Is there a term for a legal professional who follows their client in their everyday life just in case legal advise becomes necessary? Is there a term for someone who acts as a &quot;legal bodyguard&quot;? That would be someone who follows someone around to looks after their legal safety like a conventional bodyguard looks after their physical safety? I suspect the people and cases where it would be worth the expense to never be cought without legal counsel would be few and far between, but I suspect they do exist.
There isn't a distinct word for this role in modern English, mostly because there aren't meaningful numbers of persons in this role. For example, in the TV series Succession, there are lawyers who act in such a role (accompanying a leading character on his yacht while on vacation, for example) and those people are simply called lawyers (a term that emphasizes their legal knowledge and expertise) or attorneys (a term that emphasizes their authority to take action on behalf of their clients as agents of their clients in legal matters). The concept also has some similarity to the 17th and early 18th century role of a factor (see definition number 2 at the link) before the legal profession became a regulated one, and the term attorney is an outgrowth of this sort of conception of the role. Model Rule of Professional Conduct 2.1, the template for the ethical rules for lawyers in all U.S. jurisdictions, refers to a lawyer acting in that role as an advisor or counselor. A lawyer acting in such a role in U.S. practice is not limited to providing legal advice and can consider the client's needs more generally. Many organizations (for profit, non-profit, and governmental), however, have a general counsel or corporate counsel or chief legal officer or county attorney or city attorney, who works full time for the organization who is commonly described as in house counsel and serves a similar role for the organization. Sometimes this is a full time position, sometimes, it is a part-time position. Going back even further in history, this also has similarities to a courtier. @NateEldredge's reference to a consigliere in the modern sense of an advisor to an organized crime boss (who might be, but isn't necessarily, a lawyer) also isn't far off and traces back to the more legitimate feudal role of a particular sort of courtier. In modern politics, and less savory &quot;gray area&quot; activities corporate and criminal alike, a person who does something similar to this, who is sometimes, but not always, a lawyer, is sometimes also called a fixer. @grovkin also suggests in a comment, the title of handler which heavily overlaps with the notion of a fixer. In federal and state government, such a person would often be a chief of staff or a member of a President or Governor's &quot;kitchen cabinet&quot;, although a personal lawyer in addition to the Attorney General and attorneys in the Office of Legal Counsel who also serve those roles exist formally as well. In the military, sometimes a staff officer fills a role similar to this one, especially if that staff officer is a member of the Judge-Advocate General's (JAG) corps. A couple more points not precisely responsive to the question. First, in some science fiction works, including Kate Elliot's &quot;The Novels of the Jaran&quot;, the future equivalent of pretty much this precise role is called a Protocol Officer, effectively envisioning a merger of law, etiquette, and diplomacy in a more civilized world that is not balkanized and instead has only a single universal political system. (See also, e.g., C3PO, a Protocol Droid carrying out a similar role in the Star Wars saga.) I believe that similar roles (with job titles that have only Chinese or Japanese or Korean language terminology) were present in some of the heavily Confucian influenced monarchies of East Asia, in roles perhaps most analogous to military staff officers for feudal aristocrats and high officials. Second, in most civil law countries (in contrast to common law legal system countries), there are lots of people who earn an undergraduate bachelor's level degree in law without seeking to enter a licensed or regulated profession to become a true practicing lawyer in the common law country sense. Instead, these individuals typically seek managerial professional positions in businesses in much the way that a business major with a specialization in marketing or finance or management might. So, unlike, common law countries, in most civil law countries that is a significant population of people with formal legal training who are not lawyers or paralegals in the common law country sense. I honestly have no idea what kind of job titles people on that career track typically hold, or just how they use their legal training in the course of their careers. It might be that someone like this would sometimes take on the role described in the question, but I don't know enough to know if that is really the case.
I haven't reviewed the filings, but I can tell you that it's perfectly routine for lawyers to describe the other side's position as &quot;plainly without merit,&quot; with no regard for the actual merits. The lawyer's job is to make his client look good, in court and in public; the existence of this question shows that he's doing a good job at least on the latter half of that equation. But in truth, it's such a generic thing to say that no lawyer who hears it will actually think it means anything. In all likelihood, the filing is like most others, in that it makes a good case on some points and a bad case on others, and the opposing lawyer's job is to argue that all of them are bad. In the rarer case that a filing is actually &quot;plainly without merit,&quot; courts can and sometimes do impose penalties under Rule 11, which allows for sanctions against parties and attorneys who make factual assertions that are not supported by reality or arguments that are not supported by the law.
Congratulations, intrepid legal enthusiast or learner! What you'll need A legal dictionary, especially if you're just getting started. If you don't own one, you can try Black's Law Dictionary A little bit of patience and time. Or maybe a lot, depending on the particular case and the particular question you're trying to answer. Maybe a normal dictionary, too. Again, if you don't own one, there's plenty online. Onelook is a dictionary search engine, so it'll search a lot of dictionaries at the same time. Okay, I've got those things, now what? Alright, there's a few things you should know. Firstly, decisions of superior courts are binding only on those inferior courts within the same hierarchy. This means that you can appeal to a higher court so long as it has appellate jurisdiction. Generally, a state (meaning a country) will have a supreme or highest court, with appellate jurisdiction over all other courts - in Australia, this is the High Court of Australia, in the United States, this is the Supreme Court of the United States, and in the United Kingdom, this is the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Secondly, decisions of a court are generally binding only on the matter in dispute. For example, if in a case, the matter of whether the police owe a duty of care to citizens in detecting crime, a comment on whether the police had correctly parked their vehicle is not binding - it is called obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta). What we're looking for in a judgement is the ratio decidendi (plural rationes decidendi), which is the reason for the decision. This is what is binding, and would be considered in future decisions. The problem? It's not always easy to tell the ratio from the obiter. Finally, often, the only way to know whether our interpretation of a case is right is to see whether it is applied in a future case, or overruled. Examples, examples! Sure. Let's try something easy to start with. Do product manufacturers owe a duty of care to their customers? Yes. The decision in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 found that product manufacturers - in this case, a ginger beer manufacturer - have a duty of care to ensure their products are safe for use or consumption. Lord Atkin said: The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question. Okay, so the answer to this question is yes. How do I verify it? Get the source of the judgement. Without this, you're going to be relying on hearsay. The next best thing is a subsequent judgement that applies the one you're looking for, because if the judgement says what it's supposed to, it'll be mentioned in the subsequent judgement. I've found this one. Decide whether the matter in dispute is actually being decided. In our case, it is. But if I was quoting this from a judgement on whether product manufacturers have an obligation to transfer title for goods supplied on a credit agreement, it wouldn't be binding. Find the quote. If you've been given a quote. Otherwise, grab a cup of tea or coffee and get ready to read. A lot. If you can't find something that says, or means, what it's supposed to, it's probably not accurate. Make sure the judgement hasn't been overruled This is tricky, unless the judgement database you're using has a way of searching it. Most do. In any case, it's much like trying to prove a negative. In fact, it's exactly that. But always check whether the judgement has been overturned on appeal. Make sure the judgement hasn't been obsoleted by statute Again, this is tricky. It's proving a negative, again. And trying to find statute might be an answer for another time. Is that it? Pretty much, I think. These are at least the main points. There's a whole laundry list of things you shouldn't do with judgements, but they're more about reasoning than legal principles. It's a skill you can really only develop by using, and I'm constantly practising myself. Many discussions about cases are precisely about what their effect is. Yes, the decisions and orders are usually pretty clear-cut - for example, the decision is that the manufacturer has a duty of care, and the orders are for damages and costs to be paid. But what it means beyond that can be murky. Luckily for us, judges have become better at writing their judgements so that others can understand. Also, for more important cases, where the entire country, or world, is watching, others will interpret it for you - consider Obergefell v Hodges, for example. Not everyone can be trusted, but everyone, taken together, is a much more trustworthy source than just one person. In the end, there's not a mathematical formula for determining what judgements mean. There's some interpretation involved, some judgement. There's not always going to be one judgement that's enough to prove your matter. I'm struggling to end this post neatly so I'll just finish it with a cliff-
With this in mind, would a non-lawyer practicing law for oneself (acting pro se) be able to have a paralegal prepare legal documents so long as the aforementioned non-lawyer oversees the work and accepts responsibility for it? No. Critically, many things that paralegals (who are not themselves members of a licensed profession) are allowed to do under the supervision of an attorney, are not things that they are permitted to do independently. In the case of the question, the paralegal is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law if doing anything more than taking dictation and formatting documents (case law often refers to merely taking dictation as &quot;acting as a scrivener&quot;, which is not the practice of law). Unauthorized practice of law is a question of state law and varies somewhat, but the outcome in this particular fact pattern would be pretty consistent. For example, the Colorado Attorney Supreme Court has an FAQ that states: The Colorado Supreme Court has defined the “practice of law” as “act[ing] in a representative capacity in protecting, enforcing, or defending the legal rights and duties of another and in counseling, advising and assisting [another] in connection with these rights and duties.”1 The Court’s words make clear that providing legal advice to another person constitutes the practice of law, as does the selection and drafting of legal documents for use by another person.2 A nonlawyer’s exercise of legal discretion on behalf of another’s legal interest is prohibited because of potential harm to the public.3 Thus, a non-lawyer generally cannot: Provide legal advice to another person; Select legal documents on behalf of another person; Draft legal documents on behalf of another person; Interpret the law as it may apply to another person’s situation; Represent another person in any legal transaction or matter; Prepare another person’s case for trial. 1 People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162, 167 (Colo. 2006); Denver Bar Ass'n v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 391 P.2d 467, 471 (Colo. 1964). 2 See C.R.C.P. 202.2(2); See also Shell, 148 P.3d at 167; Denver Bar Ass'n, 391 P.2d at 471 (holding that &quot;there is no wholly satisfactory definition as to what constitutes the practice of law; it is not easy to give an all-inclusive definition....). 3 People v. Adams, 243 P.3d 256, 265 (Colo. 2010) (citing Perkins v. CTX Mortgage Co., 969 P.2d 93, 102 (Wash. 1999)). See also, e.g., Baron v. Karmin Paralegal Services, __ N.J. Super. __ (2019). The Appellate Division in Karmin found that Karmin prepared legal documents for plaintiff, which is clearly the practice of law. Id. at 13–14 (citing Cape May Cty. Bar Ass’n v. Ludlum, 45 N.J. 121, 124 (1965)).
We hire very good paralegals, explain to them what we are trying to achieve, and let them use common sense and the good organizational skills that got them hired to figure it out. (Really, I once had a part-time assistant in my law office who had a full time job doing essentially what you describe over and over again. This is a classic transactional paralegal task.)
Cohen has ethical problems, but this is probably pretty far down the list. If he were lying about the law, though, that could be treated as a violation of Rule 4.1 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct: In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third person. It could also be a violation of Rule 8.4: A lawyer or law firm shall not ... (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; Although these would be violations of his ethical obligations, they probably do not rise to the level of seriousness that would result in any meaningful punishment. Disbarment would be extremely unlikely, though a censure is conceivable. If someone reported the offense, I would actually expect that the state would decline to investigate at all. Of course, all of this assumes that he was deliberately lying about the state of the law, which I think overestimates his competence. More likely, he's just an idiot and didn't know that he was wrong. Importantly, being wrong about the law isn't unethical; it's a presumption at the foundation of our adversarial justice system.
The relevant law for you is ORC 4705.07. (A) No person who is not licensed to practice law in this state shall do any of the following: (1) Hold that person out in any manner as an attorney at law; (2) Represent that person orally or in writing, directly or indirectly, as being authorized to practice law; (3) Commit any act that is prohibited by the supreme court as being the unauthorized practice of law. (This is a prime example of legal language that cannot be interpreted on the basis of rules of English -- the issue is the meaning of "that person"). This does not prohibit you from giving an opinion as to what the law is, which is a right protected under the First Amendment. You would be in trouble if you said "This is my advice as a lawyer". Section 2 b.t.w. says that only the Supreme Court (of Ohio) can determine if a person has committed an act on their don't-do-it list. Rule 7 pertaining to their procedure is here. Section 2 therein enumerates the relevant categories, which fall under the categories "rendering of legal services for another" and "Holding out to the public or otherwise representing oneself as authorized to practice law in Ohio", which is what the statute says.
In Connecticut, this is covered by the firefighter's rule. Police and fire personnel entering a property as part of their official duties are considered licensees, which limits the duties of the landowner. The rules are as follows: You can't intentionally hurt or lay a trap for the licensee. If you know or should know the licensee is there, you need to exercise due care with them. You don't have to worry about obvious hazards (but keep in mind that it's harder to see stuff at night). If you're doing something dangerous, you need to watch out for them. If you know about a hidden hazard, you must warn them. I'm not sure how in-depth you need to go with the warnings; various things I find suggest the duty to warn might only be there when you know or should know the licensee is present, but signs are a good idea regardless. On the other hand, if you do need to warn them, you might need to mention the specific locations of the pits you actually know about. However, there's no duty at all to proactively look for possible hazards. This rule originated as a rule for professional firefighters responding to a negligently-started fire: the idea is that professional firefighters sign up to do a dangerous job, and letting them sue for hazards inherent in their job (they aren't called without a fire) is a bad idea. Also, since they cannot be denied entry, go in places not open to the public, and can arrive at any hour, needing to keep the property safe for them is an unreasonable burden. Of course, there's an exception if a law is passed to protect their safety, because statutes override common law. The rule has since been extended in some states to police, and to situations besides the very problem they were called for. Other states have abolished it. In any event, this is for civil liability only: this is when cops can sue for injuries caused to them.