Add RSS RSS

Five Dollar Advice Guy Posts a Retraction

5 dollar legal advice.jpgYesterday, 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:

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

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.

Comments

avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:48 PM

I am a 1L at NYU and just went to Mamoun's on MacDougal for my daily fix. However, instead of the usual 4 falafel balls my sandwich only contained 3. Do any of you think I might have a claim for promissory falafel?

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:48 PM

Man, that Dawson's Creek guy has really fallen on hard times.

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:49 PM

Great work Ms. Mystal

avatar
4 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:49 PM

This just in. According to Mr. Vanderwoof, Elie Mystal is a girl, or has just devoured a girl.

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:51 PM

1: just don't go there at 3am. A rat the size of a small cat ran across the floor when I was drunkenly eating there one night.

6 Posted by Partner Emeritus | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:51 PM

Unemployed lawyers should be thanking me for preserving the little value their law degrees have over Mr. Van Der Werf's community college associates degree. Let me hear your appreciation.

avatar
7 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:52 PM

Hah...he thought MysTTTal's fat titties make him a woman!

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:52 PM

"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."


It's great to see female bloggers breaking into the mainstream.

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:52 PM

First to say...
BerTTT Van der Werff

avatar
10 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:54 PM

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.

Elie - I believe you, but that seems like one of the first issues you would allude to in your correspondence.

For example, a "you don't mind us posting this even though its illegal?" type of comment?

That being said, I think you are dead on. He corrected his mistake, and as long as he didn't actually provide legal advice, C&F should be lenient.

avatar
11 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:55 PM

Ms. Mystal,

You're saying you were aware that this fool's actions were both illegal and violations of applicable ethical rules, yet you not only assumed he knew what he was doing was wrong but also asked if you could broadcast his idiocy across the internet?

Nice cover for not having any idea there was anything wrong with this. I'm not advocating spending any amount of time on studying for your MPRE, but god almighty, did you even break 75?

avatar
12 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:56 PM

Elie, you let Mr. Vanderwoof see your vagina?

avatar
13 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:56 PM

So either this guy is (1) a douchebag blaming his mistake on his unborn kid and soon-to-be baby mama or (2) he is a liar who fabricated the whole heart-wrenching illegitimate child story for sympathy.

Either way, you're right--he'll fit right in with the rest of the profession!

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:56 PM

"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."


It's great to see female bloggers breaking into the mainstream.

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:58 PM

ignorance of the law is no excuse. and have we established if this guy is in law school or not?

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 12:59 PM

What is the color of this guy's skin?

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:00 PM

"can only pray that this incident does not affect my future, as it will also affect my family's only chance at financial stability."

Mr. Vanderwoof must not be a frequent reader of this site.

avatar
18 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:01 PM

C&F will trash this guy--MysTTTal, I really hope he sues you for the cost of his JD, under Section 90 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts for your idiotic "I think you're going to be just fine."

avatar
19 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:01 PM

would you have any sympathy for an aspiring doctor performing $5 apendectomies? how is it not intuitive that people can't just decide to practice medicine or law because they feel like it and need a quick buck?

avatar
20 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:02 PM

I am jealous now. I want to see Mystal's vajayjay!

avatar
21 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:02 PM

Two classes that this guy might want to take.
Contracts and Legal Ethics. I hear that both are important . . . if you plan on working anywhere to repay your student loans.

avatar
22 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:03 PM

How long until this story is the top result in google for this poor dude's name? Meh... when I think C&F, I think leniency and understanding.

avatar
23 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:03 PM

Dear Bert,

ur so fucking stupid. i bet u have about a 20% chance of passing ur bar exam. IF you pass, i would wager that with the stupid, illegal shenanigans u just pulled (especially if you actually DID give any legal advice), you have about a 15% chance of passing the character and fitness test. thus, ur chance of becoming a lawyer are about 3% (.20*.15).

ur best option right now is probably business school...

sincerely,

People v. Collins

avatar
24 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:03 PM

"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 understand that you prosecute a claim, but wouldn't "as a plaintiff" be how anyone in law school or anyone who is a practicing attorney actually convey that thought. I don't think this douche ever went to Law School. Further evidence, as has been pointed out, is that everyone in law school knows you arn't allowed to give legal advice for money or hold yourself out as a lawyer.

avatar
25 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:04 PM

attempted practice w/o license.
also potential violation of attorney advertising

he has to self-report these violations to c & f, no?

avatar
26 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:04 PM

Retired partner here: A great suck-up letter if I ever saw one. He should go far in life.

avatar
27 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:04 PM

attempted practice w/o license.
also potential violation of attorney advertising

he has to self-report these violations to c & f, no?

avatar
28 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:07 PM

Dear Bert,

ur so fucking stupid. i bet u have about a 20% chance of passing ur bar exam. IF you pass, i would wager that with the stupid, illegal shenanigans u just pulled (especially if you actually DID give any legal advice), you have about a 15% chance of passing the character and fitness test. thus, ur chance of becoming a lawyer are about 3% (.20*.15).

ur best option right now is probably business school...

sincerely,

People v. Collins

avatar
29 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:09 PM

I disagree with Eli's assumption that a law firm would appreciate his business sense enough to forgive his lack of judgment. Law firms do not like to be sued for malpractice and this guy is malpractice waiting to happen. The last thing a law firm needs is an inexperieneced associate that thinks that he knows enough to give advice to anyone. This guy is really an idiot. I haven't looked at prior comments but I think they can't be harsh enough. This guy should drop out of law school now and find something else to do. Not just because he may be in some sort of trouble that would prevent him from being admitted to the bar but just because he doesn't have enough common sense or judgment to be a good attorney. He is barking up the wrong tree, as it is. Also, I think that law school cannot be the only hope for this guy to support his new family. Um... get a job loser like most americans.

avatar
30 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:10 PM

prosecuTTTorial discretion?

avatar
31 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:10 PM

epic fail.

avatar
32 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:11 PM

epic fail.

avatar
33 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:11 PM

this guy reminds me of the lawyer in Idiocracy, I think his name was Frito Pendejo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

avatar
34 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:11 PM

I'm sick of these women from the present - I want a future-wife!

avatar
35 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:11 PM

Fair enough Bert. But next time maybe you shouldn't call yourself a law student when you only have an Associate's. In the real world, we call that lying.

avatar
36 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:12 PM

Hey Bert, way to make yourself look like an idiot in front of the entire legal community.

avatar
37 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:12 PM

, "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"

I think you will be sorely disappointed at your chances for financial stability with your loans and document review job. Since you didn't know you can't practice law without a license you probably also don't know that the majority of lawyers don't make 6 figures or anywhere close. Good luck!

avatar
38 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:13 PM

He didn't know you had to be a lawyer to give legal advice!? That's awesome!

Next up for this guy, he's going to set up a tent in his backyard and treat people for medical conditions without being a doctor, too.

Perhaps he'll sign some treaties as well.

avatar
39 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:13 PM

"future-wife"
that makes me laugh.

avatar
40 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:13 PM

24 - with the criminal justice associate's degree i get the vibe he was in court in some role, not as a party. maybe some kind of probation/parole officer? clerk? baliff?

avatar
41 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:16 PM

This idiot would fit in perfectly at McDermott Will & Emery.

avatar
42 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:16 PM

Maybe one in a hundred lawyers has this guy's business sense. That's why our industry is tanking.

Attorneys are a dime a dozen (or should be). One that actually understands business? Worth their rate. You commenters? Eggheads with terribly narrow skill sets and no social lives.

avatar
43 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:18 PM

business sense? he probably stole the idea from that simpsons episode where homer asks everyone to send him $1.

avatar
44 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:18 PM

Who DOESN'T know offering legal advice without a license to practice law is illegal??? This dude apparently hasn't even watched television for the past, oh, 20 years! I pray that Elie is being facetious when HE says Bert's going to be fine. Seems like Bert would have been better served playing the "Holy shit, people, it was just a joke" card than this lame attempt at a mea culpa. The last thing we need is more idiots like this guy out there playing lawyer. If he's in law school, he really should get out now, before he really does something harmful -- like to a client!

avatar
45 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:18 PM

All I have to say, 24, is NYLS.

avatar
46 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:19 PM

Why would anyone trust the legal advice of someone who couldn't even figure out the very basic problem with the unauthorized practice of law? If his law school (providing he actually is in law school) finds out about this, forget C&F, he's lucky if he's not expelled.

avatar
47 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:19 PM

Who DOESN'T know offering legal advice without a license to practice law is illegal??? This dude apparently hasn't even watched television for the past, oh, 20 years! I pray that Elie is being facetious when HE says Bert's going to be fine. Seems like Bert would have been better served playing the "Holy shit, people, it was just a joke" card than this lame attempt at a mea culpa. The last thing we need is more idiots like this guy out there playing lawyer. If he's in law school, he really should get out now, before he really does something harmful -- like to a client!

avatar
48 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:20 PM

36 is correct, if by 'entire legal community' he means moronic and insecure mouth-breathing law students.

avatar
49 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:20 PM

a fake doctor who attempted this would probably be hauled directly to jail.

avatar
50 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:20 PM

Since PE's comment was rather brief, I figured I'd fill in.

A homeless man asked me for a quarter back in 1968 when I whipped out my cock and slapped him in the face with it. Then I exclaimed

PEER FIRM! NON PEER FIRM!

PEER FIRM! NON PEER FIRM!

PEER FIRM! NON PEER FIRM!

Then I walked away
The End
-PE

avatar
51 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:21 PM

snarking at someone who is clearly going through some rough times...that's pretty classy.

avatar
52 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:21 PM

34 wins

avatar
53 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:21 PM

how is a law student unaware of the unauthorized practice of law prohibition?? What kind of law are they teaching over there at Oswego?!

avatar
54 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:21 PM

PE - DIdn't you play the President in "Clear and Present Danger?" I loved when you said, "How dare you bark at me like a junkyard dog, I am the President of the United States!"

avatar
55 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:22 PM

34 wins

avatar
56 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:22 PM

I caught my future-wife cheating on me with future-Hiro Nakamura. So I stabbed present-Hiro Nakamura to death so it would never happen. Yatta!

avatar
57 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:22 PM

how is a law student unaware of the unauthorized practice of law prohibition?? What kind of law are they teaching over there at Oswego?!

avatar
58 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:23 PM

41- laid off? I'm sure it was us and not you...

avatar
59 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:23 PM

how is a law student unaware of the unauthorized practice of law prohibition?? What kind of law are they teaching over there at Oswego?!

avatar
60 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:24 PM

this would never happen at WILDMAN HARROLD.

avatar
61 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:26 PM

Don't people speak English in Canada? Why does this guy write like a special olympics bowler/

avatar
62 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:27 PM

bert van der werff?

is that seriously somebody's real name?

also like how he thinks elie is a girl.

avatar
63 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:27 PM

"explaining that him that he was putting his entire career at risk."

mysTTTal, instead of idiotically speculating about what a C&F examiner might think of this situation, why don't you concentrate on PROOFREADING YOUR F-ING POSTS. YOU'RE A TOTAL AMATEUR

avatar
64 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:29 PM

He is definitely Locke Lord material.

avatar
65 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:31 PM

@ 54 - right on! Wasn't it also cool how he was going to persuade Jack Ryan to not tell on him because "he has a chip in the big game now"?

avatar
66 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:32 PM

Question to lawyers (I'm still in school): Don't all of you have a duty to report a violation of the ethics rules? If this dude actually violated the rule, wouldn't you have to report him? Or does that only hold true for ethical violations by an actual lawyer?

avatar
67 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:33 PM

I'm not so sure this was an honest mistake. The guy said "I am an experienced law student" in his craigslist post. In normal parlance, you are a "law student" if you are enrolled in law school. It doesn't mean you are pursuing your undergraduate degree in Public Justice, as he is according to his MySpace page. Furthermore, the guy posted his ad on craigslist in Tallahassee. If this was an honest mistake, why didn't he post on craigslist in New York? This looks more like outright fraud than an honest mistake.

avatar
68 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:34 PM

Wow, he argued in a "prosecution role" before the NYS Supreme Court? Impressive.

My favorite part is "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"

-I think in order to use the term "after law school" should probably be reserved for those who are in law school...or at least who have been accepted

-He seems to be a person who will be attending an open-enrollment law school like Thomas Cooley or Florida Coastal...It seems impossible to find success out of an open-enrollment law school

-Any good lawyer would know that being an attorney is not one's only chance at finanial stability....just hire one and sue a bitch (although it seems Bert would be able to represent himself)

-Tarbosh

P.S. I hope he knows he has to take the LSAT, and when he does...I am predicting a 142

avatar
69 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:35 PM

61- Ummm... Oswego is in NY. Not Canada.

avatar
70 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:36 PM

Not bright: offering legal advice without being admitted to practice the bar in your state.

Surprisingly perceptive: figuring out that Elie is a shemale.

avatar
71 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:36 PM

58: you must be busy at McDermott Will & Emery if you're wasting time reading threads about a post to craigslist.

avatar
72 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:37 PM

This d-bag really shouldn't reproduce. Let's hope for a miscarriage.

avatar
73 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:37 PM

At least the kid has more balls to hustle then most laid off posters on this site.

avatar
74 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:38 PM

My secretary will be tossing my salad today during lunch so I will be out of touch for a little while.

Abe Frohman

avatar
75 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:38 PM

A bunch of guys in my high school used to practice law without a license all the time. It was no big deal.

avatar
76 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:38 PM

I can't believe it took 34 posts to say something about a "future-wife."

Damned timebenders.

avatar
77 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:40 PM

WHAT A MORON!

Not only does he commit a flagrant violation of the law......but then HE ADMITS TO IT!

At least before he had plausible deniability. A former jealeous girlfriend, dickhead roomate or evil conficker could have made that post acting as an imposter (yes..very punny).

I sure hope he learns in law school that it is far better to refuse to admit something true if it can't be proven than to fess up to violating the law.

avatar
78 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:40 PM

After Latham's mass firings they would be lucky to recruit an associate of this guy's caliber.

avatar
79 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:42 PM

bert van der werff = Justice Souter's replacement

avatar
80 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:43 PM

SUPREME COURT PROSECUTOR WILL ANSWER ALL YOU'RE LEGALL QUESTIONS FOR ONLY $5.00 THATS PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR!!! I HAVE BEEN A LAW STUDENT FOR OVER EIGHT YEARS AND WILL PROVIDE WIKIPEDIA LINKS FOR ALL ANSWERS GIVEN!!!!

avatar
81 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:44 PM

Bert is fine! You don't HAVE to attend law school or pass the bar to counsel in the law, although they are nice "notches on your belt." I have been doing it for years!

-Andrew Cuomo

avatar
82 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:44 PM

Possibly the most worthless post on this blog. The worthlessness is only heightened when scrolling 2 inches down to see the poll on Souter.

avatar
83 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:45 PM

I am assuming that he is an undergrad who has taken a criminal justice class...and not a legal ethics class.

It seems like in some communities the basics of the legal profession (i.e. you can't give legal advice without passing the bar and being admitted to practice) are known or seem like common sense to college aged kids. Probably because their parents, parents' friends, aunts and uncles, etc. are attorneys.

Maybe this college aged guy doesn't come from one of these communities. Honestly, most of us don't.

However, irresponsible, his ad was, at least it was not the ridiculous quasi legal nonsense that the law students on this site drop. Every time some superdupersmart law student makes a comment about a promissory estoppel issue – I crack up….you guys are so funny and so cute.

avatar
84 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:46 PM

22 - its already the number one google hit for his name

avatar
85 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:46 PM

I am assuming that he is an undergrad who has taken a criminal justice class...and not a legal ethics class.

It seems like in some communities the basics of the legal profession (i.e. you can't give legal advice without passing the bar and being admitted to practice) are known or seem like common sense to college aged kids. Probably because their parents, parents' friends, aunts and uncles, etc. are attorneys.

Maybe this college aged guy doesn't come from one of these communities. Honestly, most of us don't.

However, irresponsible, his ad was, at least it was not the ridiculous quasi legal nonsense that the law students on this site drop. Every time some superdupersmart law student makes a comment about a promissory estoppel issue – I crack up….you guys are so funny and so cute.

avatar
86 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:48 PM

A bunch of guys in my high school used to practice law without a license all the time. It was no big deal.

Seriously, though, does anybody know that this guy actually gave any legal advice?

avatar
87 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:50 PM

He should have just been filling in legal forms based on a questionnaire, isn't that what most of you do all day anyway?

avatar
88 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:50 PM

44 - Agreed. It's funny when baby law students try to correct people's stupidity, only to reveal to the world how stupid they also are. "Plaintiff," indeed.

avatar
89 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:51 PM

83: you still don't get that the promissory estoppel stuff is a joke?

avatar
90 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:51 PM

you guys are all dicks. seriously, what a bunch of tattle tale losers.

avatar
91 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:51 PM

If I relied on his promise in the ad that he would provide legal advice for $5, and passed up an opportunity to hire a real lawyer as a result, thus suffering damages, could I have a claim against this guy?

What I'm struggling with is that there is no actual contract between us, and therefore I am at a loss as to what legal theory I could base my claim upon.

avatar
92 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:51 PM

Someone should have "hired" him to research the unauthorized practice of law. Then when/if he asked for payment, laugh at him and hope that he's not dumb enough to "prosecute" the claim.

avatar
93 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:51 PM

83/85:

I'd be more willing to throw the kid a bone had he not dropped this line: "I am an experienced law student"

I'm from one of those communities where the average college-aged kid doesn't have relatives who are lawyers or who have gone on to any sort of graduate program...and it's definitely widely understood that a "law student" is someone enrolled at a grad student.

avatar
94 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:52 PM

LMAO @ "future wife and unborn children"

What a tool.

Enjoy your future alimony and child support recipients, pal.

avatar
95 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:52 PM

.....BUTTCHEEKS.....

avatar
96 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:52 PM

Can we use this as an excuse to ban PE from the comments?

avatar
97 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:52 PM

I'm with you, 67. Most people who refer to themselves as "law students" who are not actually in law school know precisely what impression they're creating on the listener or reader. "Experienced law student," nonetheless. I'm highly suspicious that this was not, in fact, an innocent mistake.

avatar
98 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:54 PM

Quick question, since Elie is a lawyer and knowingly aired this ad on the site (which he/she should have known was a violation of the law) are there any issues for Elie and the site?

Please discuss.

avatar
99 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:54 PM

71- are you are.....?

avatar
100 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:57 PM

Wow, he thinks he's qualified to answer legal questions, but he also thinks it's possible for a non-lawyer to act as a prosecutor in a state supreme court.

This is why I have no faith in America's youth.

avatar
101 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:57 PM

89: I hope the promissory estoppel stuff is a joke, there is just a certain earnestness in those posts...I’m terribly impressed at the recreation of OMG-I’m-a-law-student-and-I-know-something tone in those posts…impressed indeed!

avatar
102 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 1:58 PM

In the future, all wives will be 3500 sq ft.

avatar
103 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:00 PM

Hey Elie, lets get a new thread up and running. I'm tired of reading/talking about this kid.

avatar
104 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:00 PM

101: that's why the joke works. Although it's now a little diminished with one less person to fall for it.

avatar
105 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:01 PM

Lawyer or not, I bet he has more legal skills than the silver spoon document reviewers that flock to this site...

avatar
106 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:02 PM

104: I'm sorry to take that special little happiness of the promissory estoppel joke away from you. I hope you can make it through...

avatar
107 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:05 PM

101 - Are you really this dense?

avatar
108 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:07 PM

Bret should blow his brains out like that guy yesterday.

avatar
109 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:07 PM

"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."


If intentional, this was comedic genius. I have a sneaking suspicion it wasn't, but I still can't stop laughing.

avatar
110 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:08 PM

I am about to spread my secretary's buttcheeks....

Happy May Day!

avatar
111 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:08 PM

101 - I hope you're at least book smart, because street smarts waived bye bye to you long ago.

avatar
112 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:09 PM

108,
His name is Bert. I just hired him as a clerk.
-Andrew Cuomo

avatar
113 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:10 PM

ahem, *waved*

-111

avatar
114 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:12 PM

Anybody want to meet up in the lobby for some sex?

avatar
115 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:18 PM

In 111's defense...he/she didn't claim to be all book smart...no no 111 is on ATL and has all of them street smarts.

avatar
116 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:20 PM

Does the fetus in his future wife have any reliance claims based upon his calling it an "unborn child" if it were to be aborted? What would the restatement say?

avatar
117 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:21 PM

law.justia.com/newyork/codes/judiciary/jud0478_478.html

New York Law:
§ 478. Practicing or appearing as attorney-at-law without being admitted and registered.
§ 484. None but attorneys to practice in the state.

New York Ethics:
CANON 1. A Lawyer Should Assist in Maintaining the
Integrity and Competence of the Legal Profession

EC 1-2

The public should be protected from those who are not qualified to be lawyers by reason of a deficiency in education or moral standards or of other relevant factors but who nevertheless seek to practice law. To assure the maintenance of high moral and educational standards of the legal profession, lawyers should affirmatively assist courts and other appropriate bodies in promulgating, enforcing, and improving requirements for admission to the bar. In like manner, the bar has a positive obligation to aid in the continued improvement of all phases of pre-admission and post-admission legal education.

avatar
118 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:22 PM

Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. And is Ms. Mystal a lawyer? Because she seems ok with the unauthorized practice of law. I don't think anyone could exaggerate the risk this guy was taking on.

avatar
119 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:24 PM

101 - since you relied upon said comments to the detriment of your pride and perception of your ability to detect sarcasm, can you think of a section of the restatement that could provide you with a remedy?

avatar
120 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:27 PM

PE plays very corroded and oxidized trombones for fun. Most would classify the trombones he plays as rusty.

avatar
121 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:35 PM

Nice to see MysTTTal still hasn't taken the original article down

122 Posted by Glass Cock | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:39 PM

Former Thelen and current Orrick partner the Glass Cock here, saddened to hear that I was ripped off for $5. I retained the services of Mr. Van der Werff (as I have previously had good luck with any associates whose surname includes a "Van"). Mr. Van der Werff's workproduct was at least as good as any third year associate's work. My client had received a threatening letter from a customer and Mr. Van der Werff's response was, I must say, brilliant. Read it for yourselves:

"Mr. I. Abelman, Mongoloid, Esq.:
We have received via post your absurd comments about our trousers, the comments revealing, as they did, your total lack of contact with reality. Were you more aware, you would know or realize by now that the offending trousers were dispatched to you with our full knowledge that they were inadequate so far as length was concerned. "Why? Why?" you are in your incomprehensible babble, unable to assimilate stimulating concepts of commerce into your retarded and blighted worldview.
The trousers were sent to you (1) as a means of testing your initiative (A clever, wide-awake business concern should be able to make three-quarter length trousers a by-word of masculine fashion. Your advertising and merchandising programs are obviously faulty.) and (2) as a means of testing your ability to meet the standards requisite in a distributor of our quality product. (Our loyal and dependable outlets can vend any trouser bearing the Levy label no matter how abominable their design and construction. You are apparently a faithless people.)

We do not wish to be bothered in the future by such tedious complaints. Please confine your correspondence to orders only. We are busy and dynamic organization whose mission needless effrontery and harassment can only hinder.

If you molest us again, sir, you may feel the sting of the lash across your pitiful shoulders.

Yours in anger,

Gus Levy, Pres."

avatar
123 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:39 PM

i think his best bet is the "it wasn't me" card, and claim somebody set him up the bomb by using his email address in the CL posting...

i mean, how do we know this is the actual dude? couldn't i just setup a fake CL ad and use one of my enemies email addys in the email to screw him over for C&F?

avatar
124 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:44 PM

I just installed a Fleshlight underneath my desk for when I am feeling frisky, but still want to get some work done.

avatar
125 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:45 PM

Um, Elie you tool, you should be listening to 25/27.

If this kid is actually in law school (which now appears to be in doubt) he HAS to self-report the violations to the C&F in NY.

PLUS every single person who read this (including you Mystal) who is a member of the NY bar is under the same obligation to report this to the C&F committee of the NY Bar.

Read your damn ethics rules people, there are brand new ones out.

And if this kid isn't even a law student at an ABA law school, then he should be turned in not only to the disciplinary board, but to the NY police for violation of the NY laws against unauthorized practice and for internet fraud.

Mr. Van Der Werff, nothing personal, but I take my ethical duties seriously. Consider this your notice of having been reported to the NY bar.

avatar
126 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:46 PM

Comment 1 FTW. Seriously, that was hilarious. I can't believe "promissory falafel" hasn't gotten any respect.

- not 1

avatar
127 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:47 PM

I just can't buy the excuse of "not knowing." If you dont need a license to practice law, why would you even consider going to law school? Why would anyone take a bar exam? Someone above posted that maybe he was just not from the right community - that is ridiculous, this is just common sense. Any way you slice it, this is retarded.

avatar
128 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:53 PM

I will not be going against Bert in "a prosecution role." Bert is now on my payroll.

-Andrew Cuomo

avatar
129 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:55 PM

"Well, I am currently a student of law. I also plan to own my own law firm int he future."

LULZ

avatar
130 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 2:57 PM

I hope everyone who emailed him to tell him he was breaking the law had a license to practice law in that state. Otherwise, they're probably practicing law without a license. I'm sure it says something about this in the Restatement (of the Law Governing Lawyers).

avatar
131 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 3:07 PM

130=CUNY Student...for sure!

-Tarbosh

avatar
133 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 3:08 PM

Anybody want to have sex with Mystal and Evan Chesler this weekend?

Holla!

avatar
134 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 3:12 PM

WHAT A BUNCH OF LAME ASS TOOLS.

First, get a life.

Second, all he said is that he can answer your legal question. That doesn't mean he's giving legal advice, idiots. The questions could be as basic as: who appoints federal judges; what is a class action lawsuit; what exactly does the 2nd amendment mean?

I hope all of you TTType A jerks lose your jobs.

avatar
135 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 3:13 PM

Wasn't this the guy who killed Natalie Halloway in Aruba?

avatar
136 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 3:14 PM

"You have a very huge rear!"
We tell Elie year after year.
But those big black cheeks,
Have slimmed in past weeks.
The end of his end is near!
- Another Trite Limerickist

avatar
137 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 3:18 PM

134=CUNY student. For Sure!

-Tarbosh

avatar
138 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 3:37 PM

You people are all idiots. Yea, its me, Bert van der werff. WHY the FUCK would I lie about not knowing it was illegal and use my unborn child for sympathy? Your all FUCKED IN THE HEAD. It was an honest mistake, I corrected it...GET A LIFE. You people who think your all high and mighty are idiots. This whole thing is stupid. Had I known it was illegal I would have never done it. Especially knowing it would jeopardize my career. I have nobody to impress at this point so I'd like to address every single comment about my ad. FUCK YOU. Hows that for professionalism? Find something better to do with your lives than harp on innocent people. And pray that God doesnt punish you for the shit you put me through. There's no way to prove to you that it was an honest mistake, but at least God knows. And he'll deal with each one of you who are being DICKS seperately. So when you suddenly get fired from your jobs or your wives leave you know this: It's KARMA coming back to you for being an asshole to someone who didn't know better.
VERY TRULY YOURS,
MR. BERT J. van der Werff

avatar
139 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 3:42 PM

You guys are forgetting that Bert is an "experienced law student!" That has to count for something... even though he doesn't know the difference between being a plaintiff and a prosecutor.

Sheesh. Total example as to why there should only be 50 law school licensed in the US.

avatar
140 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 3:49 PM

if i relied on comment 138 to my detriment... aw screw it; not even rstmt 90 can add to this situation.

avatar
141 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 3:55 PM

Believe it or not, that may actually be Bert responding.

And although I have had many many many laughs about his craiglist post, and subsequent "appology" I am laughin at this comment even more. Whether it is Bert himself, or a skilled imposter..KUDOS. Well done, absolutely hilarious.

The part about God & Karma in the same statement is classic, as is talking about God punishing us while using excessive curse words in the same sentence.

-Not to mention that Bert's gonna be a daddy out of wedlock...I am sure God is thrilled about that one.

-Tarbosh

P.S. If it was an imposter you made one mistake. You forget to mention Bert's "future-wife"

avatar
142 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 4:12 PM

First to say, wear a rubber.

avatar
143 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 4:18 PM

141 -

I am not thrilled. Not at all.


God

avatar
144 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 4:22 PM

I certainly have sympathy for the guy and think it was just an honest mistake.

Many law students I knew wrongly gave legal advice to friends etc. because they were full of their own self-importance and wanted to feel important (that's my opinion, anyway) and didn't react nearly as well to being told they shouldn't do so, this law student's attitude is much better...

avatar
145 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 4:27 PM

LOL I haven't enjoyed a post on ATL this much in a long time! And yes, not enough credit to promissory falafal!

avatar
146 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 4:31 PM

125 - consider this your notice that you should remove that redbull from your ass.

avatar
147 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 4:40 PM

dear 138 - if you want to become a lawyer, you'd better get used to the other members of the profession. they have little patience for imposters and can be quite harsh. if you're melting down on a blog, how will you prosecute cases before the Supreme Court?

avatar
148 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 4:48 PM

138 - We may (MAY) excuse the fact that you did not know that you're not allowed to practice law without a license. However, calling yourself an "experienced law student" is unacceptable to all those of us who slaved away for 3 years earning our degrees (on top of undergrad).

I think, maybe, that if you had said "student of the law/legal system" we might be more accepting.

avatar
149 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 4:49 PM

Whether or not I believe or care that you (twerp) were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law (or knew it), I do enjoy that you like so many others behaved like you were the most clever monkey in the whole jungle. You may have been ignorant of the rule itself, and you may have never watched a legal TV show in the past 2 decades, but common sense should have told you that if this were an OK way to make money, then other people would be doing it, too. But, no, you're the smartest boy ever coming up with this idea.

Though anyone who'd pay you $5 in response to a misspelled Craigslist post from someone who obviously doesn't know the law from a burrito deserves to be out their $5.

avatar
150 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 5:01 PM

Bert (or 138 pretending to be Bert) dude, just better to let this one go. You fucked up royally, have to expect people to give you shit for such a moronic mistake. Just a couple things I wanted to point out. First, you say you dont want this to affect your career. News flash-you dont have a career. You need to be hired before you can have a career. Second, you say you have no one to impress at this point. Well, you may want to impress any potential employer, or they probably wont hire you. You may want to impress your profs-or you can look forward to being on academic probation. I'm not going to pile on, you have gotten enough shit (well deserved). However, responding by cursing out everyone on these boards is probably not the best way to redeem yourself in the eyes of the legal community.

avatar
151 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 5:06 PM

I wonder what the Oswego administration would think of this kid doing this? Hmm...

avatar
152 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 5:07 PM

148 is absolutely correct. If you are not in law school yet (which many of these posts seem to indicate) calling yourself an "expierenced law student" is a slap in the face to all of us who went through the hell that is law school, and is complete bull shit. If you are not in law school yet, my advice is don't go, you wont succeed. If you are in law school and don't know that a non lawyer can't give legal advice, you surely are not an "experienced law student." Either way, your claim to be an "experienced law student" is total bull shit, and for that you owe the entire legal community a sincere apology.

avatar
153 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 5:09 PM

fix your typos, you fat lazy fuck
this story has been up for 5 hours already ...

avatar
154 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 5:09 PM

fix your typos, you fat lazy fuck
this story has been up for 5 hours already ...

avatar
155 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 5:12 PM

100 - Bert lives in NY. In NY, the Supreme Court is the trial court, not the highest appellate court. You'll probably learn that when you get to law school. Luckily for you, you'll already know one of your classmates at T.M. Cooley: Bert J. van der Werff.

avatar
156 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 5:23 PM

Bert,

If you're so concerned about your family's future financial stability, I'd suggest you stick around this site and read about what's going on in the legal world. Things are rough out there, and the students you'll be competing against for jobs will likely have a significant amount more "experience" than you.

Also -- hate to say it -- but judging from your writing & communication skills, you won't be gaining admission to a top law school. Sure, some people are quite successful coming out of lower-tier schools, BUT it's not a risk I'd take if I had a wife & kid to provide for. The more likely scenario is winding up saddling your new family with $100K+ in loans, while working a $40K/year job.

With love & sincerity,

Scared T10 2L

avatar
157 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 6:14 PM

A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce an action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.

avatar
158 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 6:39 PM

138 -- Hey jerkoff, maybe you should learn to deal with criticism if you're the kind of dumbfuck who goes off jeopardizing his legal career before he even graduates from law school. Why should anyone trust your legal advice when you don't know basic facts about the profession?

Seriously though, what kind of weird chutzpah makes you think you're even remotely qualified to dispense legal advice? Are you delusional enough to think that a year or two of law school makes you some kind of expert? And charging $5 for that advice? Jesus, you sound like a tool of gigantic proportions.

Also, learn to spell. You write like a braindead monkey.

avatar
159 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 8:10 PM

I'm surprised that one one has brought up assisting in the unauthorized practice of law. Any commenter (or blogger) who egged him on, or publicized his ad before the paid questions were asked, might want to self-report, just to be on the safe side.

avatar
160 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 9:20 PM

Bert was hired today as an associate at Latham.

avatar
161 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 10:16 PM

160
That's impossible. He accepted a position under me this morning!
-Andrew Cuomo

avatar
162 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 11:41 PM

Dear Bert, Thank you for being so unintentionally retarded. I mean the irony that you would break the most basic of rules (and not even realize it) while holding yourself out as qualified to answer legal questions--priceless--and every time you sit down at your keyboard it gets even better. Still chuckling on an otherwise dreary day in biglaw. Don't worry though. If your notion of being a lawyer is as misguided as your notion of being a law student, I think you have a bright future as a lawyer--you know, the guy who rides the bike over to the court with the papers.

avatar
163 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, May 1, 2009 11:45 PM

Dear Bert, Thank you for being so unintentionally retarded. I mean the irony that you would break the most basic of rules (and not even realize it) while holding yourself out as qualified to answer legal questions--priceless--and every time you sit down at your keyboard it gets even better. Still chuckling on an otherwise dreary day in biglaw. Don't worry though. If your notion of being a lawyer is as misguided as your notion of being a law student, I think you have a bright future as a lawyer--you know, the guy who rides the bike over to the court with the papers.

avatar
164 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, May 2, 2009 3:21 AM

100 = Fail (NY Supreme != highest)

avatar
165 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, May 2, 2009 5:01 AM

I think the people who came down hard on this kid did him a favor. Better that he get a tongue-lashing from a bezillion lawyers now than a nasty character & fitness rejection later.

As an aside ... he represented himself in a "prosecution role?" By now, shouldn't a 1L know the difference between civil and criminal litigation? Or am i missing a peculiarity of NY law?

avatar
166 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, May 2, 2009 5:12 AM

Guys --

Don't go too hard on Bert over his attitude. I'd guess that a large chunk of us went through the "I'm so impressed with myself" phase somewhere during law school. Some of us are still stuck in it.

avatar
167 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, May 2, 2009 10:50 AM

It is only the unauthorized practice of law if he advertises in the Legal Services section on Craigslist. He is in the clear if he advertises in the Casual Encounters section as M4Client Quick/Cheap Legal Hookup.

avatar
168 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, May 2, 2009 10:51 AM

It is only the unauthorized practice of law if he advertises in the Legal Services section on Craigslist. He is in the clear if he advertises in the Casual Encounters section as M4Client Quick/Cheap Legal Hookup.

avatar
169 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, May 2, 2009 11:48 AM

"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."

1. You obviously did not learn enough.

2. You also need to learn about these things called 'paragraphs' - perhaps you might have used them when filing your motions ?

avatar
170 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, May 2, 2009 12:40 PM

Last I checked, ignorance of the law is no defense. I hope one of Bert's fellow "prosecutors" - since that what he claimed to be - files some charges. Nothing like an open-and-shut case to add to the win column.

avatar
171 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, May 2, 2009 6:58 PM

Am I the only one who thinks that this whole thing is an elaborate (and brilliant) hoax?

avatar
172 Posted by guest | Permalink Sunday, May 3, 2009 6:21 PM

164 = Fail. Non-lawyers cannot be prosecutors in NY's Supreme Court. It doesn't make a difference if it's the highest court, lowest court, or whatever the fuck court.

Again, this is why I have no faith in America's youth.

-100

avatar
173 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, May 4, 2009 7:31 AM

Now that it is monday and I assume this thread is over, I just want to say thank you to Bert. I had many laughs over this issue.

Having said that, I am truly truly truly sorry to your "unborn child" and "future wife." It is going to be a tough life, and especially for the child who had no choice in its father being a complete waste of space on planet earth.

That child will likely wish it had been swallowed!

avatar
174 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, May 4, 2009 3:15 PM

I don't know about other states, but here in Delaware he will have to disclose what he did in order to be admitted. The examiners are VERY thorough and will find out about this. Failure to disclose will be seen as lack of repentance.

Post Your Comment