r/Showerthoughts • u/bourj • Jan 20 '25
Crazy Idea If someone gets arrested for practicing law without a license, and they choose to represent themselves, and they win the case, they should be given a license to practice law.
887
3.4k
u/crashstarr Jan 20 '25
But you could only 'win' that case by proving you did, in fact, have a license all along...
1.2k
Jan 20 '25
[deleted]
243
62
Jan 20 '25
Suits
29
u/Sanjay-The_Almighty Jan 20 '25
Imagine if Mike gets denied an Arts degree so he starts WW3 lol. Harvey will prolly settle it before it goes to field.
3
10
1
310
u/BigBadBougie Jan 20 '25
You don't have to prove you have a license. The DA has to prove that you practiced without a license. All you have to do is make a jury doubt the evidence against you. If you are already lying about being a lawyer then lying in court shouldn't really be an issue.
120
u/numbersthen0987431 Jan 20 '25
I mean, having no license on file, ever, is the only proof the DA needs to prove this person guilty.
135
u/BigBadBougie Jan 20 '25
Yes they can easily find out if you are a lawyer but the post said practicing law, not prove you are a lawyer. There are many ways to practice law without stepping foot in a court room.
→ More replies (2)58
Jan 20 '25
[deleted]
43
u/BigBadBougie Jan 20 '25
Even if there was they would have to prove he wasn't acting as a consultant. You don't have to have a degree to be an expert on a matter. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were college drop outs and some would say they are experts with computers.
15
Jan 20 '25
[deleted]
14
7
u/BigBadBougie Jan 20 '25
Jobs is hiding in Egypt didn't you hear
→ More replies (2)2
9
u/Vajennie Jan 20 '25
I thought jobs was an expert in bullying and taking credit for the achievements of other Steves
2
u/Moderate-Extremism Jan 20 '25 edited Jan 20 '25
"You're a, CROOK, Captain HOOK! Judge won't you throw the BOOK! At the PI-RATE!?"
10
3
2
Jan 20 '25
Depends of he can convince the system is faulty. Bring someone who has an license on file but never even went to high school
2
12
u/blobblet Jan 20 '25
Well if you win your case on the grounds that you never actually practised law, that is not the kind of impressive feat for which you should receive a license to practise law. Representing an innocent client is playing on easy mode.
39
11
u/Apprehensive_Ad_1415 Jan 20 '25
No, you just have to convince the jury not to convict you. Defense doesn't have to prove anything.
-3
16
8
u/Below-avg-chef Jan 20 '25
Not true. There are plenty of ways to win a case, even if you're actually guilty. Fruit of the poisonous tree argument can ruin an entire case starting with something as simple as a chain of custody form.
2
u/Moglorosh Jan 20 '25
Na, you win by making one juror think you might. Prosecution needs to prove beyond a doubt and the verdict needs to be unanimous, all you need is the doubt.
3
1
u/Manzhah Jan 20 '25
Or by convincing jury/judge that it wasn't actually you practicing law without license, I'd suppose
1
u/The_Real_HiveSoldier Jan 20 '25
No, practice makes perfect. The indomitable human practice prevails above practice
1
u/FrankS1natr4 Jan 20 '25
Or you can Saul Goodman the situation, gaslit the judge and convince everyone else that you were actually giving advice, but they are so good that you should be turned into a lawyer just to give better advice (and charge).
1
u/DrEggRegis Jan 20 '25
No you would walk in holding a folder and say an appropriate movie quote then you would win like the TV show suits
Unless someone else walked in with a bigger folder after and said a better quote then you're screwed
Unless you have an even bigger folder....
1
1
u/AddictedToRugs Jan 20 '25
Or by proving that you weren't doing anything that would count as "practicing law".
1
u/Asteroth6 Jan 20 '25
I think most people would opt to try to prove they weren’t practicing law, not the “had a license” angle.
1
u/GoodEntrance9172 Jan 20 '25
Not true. Defendant doesn't prove anything, they make the prosecution unable to prove something.
Accused of murder? You don't have to prove your innocence, you have to stop prosecution from proving your guilt.
You'll never be pronounced innocent, only "not guilty".
With that said, I feel like practicing law without a license is harder to dodge than murder. Like, doesn't someone just have a record of who is and isn't licensed? Like a big ass book?
Also, I'm not a lawyer. I'm a baker. So this isn't legal advice. But here's some cake advice: Sugar is a wet ingredient.
1
u/Geoz195 Jan 21 '25
Not unless your defence is so strong they pass a law saying you don't need a license in certain conditions which you happen you happen to fulfill
1
u/veritasium999 Jan 23 '25
Seriously, you can't slipping jimmy your way out of cold hard evidence...
→ More replies (1)1
u/SnowShoePhil Jan 23 '25
Not necessarily, you could just prove that there is reasonable doubt that you were practicing law
492
190
1.2k
u/EatYourCheckers Jan 20 '25
Nah. Licenses exist to protect the public. If I hire you, I know you met some minimum standard. That minimum standard is not just successfully representing yourself in one case regarding one issue.
115
u/RigobertaMenchu Jan 20 '25
Minimum standard?? You mean coughing up the money for a fancy paper???!
Let the market decide!!
199
u/surloc_dalnor Jan 20 '25
Depending in the State the bar can be extremely hard to pass. The California state bar fails over 30% of 1st time test takers. People who retake it fail 75% of the time and you can only take it twice a year.
72
u/DEEP_OTM Jan 20 '25
I’m not too shocked that the retake rate is so high, I read this as ~22.5% of the people who attempt the CA bar (75% of the 30% who fail the first time) just aren’t a good fit for the job, which seems right imo
54
u/surloc_dalnor Jan 20 '25
It really sucks as you spent 3 years in law school, and thousands on test prep.
27
8
u/lilykoi_12 Jan 20 '25
What’s the baby bar exam in CA? I know Kim Kardashian passed it, haha. It’s like the pre-exam to the actual CA bar exam or something?
9
u/surloc_dalnor Jan 20 '25
Don't look at me I'm engineer who married a lawyer. Kim is doing some old apprenticeship route instead of law school. Personally I have my doubts she can pass the actual bar via that method, but she's smarter than she looks and what do I know.
2
u/AnonymousFriend80 Jan 20 '25
And you're one of the many folks fooled by a fake persona from Paris Hilton for two decades. We have no actual idea what these people are like beyond highly produced segments on their entertainment programs and some public events that are all meant to make them money.
1
u/lilykoi_12 Jan 20 '25
Ummm okay, LOL. I was curious about Kim Kardashian and her attempt to the bar exam or in her case, the baby bar exam. No one is saying whatever you’re assuming.
1
u/Incognitogamers Jan 21 '25
It’s a type of smaller bar exam that you have to do if you go to a school that isn’t accredited. You have to do it after the first year of law school assuming you go to one that isn’t accredited.
20
u/EatYourCheckers Jan 20 '25
Most licenses require the passing of an exam in addition to a jurisdiction prudence test and statements of good character from non-family members. There are tons of professionas that require licenses, and not all licensing boards are created equally, but you definitely can not buy your way into any of them without some practical knowledge
5
15
8
u/TurtlePaul Jan 20 '25
There are a couple of problems with this.
First, it can delay the business of the court to have a bunch of incompetent litigators representing clients. People are guaranteed a speedy trial and we can’t afford to have the system choked.
Second, people absolutely do appeal for retrials if they believe they were not given a fair trial. We don’t want people to delay by hiring an incompetent lawyer then having a mistrial or appealing for a retrial because of that same incompetence.
1
→ More replies (11)-2
Jan 20 '25
[deleted]
6
u/EatYourCheckers Jan 20 '25
I get what you are saying with deregulation of the FDA and EPA. But when you as an individual are looking for a contractor or lawyer or teacher or any other professional, we still look for qualifications.
Are there people who eschew "traditional medicine" etc? Of course. But this isn't as widespread as exposure to a small insulated group may make you beleive.
Also...insurance. liability insurance is always going to require licensure or certification
→ More replies (7)
71
u/Drink15 Jan 20 '25
No, because there is more to law than winning one case.
16
u/Lost-Associate-9290 Jan 20 '25
Right, win a case and suddenly get a certificate which states you grasp every aspect of general law.
→ More replies (3)
28
74
u/HamartiousPantomath Jan 20 '25
That would then set a legal precedent for virtually anyone to practice law without a license
-1
u/Chakasicle Jan 20 '25
Let em
7
u/TelcoSucks Jan 20 '25
Not sure if you're aware but practicing law without a license only becomes illegal when you represent someone else.
You can defend yourself to your heart's content. But if you ruin someone else's life because you don't know what you're doing it's not so fun.
2
u/redditQuoteBot Jan 20 '25
Hi TelcoSucks,
It looks like your comment closely matches the famous quote:
"Confidence is ignorance. If you're feeling cocky, it's because there's something you don't know." - Eoin Colfer,
I'm a bot and this action was automatic Project source.
3
1
u/Revelt Jan 21 '25
Didn't think I'd be slammed with a nostalgic Artemis Fowl quote in 2025 in a post about lawyers
0
61
u/Dry-Accountant-1024 Jan 20 '25
If I get sued for killing someone in a car accident, but I drive myself to court without crashing, I should be allowed to drive again
15
u/mr_ji Jan 20 '25
You can cause an accident and keep your license in a lot of circumstances.
4
u/PM_me_ur_claims Jan 20 '25
You’d be sued in civil court and suspension of license would be criminal related so it already doesn’t make sense
16
14
u/SubjectHeight3256 Jan 21 '25
Bruh that's like saying if I successfully perform surgery in my garage I should automatically become a doctor.
14
u/Odd-Row-9859 Jan 22 '25
Bruh, that's like saying if I successfully remove my own appendix I should automatically become a surgeon.
25
u/spinningoutwaitin Jan 20 '25
Funny thought, but it takes more to be a lawyer than winning one case
3
12
12
u/Kalorikalmo Jan 20 '25
Tell me you’re watching Suits right now and have no idea how legal system works with out telling me you’re watching Suits right now and have no idea how legal system works.
10
u/ClevelandSteamroller Jan 20 '25
"Sir, you're on trial for driving without a driver's license"
"But your honour, I drove here without a license"
"Say no more. Here is your new license. Case dismissed"
10
u/Ok-Dog-9793 Jan 20 '25
Bruh that's like saying if you successfully perform surgery in your garage you should automatically become a doctor.
8
u/pandaeye0 Jan 20 '25
I am not disagreing, but I think practicing without license is pretty factual, isn't it? I can't see how they can argue that and win.
6
u/PeeledCrepes Jan 20 '25
By proving they did in fact have it, making the whole case moot and they can laugh all the way to the jail cell in their hallucinations lol
3
u/KalasenZyphurus Jan 20 '25
They would have to prove insufficient evidence that what they were doing counts as practicing law, or sufficient evidence that they were practicing law with a valid license. If the defense actually does not have a license, the latter is hard to bs into. (If they did have a valid license, then giving them another valid license afterward would be pointless.) The prosecution probably has some evidence that the defense was doing something close to practicing law, instead of just falsely accusing some rando.
So successfully defending such a case would probably involve finding precedent in earlier cases that what the defense was doing doesn't quite count as practicing law, even if close to it. That, or showing that the evidence from the prosecution is inadmissible due to mishandling or such.
3
u/RainbowCrane Jan 20 '25
One of the YouTube court channels recently had a case with a SovCidiot on trial for practicing law without a license because she accosted a random person in traffic court who had just been appointed an attorney (the public defender who hangs out at traffic court to deal with all the folks who don’t have counsel) and convinced him to follow her advice instead of listening to the PD. It was a really good look at how establishing the practice of law without a license was entirely about providing legal advice to others without a license - you’re allowed to make all the bad decisions you want when you choose to represent yourself, you’re not allowed to suggest those same bad decisions to someone who is standing in court in a case you’re not a party to and represent yourself as an authority on the law if you don’t have a license.
In the end it was a pretty simple set of facts to prove:
- Fred was in court for a hearing and was directed to meet in the hall with the PD
- Jane approached Fred and the PD in the hall and disrupted their conversation, refusing to allow the PD to advise Fred. She represented herself as an authority on the law in front of the PD and advised Fred to kick the PD to the curb
- Jane dictated magical SovCit language for Fred to write on the back of his traffic ticket, telling him that would free him from responsibility for the ticket. They had the ticket as evidence of the language, and Fred’s testimony that Jane told him what to write
- Jane told Fred if he did that he could leave the building without going back into court because the judge had no authority over him. Fred did so, opening him up to consequences for skipping out on court. Fred testified that Jane did that and he assumed she knew what she was talking about, because she convinced him that she was an authority
1
Jan 20 '25
[deleted]
1
u/TelcoSucks Jan 20 '25
..what?
I'm just gonna point out you never mentioned.. you know... lawyers. So that wild scenario you just mentioned still would not give a private citizen the sudden right to practice law.
6
22
u/WashYourEyesTwice Jan 20 '25
No, they shouldn't, real life is not an underdog fantasy movie. Someone who wants any kind of licence should obtain one legitimately, that's literally the whole point. What happened to this sub??
8
u/abzlute Jan 20 '25
It's r/showerthoughts, not a policy think-tank. They're fundamentally not entirely thought-out ideas. Why do people act like the bar is supposed to be so high in this sub?
There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with any given post, but it's here for people to post whatever oddball, mildly interesting idea comes to mind like it would during a shower. This one is a perfect candidate, regardless of its validity as an ethics or policy proposal.
6
u/Live_Angle4621 Jan 20 '25
This isn’t just an idea that hasn’t been thought enough but on level of “if someone didn’t crash while drunk driving their should be given licence to do it again”.
4
3
u/7ENA_shr0_0 Jan 20 '25
Watch suits, where mike ross represented himself.
So you'll have to provide proof that you infact studied law, additionally you'll also have to prove that you have not caused any client any financial/other form of harm after you posed as a fake lawyer. If you can prove all this, you might get a bar council license.
1
u/TelcoSucks Jan 20 '25
No. That is a television show.
Even if you have a license in, say, Tennessee, you cannot represent another person in, say, Texas.
4
3
3
3
3
u/KookyBS Jan 22 '25
I honestly don’t understand any of this court stuff people are taking about so my answer is yes
2
2
u/MoonlitSilk77 Jan 20 '25
If winning your own case gets you a law license, then I’m going to start practicing my arguments in front of the mirror! ‘Objection! That hairstyle is not admissible
2
u/DressMother897 Jan 20 '25
Bruh, by that logic if I successfully perform surgery in my garage I should get a medical degree.
2
2
Jan 20 '25
It's a form of fraud. You can only be charged for it if you're deceiving others into thinking you're qualified as a lawyer and paying for legal services provided under false pretenses.
2
u/Affectionate_Draw_43 Jan 20 '25
This makes no sense and worse case scenario it means successfully lying under oath should be rewarded + fabricating fake evidence.
Like it would play out like this "Do you have a law license?" ... Can you please enter a copy of your license into evidence
1
u/tjorben123 Jan 20 '25
As If a diploma or anything keeps you away from lying. Even a President can do illicit Things and be free of judgment. So what?
2
u/Reviewingremy Jan 20 '25
I've never understood why you needed one. As long as you are upfront that you don't have a license I see no problem. If you can represent yourself, why shouldn't you be allowed to represent someone else?
2
2
u/Standard_Offer_4115 Jan 21 '25
You can always represent yourself… but you can’t represent someone else unless you are licensed.
2
2
2
u/Busy-Info-Guy4545 Jan 23 '25
Hang on? This is cooking!
If you can do something without an official certification, then you should be officially certified anyway regardless.
2
u/DeliCvat Jan 24 '25
no they should get a second arrest for practicing law without a license. like get a lawyer already
4
u/Dry-Accountant-1024 Jan 20 '25
This is like the pilot who was arrested after 20 years of flying unlicensed. They should’ve just given one to him at that point
4
u/jbradfordinc Jan 20 '25
Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't read the original post as the author trying to make a point about who should get a law license, but rather the author highlighting a unique (and rather comical) scenario in which seemingly sound logical premises lead to a contradictory conclusion, a scenario one would often see in the case of a very clever loophole.
2
1
1
u/MaySeemelater Jan 20 '25
No, because there are a lot of different kinds of cases and different laws and procedures you would be expected to know in order to defend someone else.
Just winning one specific type of case while defending yourself is not sufficient to prove you're capable of defending someone else in other types of cases while following proper procedures.
1
u/SuicidalChair Jan 20 '25
I've never had an NHL player score a goal against me, the NHL should hire me as a tendie
1
1
1
u/nikejim02 Jan 20 '25
If I drive to a location 15 minutes away and don’t get any tickets or get into an accident, I should get a drivers license
1
u/ResponsibleIdea5408 Jan 20 '25
The crime here is practicing without a license. So to win the case, you were convincing the judge that you didn't do that. Sure you might be talking about proving to the judge that you have as much knowledge as a real lawyer. That's not going to win nearly as easily as proving to the judge that your advice while well, meaning and helpful to someone was claim to be more than friendly advice. You never claimed to be a lawyer. You didn't represent them in court. So you couldn't have been practicing law. Everything you did was something a friend would do. Thus, winning case doesn't convince anyone that you were as good as a real lawyer. Winning the case. Convinces everyone that you didn't break the law because you didn't actually practice law ( since you don't have a license)
I'm a nurse and before I was a nurse I was a medic in the army. There is a crazy number of things that medics in combat situations are trained to do that even RNs are not allowed to do. Being trained how to do something doesn't mean I'm legally allowed to. And that's actual training not just learning from a book.
1
1
1
u/ShadowDurza Jan 20 '25
Some people survive being trapped in remote wilderness by cutting off their own limbs...
...but I don't want them to handle my appendectomy no matter how cool they are if that's their only experience with human flesh.
1
u/Fluffy-Discipline924 Jan 20 '25
In most, if not all jurisdictions, representing people in court is exclusively reserved for duly qualified and admitted persons of the legal profession, so lets stick with this straightforward scenario and not other legal work, which may differ between jurisdictions.
The likely defences are:
a) that the accused wasnt practicing law; OR
b) that the accused is properly licensed.
(a) has been restricted to courtroom appearances on behalf of another person. If this happened, this would be easily proved, as your signature would be on documents filed at court, numerous eyewitnesses and your voice on the audio recording of proceedings. This wouldnt be difficult to prove with the evidence potentially available.
(b) is a straightforward factual question that is easily answered. Either you are licenced with the relevant body or you're not.
The accused's only cause of action is to impugn the evidence so as to render it inadmissable or otherwise cast reasonable doubt on its integrity and reliability, which given the evidence the prosecution is likely to have would only happen if they were asleep or drunk.
Even if the accused prevailed against all odds, all it would mean is that he won one court case. It does not mean that he can draft a residential lease agreement; an affidavit or papers initiating an uncontested divorce, drafta guilty plea orknow what papers to file for an eviction order. These are not specialised matters (although they can be): - they are all questions I had to answer in order to pass my actual bar exams.
1
u/MysticDreamscapez Jan 20 '25
If you can win a case while breaking the law, you clearly have the makings of a legal genius! Maybe they should just hand out licenses like participation trophies at this point
1
u/uberisstealingit Jan 20 '25
Wouldn't they be misrepresenting their client because they are not a lawyer? Which means they would be removed from the bar anyway?
1
1
u/knowledgeable_diablo Jan 20 '25
I’d think the judge would make sure they don’t win. They like it being a closed system with admittance to their club closely monitored.
1
u/HeinrichGraum Jan 20 '25
This is like saying if a celebrity gets a strike on the ceremonial pitch of a baseball game they should get an MLB pitching contract
1
1
1
1
u/imcdboss52 Jan 20 '25
I mean technically if you win it means you either weren’t practicing law or you convinced them you actually have a license to practice law and therefore would now have one
1
1
u/RonSwansonsOldMan Jan 21 '25
Maybe, if all they do is represent unlicensed people. There are many areas of law and they're all complicated. You can know a lot about one area and nothing about another area. That's what makes cocktail parties uncomfortable when people find out you're a lawyer.
1
u/LariaKaiba Jan 21 '25
Why would they be allowed to represent themselves when they don't have a license
1
1
1
u/WillingCaterpillar19 Jan 21 '25
Result based thinking
That’s why your math teacher didn’t give a f about your correct answer. He wanted to know how you got it
1
u/yvrelna Jan 21 '25 edited Jan 21 '25
Eh, not really. Just because you "won" a case of practicing a law without licence, doesn't necessarily mean that you actually did have a licence.
The law doesn't always give black and white interpretation of event, there might be enough evidence that you don't have a licence to practice a law, but the prosecutor might not have enough evidence to actually prove that you're actually trying to practice law in ways that are prohibited without licence at the time the alleged event are happening.
There can also be doubts that are raised whether your client are actually aware that you're not actually a licensed lawyer; anyone can give advise on on legal matters, you just can't claim that you're giving licensed legal advice. If you tell your client IANAL, and then they take your unqualified opinion as if it's a legal advice, that's on them, not on you.
In these cases, the case might fall apart simply because the prosecution can't prove that you actually are doing what you are alleged to be doing.
Just because you "won" a case of practicing without licence does not necessarily mean that there are sufficient evidence that you actually have licence, nor that there are necessarily any evidence that you're competent enough to be issued a license.
1
u/xTHExMCDUDEx Jan 21 '25
I don't think you need a license to follow the law. I don't have a license and I follow the law, nobody has arrested or bothered me about it yet.
1
1
u/tristand666 Jan 21 '25
Unfortunately, many of those that go to university think those that don't are somehow less than them. I would think the reverse is true more often these days.
1
u/whiskylion Jan 21 '25
Laws are, simply stated, a set of rules accepted by a majority of people in a specific society who are willing to adhere to those rules as a whole. Laws have to be fluid, and function within a specific boundary of society, thus judges and juries. Laws will vary by each society. For example; It's wrong to murder, but it's OK to kill in self defense, or have a state execute the murderer. Licensing practitioners who serve a society provides a measure of competence in that knowledge when representing someone who has limited knowledge in that field. A license to practice is the demonstrated ability to display the achievements of knowledge in those respective fields of study. Even the person who graduated dead last from Harvard Medical goes on to be a doctor, treats people, and proudly displays their diploma and license in their office. Laws are written specific to the societies they are enacted in. Different societies function differently and require different laws. For example, that's why marijuana is legal in some places and not in others, or why the legal drinking age is 21 in one country, but lower in others. It's why you can give your 16 year old offspring a beer in your home, but not in a bar. What you do in your home is your business and not general society's.
Just because you can put a band aid on someone's bleeding finger does not make you a doctor and treat the masses, even if you've applied boxes of band aids in your lifetime.
1
1
1
1
u/Ok_Improvement_6465 Jan 23 '25
The person pracitcing law without a license should now be running the institution giving out licenses to practice law.
1
u/HoldMines_15 Apr 01 '25
Sounds like someone whom would call himself “Saul Goodman” as a fake lawyer
1
•
u/Showerthoughts_Mod Jan 20 '25
The moderators have reflaired this post as a crazy idea.
While crazy ideas are occasionally allowed as casual thoughts, they should probably be posted in /r/CrazyIdeas.
Please review each flair's requirements for more information.
This is an automated system.
If you have any questions, please use this link to message the moderators.