Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 


advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Denial of tenure case at Georgetown raises thorny issues .  LAC

NYT editorial quotes Dan Solove likening NSA snooping to Seurat art: one small dot seems trivial, but together a portrait emerges. Here. (LAC)

Warren Buffett never negotiates on price, always makes his highest offer first.  LAC

An elite decline? (kw)

Unanswered Questions (kw)

Most under-appreciated thing about Warren Buffett: he built Berkshire to last well beyond him.  (LAC, at BRK annual meeting via Motley Fool, here.)

University governance as a new topic of public discussion.

An unusual profile of Mary Anne Franks (kw)

Aggressive copyright litigation run amok. (fp)

USA Today's Matt Krantz quoting me on Warren Buffett joining Twitter.  (LAC)


Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • JDH on The Humble Justice Scalia

    • Ken Rhodes on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Ken Rhodes on Google Challenges Gag Orders Relating to Surveillance Programs, Citing First Amendment

    • Steph Tai on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Neal Goldfarb on Sole Motives and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

    • Aaron Zelinsky on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Brett Bellmore on Google Challenges Gag Orders Relating to Surveillance Programs, Citing First Amendment

    • Steph Tai on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Aaron Zelinsky on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Steph Tai on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Aaron Zelinsky on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Steph Tai on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Charlie Naegle on Google Challenges Gag Orders Relating to Surveillance Programs, Citing First Amendment

    • Michael Dorff on Questioning Performance Pay

    • Sandra Sperino on Sole Motives and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Advice to Starting Law Professors: Don’t Give Advice?

posted by Dave Hoffman

Over on Prawfs, Dan Markel instigated a nice thread collecting advice to incoming professors. Something that hasn’t gotten discussed in this recent round of posts (although it has been in the past) is what a law professor should do when a student asks for help with a legal problem. This happens with some frequency to me – as a contracts teacher, I get asked a handful of times a semester to consult on a lease (for the student or a relative) or an employment agreement. I imagine that other professors get different types of questions (the property-suite of subjects is similarly vulnerable; federal courts probably isn’t).

These questions create a difficult problem for junior professors in particular. If you aren’t a member of the state bar, you obviously can not ethically practice law. Most professors have not bought malpractice insurance. Providing advice, even when insured and barred, fundamentally changes the student-teacher relationship, and may get you in a heap of trouble with the administration and students you do not help.

But failing to give students what they want can get you into trouble. And the first (and second and third) time this happens to you, you will be strongly tempted to read the lease, or parse the will, and suggest a course of action. Is there a way to let students down without creating ill-will?

In the comments to this thread, folks should feel free to (a) disclose interesting examples of requests for legal advice and how they handled it; and (b) follow-up on the issues raised when professors actually give advice.

[Topic Suggested By: Temple Law Freedman Teaching Fellow Meredith Miller, who will be joining Touro Law in the fall.]


 March 27, 2006 at 9:28 am   Posted in: Law School, Law School (Teaching)   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (18)

  1. John Armstrong - March 27, 2006 at 11:06 am

    “This is not part of my responsibilities as your professor. I cannot give professional advice as [I am not licensed in this area to practice law | I charge for that service, and cannot give it away for free to people who happen to be my students]. I cannot give hand-waving, friendly advice as I am your instructor, not your friend.”

  2. Lynn - March 27, 2006 at 11:23 am

    as a 1L, i had a g/f make an emotional plea (re: personal credit/fraud) to me that i couldn’t possibly answer on my own … i approached my K professor, making it clear to the prof there was no obligation to reply. i also made it clear that i was only interested in ‘bouncing the problem off her;’ where any information she would give me would only be relied on as foundational.

    that said, she gave me a general sense of the legal perspective of the problem, which i relayed to the g/f. it was a single interaction, and i qualified whatever i passed onto the g/f with “you can’t rely on this, it’s just me and my prof discussing an item, whatever problems you incur are yours.”

  3. EN - March 27, 2006 at 11:36 am

    “I charge for that service, and cannot give it away for free to people who happen to be my students”

    At the (relatively small, tightly-knit) law school I attend, I suspect that sort of response might send a professor’s reputation among a sizable percentage of the student body plummeting. I don’t think students here expect professors to act as their counsel, but I’m pretty sure they expect a little more than that. (To the extent you care about such things, of course.)

  4. Mike - March 27, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    I was packing up my stuff after class when a student approached the Remedies professor about a legal issue. The professor said: “Let me be very clear. I’ll be happy to discuss the general legal principles involved, but nothing I say is legal advice.” The professor then did a good job of issue spotting but never directly gave advice or applied the law to her set of facts. (BTW, I eavesdropped and it sounded like the girl asking the question was loaded. Guess she didn’t need legal advice, so much as she wanted free legal advice.”

  5. 2006prof - March 27, 2006 at 1:26 pm

    I think Mike’s approach is good; it might also be good for law profs to know about legal clinics and other resources in the area/school, so that the response could also be “I’m not licensed in this jurisdiction, but I’ll be happy to talk about general legal principles, and if you want to take this further you can approach X”

  6. Michael Froomkin - March 27, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    I can’t resist posting this link to my top story about a student asking for legal advice.

  7. Lynn - March 27, 2006 at 2:08 pm

    Professor Froomkin,

    At the risk of being a tacky opportunist, if either student (in your linked post) hadn’t asked xyz of you, then they wouldn’t know for sure whether you were an option foregone.

    Sometimes, on the off chance, these pleas pan out. Sometimes …

  8. John Armstrong - March 27, 2006 at 3:59 pm

    EN:

    When was the instructor-student relationship extended to even marginally encompass acting as counsel? I’ll believe you that students at your school have come to expect that sort of service, but it is my opinion that it should never have come to that point at all. Instructors serve the institution by presenting material. They do not serve the student body directly beyond that point.

    I am not a lawyer myself, so here’s an analogous situation: Say one of my students in an advanced calculus class is also working a data-analysis job. He approaches me asking for help designing an algorithm for a project from his employer. I am — as his instructor — under no obligation to do more than refer him to apropriate sources. If he wishes to hire me on as an outside consultant he is welcome to do so.

  9. Mike - March 27, 2006 at 5:08 pm

    He approaches me asking for help designing an algorithm for a project from his employer.

    I’m calling the fallacy of disanology on you. Most law professors, if competent in what they teach, can give a decent off-the-cuff answer without extensive thought or analysis. So when a student asks a question, no competent professor would need to roll up his sleeves and get to work.

  10. Mike - March 27, 2006 at 5:14 pm

    Instructors serve the institution by presenting material.

    This is certainly one viewpoint. Still, your chilly approach to student relations might not be welcome in every instutition. I, and a lot of other students -including my wife – who were accepted into top-ranked schools, attended law school at my alma matter precisely to avoid “chilly” professors like you.

  11. Random Lawyer - March 27, 2006 at 6:42 pm

    I strongly do not agree that most professors should be able to give a competent answer off-the-cuff. In fact, at least in my area (tax), even most practitioners know better than to try to answer a question off-the-cuff.

    Moreover, many (most?) young professors have either not practiced law at all, or have practiced in settings that would not give them actual legal expertise. I would suggest that the most respectful and honest answer to the students would be the answer that Mike’s professor gave (12:50 pm comment), but perhaps even without the issue spotting. (Short version: law professor =/= practicing lawyer.)

  12. Mike - March 27, 2006 at 7:11 pm

    In fact, at least in my area (tax), even most practitioners know better than to try to answer a question off-the-cuff.

    Q: I work from home. Can I deduct some or all of my rent?

    [What I meant by-off-the-cuff answer]: It depends. A home-office can serve as a tax deduction if a few conditions are met. It’s worth looking into the issue.

    Q: I’m a student. Can I deduct rent since I’m in school?

    A: No, I’m not sure why you ever would have thought you could. What made you think of that?

    Those are the types of questions students will have. Any lawyer who can’t answer those types of questions immediately should turn in his bar card.

  13. PG - March 27, 2006 at 8:07 pm

    The entitlement attitude is one with which TAs have been dealing.

    Because I always compare law to medicine: I wonder how medical school professors deal with students who come in saying “Hey, I have this weird pus thing…”

  14. Meredith R. Miller - March 27, 2006 at 8:18 pm

    John Armstrong:

    Your situation (involving data-analysis as a mathematician) is not analogous for a very important reason: once an attorney (even a law prof, non-practicing type) gives a student something that can be interpreted as advice, an implied attorney-client relationship has been formed. This relationship carries with it fiduciary responabilities I am unaware of in the context of calculus problems. The relationship formed by giving legal advice can open up the attorney/prof to malpractice claims and comes with a host of rules governing when the attorney can withdraw from representation. Also, there are potential conflict of interest issues (though, admittedly, those are likely rather remote). In other words, this issue isn’t just about whether or not to give free advice, but more importantly about how to be careful that you haven’t given something that could be construed as advice.

    Also, I don’t think your solution of charging the student for the advice (or to solve the calculus problem) would be an appropriate solution in the law prof context — even if the (admitted) attorney/prof charged the student for the advice, I strikes me as an appropriate to create a fudiciary relationship with a current student. This is, to my mind, what makes the question interesting and the manner of response more delicate than your post appears to recognize.

  15. Law Student '06 - March 27, 2006 at 9:10 pm

    While it think it’s far not to expect students to be given a full and extensive legal answer to their personal problems, I don’t think it is unreasonable for a law professor to talk in generalities, or even in terms of hypothetical answers. I believe this even more strongly in cases where the law professor specifically indicate that they are NOT giving advice.

    If you think about it, how does some of what has been discussed above differ from 1 on 1 teaching? For example, let’s say I have a question about negligence. A smart student wouldn’t go up to the professor and say, “My Auntie Beth slipped and fell in McDonalds, and I have a question about slip and fall cases.” No, you’d figure out the specific question you are asking about, and then ask a hypothetical situation, that the professor would surely answer.

    I think if a professor were to answer in the way that the first commenter recommended, he or she would come across as a rude, nasty, person. Also, law professors (at least at the top ranked schools) are made a VERY handsome sum for their work. Nobody expects them to give free legal advice, but answering general questions about their expertise is not something that should be shunned.

    If one particular person feels uncomfortable doing it, no problem. But I think if I were a law professor, I’d have no problem talking in general terms about a particular legal problem. In fact, I bet there are some professors who have learned a lot, or even based law review articles on personal experiences that raise specific issues or legal concepts.

  16. John Armstrong - March 28, 2006 at 12:26 am

    Ms. Miller:

    once an attorney gives a student something that can be interpreted as advice, an implied attorney-client relationship has been formed. This relationship carries with it fiduciary responabilities

    This only reinforces my point. In my analogous situation[1] there are no ethical questions whatsoever, and [i]still[/i] there is no obligation on my part. It’s not being “chilly”, as others have referred to it. It’s being realistic about the nature of the instructor-student relationship — a relationship whose walls have been increasingly torn down to the point that questions like this (and like those raised in the linked issue of moving a class off-campus) are even being raised.

    Also, note that I did not say that I would be unwilling to assist at all. I’m only asserting that a new, parallel, and separate relationship must be formed within which advice can be given. If the ethical norms in the situation usually attach a fee to the new sort of relationship, so be it.

    An instructor cannot give personal legal advice to a student. A properly licensed and retained attorney can, and a friend or acquaintance can give (heavily-disclaimed) hand-wavy generalities. Neither relationship is inherent in the instructor-student relationship. If the student independently retains counsel, so be it. An instructor granting a friendly relationship with his students, however, sets a dangerous precendent. I similarly will not allow a student to enroll (beyond auditing) in a course I am teaching if I have a pre-existing friendly relationship with him. The two relationships are simply incompatible.

    [1] I contend, over objections, that it is analogous. most such problems wouldn’t require more than a moment’s thought to see likely ways to proceed for one in my position.

  17. John Armstrong - March 28, 2006 at 1:04 am

    PG:

    Thank you for mentioning (indirectly) the situation of Yale graduate student employees, er, instructors, er, teach.. whatever. My style of instruction has been heavily influenced by my experiences and observations as a TA and part-time acting instructor (PTAI) at Yale.

    Amazingly enough, even Yale undergraduates respond favorably to my so-called “chilly” demeanor. Approach students with the idea that they may or may not be able to ask for and get whatever they want and they will take whatever isn’t nailed down. Make clear that you are the instructor and they are the students and there are certain rights, privileges, responsibilities, and boundaries that attach to such a relationship, and they respond with respect, courtesy, and a sense of personal responsibility for their performances in the course.

  18. Cathy Lanctot - March 28, 2006 at 8:08 am

    This isn’t a question of manners, but a question of ethics. Law professors should not give “off-the-cuff” legal advice to anyone, especially their own students, without a full understanding of the possibility that they may inadvertently create an attorney-client relationship, with all its attending obligations. Caution in these matters is not a matter of “rudeness” or “chilliness,” but a matter of professional responsibility that we all share as members of the Bar. I discuss the inadvertent creation of such relationships (the so-called “cocktail party” advice) in this 1999 piece: ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS IN CYBERSPACE: THE PERIL AND THE PROMISE

    http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles/dlj49p147.htm

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Kelli A. Alces
Andrew Blair-Stanek
Ryan Calo
Katie Eyer
Stephen Galoob
Woodrow Hartzog
Claire Hill
William McGeveran
David L. Schwartz
Babak Siavoshy
Charles K. Whitehead
Aaron Zelinsky


















Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Derek Bambauer
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Khiara Bridges
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Gabriella Coleman
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
andré douglas pond cummings
Allison Danner
Laura DeNardis
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Susan Freiwald
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Vivian E. Hamilton
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Angela Harris
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Jay Kesten
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Tayyab Mahmud
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Janai Nelson
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
David Opderback
David Orentlicher
Michael O'Shea
Kristen Osenga
Mary-Rose Papandrea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Meredith Render
William Reynolds
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Brishen Rogers
Sasha Romanosky
Aaron Saiger
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schleicher
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Lea Shaver
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Peter Swire
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Joseph Turow
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Elizabeth A. Wilson
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
Privacy and Security Training
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress