A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, ILLEGAL TO GIVE LEGAL ADVICE

This Hub is not about activism nor is it an invitation to violate any law whether we may agree with or not it is still the law and to be treated as such.

 As we look at, the constitutional question posed by the illegality of giving legal advice.  There appears to be a not to subtle clash with the wording of the constitution; it strictly forbids the making of any law that abridges the freedom of speech.

 The giving of “advise” definitely falls under the protection of the First Amendment. There is no wonder that we do not see cases of prosecution, for Giving Legal Advise.

 Let us explore a brief history of the forbidding of the giving of legal advice. Abraham Lincoln was a self taught Lawyer.  He traveled the Midwest, representing clients as a paid attorney. 

Lincoln practiced law under an Illinois law passed in 1833, that only required a person wishing to practice law to have a certificate from an Illinois county court certifying the applicant's good moral character.

 Sometime between his practice and now there were laws passed that made it illegal for the average citizen to represent his neighbor in a court of law; unless he had a law degree, and passed the Bar Exam, which gave him or her the credentials needed, to stand in front of the Bench.

 So now even a Para Legal is forbidden to give legal, advice.  This seems out of place when you consider that in most law firms it’s the Para Legal that actually do the research and document preparation for the attorneys.    

 So why make it hard on some and impossible for others to have access to their 14^th amendment rights to equal and fair representation under the law. 

It makes every politician that stands in front of the flag and announces support for the ideal of equal protection under law sound like a hypocrite.

In all honesty there are some very complicated and complex aspects of the law that make trying to practice law with out some education based on it, is like jumping out of plane with out a parachute, at 20,000 ft., with the belief you’re going to have a safe landing.

But the whole idea that you can only seek legal advice from a high priced attorney defies the purpose of the First Amendment.  

 So hecklers can disrupt a family funeral for a fallen loved one, but a friend can’t tell another friend to file a law suit in small claims court.

 They try to equate the practice of law with sharing your opinion about  principles of law you may very well know. 

 AS it stands Lawyers have a monopoly on the practice of law and not enough lawyers practice Pro Bono, give back to make the law work for everyone.

Representing your self Pro Bono in a law suit is allowed but then you just may run into a situation where a local, or prestigious law firm has sway with the county clerk office, and they frown upon Pro Se litigants, yes it does happen.

The purpose of not allowing just anyone to practice law helps to keep the process from becoming a travesty of justice with all manner of, buffoon and psycho, wasting the courts time.

But knowledge is power and regardless to where you get it, if its accurate knowledge, then the person giving it should be able to give it, and you, or anyone else should be able to receive it.