection (a) of this section.

Kinda complicated. But, notice that phrase: "with intent to obtain an economic benefit for himself or herself." Famspear (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear editor Maghnus: To try to answer your specific question: "Is there any justification for using this disclaimer in everyday conversations?".... I would say that using a disclaimer (specifically to avoid criminal liability) is not technically required by law in many every day situations, but I would say issuing a disclaimer is a still prudent thing to do, as it might avoid some misunderstanding. Famspear (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This is all beyond laughable, noone has ever been tracked down and sued for giving "legal" advice in a chat room or bbs. I point out also that the phrase is usually used in bullshit discussions such as is it legal to film your college roommate having sex on the upper level of the bunk bed without thwir permission. Kotika98 (talk) 08:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

notice generally must be in words

Where someone legally must give notice that they are not a lawyer, they must give notice in a way calculated to deliver that notice to its audience. The main exception would be if a court or government administrative agency has, by a written opinion or rule, approved another way. An initialism generally does not meet that requirement, even if it's customary within certain groups of people who may not include the ones you need to reach, such as casual readers of an Internet thread who don't recognize the initialisms. None of the initialisms in this article meet that requirement. Full words must be used. It's unlikely that a court or agency has approved an exception for an initialism. I plan momentarily to edit this article accordingly. Some of the statements that are to the contrary appear to be unsourced and no source that I saw supported allowing an initialism as notice so calculated. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)