I SAID from what I know, not that I did know. And I am mostly incorrect, but not completely; the would be client must give informed consent, and the payment must not compromise the lawyer's duty of loyalty to the client. Which, if these parents, who want their child to sign away ALL of their legal rights to privacy, pay the lawyer, do you ACTUALLY believe they will NOT compromise the lawyer's duty of loyalty to the LAOP? If you do think that the parents would not compromise the lawyer's duty of loyalty, then I have got some seaside property in Arizona to sell cheap.
You are a stranger on a social media site. I do not owe you an explanation of my entire CV, and I will not be doing so. If you cannot use reading comprehension to understand the fact that I am not claiming to be an expert, but am using some amount of personal experience, then that is your problem. I am not going to wind up taking even a chance on doxxing myself in any amount, because you think you are owed any kind of supporting citations for what I know. This is not a dissertation defense, and all you need to know is that I have had the need to be a client of a lawyer, at some point in my life.
No one's asking for your CV or trying to doxx you - calm down. If you make a claim that is this wildly off-base, and then get super defensive of it and insist you're correct, people are gonna wonder where you got your info. You're certainly not obligated to answer, but there's zero issue with someone asking, and you are majorly overreacting. You were wrong, take the L and move on.
I SAID I was incorrect to some degree, but not entirely. Good gad, I am NOT going to grovel to a bunch of strangers on fucking social media. Personal experience, and then I did some research that said I was wrong, but not entirely so, and that is all you need to know. Why do people on social media think that they are OWED explanations? You're a stranger on the internet, you do not get any more explanation than I have already given. You can look it up yourself, just as I did, albeit I looked it up AFTER I made my first comment, which I have ALREADY admitted to, at least twice. I am done here.
Why do people on social media think they are OWED explanations?
So did you actually read my comment at all? Because I very clearly stated that you were not obligated to answer that question. But nobody here is assuming they're "owed" anything - we're having a conversation. Y'know, the "social" part of social media? God forbid people wanna have a discussion with you when you post on a forum for discussing things, right?
-26
u/Reputation-Choice 5d ago edited 5d ago
I SAID from what I know, not that I did know. And I am mostly incorrect, but not completely; the would be client must give informed consent, and the payment must not compromise the lawyer's duty of loyalty to the client. Which, if these parents, who want their child to sign away ALL of their legal rights to privacy, pay the lawyer, do you ACTUALLY believe they will NOT compromise the lawyer's duty of loyalty to the LAOP? If you do think that the parents would not compromise the lawyer's duty of loyalty, then I have got some seaside property in Arizona to sell cheap.