Advertising, Craigslist

Five Dollar Advice Guy Posts a Retraction

By  
on

Yesterday, we posted about a non-lawyer, Bert J. Van der Werff, who was offering answers to legal questions for five dollars.

With a rapidity that would make the American Bar Association proud, commenters seized upon this hapless student’s ethical violation, and put the fear of God into him. Van der Werff reports that he received numerous emails from Above the Law readers, explaining that him that he was putting his entire career at risk.

And you know the commenters weren’t kind either. From Partner Emeritus:

My first question to this peon would be what is the New York criminal statute that makes it a crime to give legal advice without a law license?

And there was this:

It doesn’t matter if you hold yourself out as a lawyer. Providing legal advice for money constitutes the unauthorized practice of law, assuming you aren’t a licensed attorney at the time. By the way, I’ll answer any and all questions, legal or otherwise, for $1B each.

And this:

Sponsored

I hope he isn’t using his free student lexis and westlaw access. It is a violation of the terms he agreed to when he accepted his ids.

They will both come and charge him for useage and that will cost him more than what he is charging per search

And much, much more.

After the jump, Mr. Van der Werff posts an apology.


Understandably chastened, Mr. Van der Werff has posted a retraction and apology. Aside from thinking that I’m a girl (which I’ll note I’m not) Van der Werff seems to now have all his facts in order:

In response to my recent ad on craigslist offering legal advice for $5 per question, I would like to apologize for the advertisement. In response to the ad I received several emails telling me that it was illegal to offer legal advice without being a lawyer. I did not realize that. Since then I have deleted the posting from craigslist. Also, prior to knowing this was illegal, I received an email from Elie Mystal, editor of ABOVETHELAW.com, asking me for permission to post my ad on her website. Again, not knowing, I permitted her to do so. Since I realized that it was illegal I have asked her to remove the article from her website. As of this morning it is still there. The point of the posting was to offer cheap help to people involved in a lawsuit. About a year ago I represented myself in Supreme Court (as a prosecution role, not defendant) and had no clue what I was doing. I learned as I went. From that experience I had learned a lot, and simply wanted to help other people in the same boat, while making a little extra money doing it in these hard economic times. What drove me to this desperation was the fact that I am soon going to be a father, unexpectedly but welcomed. Of course this can pose a huge obstacle because I am in school still, and so is my future-wife. I was just trying to make some money while helping people at the same time. I was simply trying to make sure my future-wife and unborn child have everything they need while it is hard for me to provide for them while attending school. I apologize for my actions and take full responsibility. Those of you who bombarded me with all of those harsh emails are absolutely right. I should have known better. I do plan on becoming a successful lawyer after law school and can only pray that this incident does not affect my future, as it will also affect my family’s only chance at financial stability. Again, I apologize for the ad, and hope the public can find forgiveness. Thank You.

SINCERELY,

Bert J. van der Werff

Sponsored

I don’t know what you guys said to him, but it seems to me that emails heralding the death of his legal career and the end of his chances at a fulfilling life were a tad exaggerated. The kid made an honest mistake. When I corresponded with Van der Werff initially, it didn’t even occur to me that he was simply unaware of the rule, or I would have told him myself. As soon as he was educated about the rule, he made the appropriate corrections. I can’t imagine a character & fitness examiner holding that against him.

And as far as future employers go, I think most will appreciate the instinct to generate business. It’s probably a characteristic they’d like to see more of from young attorneys. With training, a firm should be able to hone that energy in the appropriate direction.

So good luck, Mr. Van der Werff. I think you’re going to be just fine.

Topics