Today, Craigslist brings us the latest example of a (soon-to-be) lawyer trying to make it work in this difficult economy. Here’s the ad:
I am an experienced law student willing to answer your legal questions. The fee is $5 per question. To take advantage of this offer email your question to [Redacted]. You will then get a response with your answer. Must pay through PAYPAL ACCOUNT. ALL EMAILs must include the following information:
Now, it’s been a while since I took the MPRE, and I was all kinds of hung-over when I passed it. But isn’t there some kind of — I don’t know, rule — about giving legal advice when you are not a lawyer?
Seriously though, he doesn’t “hold himself out to be a lawyer,” so maybe that helps?
Either way, Bert J. van der Werff is just a guy trying to make some money during rough times. We speak with the student after the jump.
We were surprised that van der Werff was charging so little for his
legal advice question answering services. But in a statement he provided to Above the Law, this is just the first step in a vast legal empire of the future:
Well, I am currently a student of law. I also plan to own my own law firm int he future. I have accumulated much experience, more than the average law student I’d say. So I am just trying to make a little extra cash on the side. All of the information provided is accurate and up to date. With each question, I will include a reference list for the answer, so the customer will know where exactly the answer was derived from, while also providing them with additional information if needed.
Well, there you have it. It’s easy to chide Mr. van der Werff, but at least here’s one law student that is not taking the tanking economy sitting down. Talk about killing the billable hour, here’s a guy whose is willing to tackle a whole legal issue for a flat fee that almost any client can afford.
Maybe some of our Section 90 commenters will fork over $5 to get some more firepower for their claims?
Legal Advise-$5 per question (ANYWHERE) [Craigslist]
P.S. “ANYWHERE.” Brilliant.
Update: Click here for our continuing coverage of the story. Mr. Van der Werff has issued an apology and retraction.