Skip to main content
replaced http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/ with https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

You might not like this answer, but as Christian said in a related answer...

Legal Experts will not be interested in this site.

Almost all of the questions on this site are in the form of "what does the law say about issue x" (e.g. "Is it legal for me to jaywalk in [jurisdiction x]"). These questions are very useful to non-lawyers, who want to learn what the law says they can and can't do. However, lawyers spend very little time answering basic general legal questions. Most of their time is spent doing things like this:

  1. Applying the law to specific cases, e.g. "someone is accused of robbing someone else, there is x evidence, etc."
  2. Answering legal theory type questions, e.g. "why does the US constitution prohibit ________" (which is usually a complicated question).

Add in the fact that lawyers usually charge for their advice (and the fact that giving legal advice can have legal consequences), and I can't see why legal professionals would want to participate in a site that doesn't have much to do with what legal professionals actually do.

(You got this advice before the proposal beganYou got this advice before the proposal began, so this should be nothing new.)

I don't really know how this issue can be fixed. Most (almost all) of the people who committed to this proposal are not legal professionals, so if a legal professional were to come and ask an "advanced" question, it probably would not be well received. And law isn't like programming: it's very hard to learn to be a lawyer through the internet, so I doubt that any users here will learn to be lawyers as they use the site.

This site can still be valuable, but it will have to find a role to fill that doesn't require legal experts.

You might not like this answer, but as Christian said in a related answer...

Legal Experts will not be interested in this site.

Almost all of the questions on this site are in the form of "what does the law say about issue x" (e.g. "Is it legal for me to jaywalk in [jurisdiction x]"). These questions are very useful to non-lawyers, who want to learn what the law says they can and can't do. However, lawyers spend very little time answering basic general legal questions. Most of their time is spent doing things like this:

  1. Applying the law to specific cases, e.g. "someone is accused of robbing someone else, there is x evidence, etc."
  2. Answering legal theory type questions, e.g. "why does the US constitution prohibit ________" (which is usually a complicated question).

Add in the fact that lawyers usually charge for their advice (and the fact that giving legal advice can have legal consequences), and I can't see why legal professionals would want to participate in a site that doesn't have much to do with what legal professionals actually do.

(You got this advice before the proposal began, so this should be nothing new.)

I don't really know how this issue can be fixed. Most (almost all) of the people who committed to this proposal are not legal professionals, so if a legal professional were to come and ask an "advanced" question, it probably would not be well received. And law isn't like programming: it's very hard to learn to be a lawyer through the internet, so I doubt that any users here will learn to be lawyers as they use the site.

This site can still be valuable, but it will have to find a role to fill that doesn't require legal experts.

You might not like this answer, but as Christian said in a related answer...

Legal Experts will not be interested in this site.

Almost all of the questions on this site are in the form of "what does the law say about issue x" (e.g. "Is it legal for me to jaywalk in [jurisdiction x]"). These questions are very useful to non-lawyers, who want to learn what the law says they can and can't do. However, lawyers spend very little time answering basic general legal questions. Most of their time is spent doing things like this:

  1. Applying the law to specific cases, e.g. "someone is accused of robbing someone else, there is x evidence, etc."
  2. Answering legal theory type questions, e.g. "why does the US constitution prohibit ________" (which is usually a complicated question).

Add in the fact that lawyers usually charge for their advice (and the fact that giving legal advice can have legal consequences), and I can't see why legal professionals would want to participate in a site that doesn't have much to do with what legal professionals actually do.

(You got this advice before the proposal began, so this should be nothing new.)

I don't really know how this issue can be fixed. Most (almost all) of the people who committed to this proposal are not legal professionals, so if a legal professional were to come and ask an "advanced" question, it probably would not be well received. And law isn't like programming: it's very hard to learn to be a lawyer through the internet, so I doubt that any users here will learn to be lawyers as they use the site.

This site can still be valuable, but it will have to find a role to fill that doesn't require legal experts.

replaced http://meta.law.stackexchange.com/ with https://law.meta.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

You might not like this answer, but as Christian said in a related answeras Christian said in a related answer...

Legal Experts will not be interested in this site.

Almost all of the questions on this site are in the form of "what does the law say about issue x" (e.g. "Is it legal for me to jaywalk in [jurisdiction x]"). These questions are very useful to non-lawyers, who want to learn what the law says they can and can't do. However, lawyers spend very little time answering basic general legal questions. Most of their time is spent doing things like this:

  1. Applying the law to specific cases, e.g. "someone is accused of robbing someone else, there is x evidence, etc."
  2. Answering legal theory type questions, e.g. "why does the US constitution prohibit ________" (which is usually a complicated question).

Add in the fact that lawyers usually charge for their advice (and the fact that giving legal advice can have legal consequences), and I can't see why legal professionals would want to participate in a site that doesn't have much to do with what legal professionals actually do.

(You got this advice before the proposal began, so this should be nothing new.)

I don't really know how this issue can be fixed. Most (almost all) of the people who committed to this proposal are not legal professionals, so if a legal professional were to come and ask an "advanced" question, it probably would not be well received. And law isn't like programming: it's very hard to learn to be a lawyer through the internet, so I doubt that any users here will learn to be lawyers as they use the site.

This site can still be valuable, but it will have to find a role to fill that doesn't require legal experts.

You might not like this answer, but as Christian said in a related answer...

Legal Experts will not be interested in this site.

Almost all of the questions on this site are in the form of "what does the law say about issue x" (e.g. "Is it legal for me to jaywalk in [jurisdiction x]"). These questions are very useful to non-lawyers, who want to learn what the law says they can and can't do. However, lawyers spend very little time answering basic general legal questions. Most of their time is spent doing things like this:

  1. Applying the law to specific cases, e.g. "someone is accused of robbing someone else, there is x evidence, etc."
  2. Answering legal theory type questions, e.g. "why does the US constitution prohibit ________" (which is usually a complicated question).

Add in the fact that lawyers usually charge for their advice (and the fact that giving legal advice can have legal consequences), and I can't see why legal professionals would want to participate in a site that doesn't have much to do with what legal professionals actually do.

(You got this advice before the proposal began, so this should be nothing new.)

I don't really know how this issue can be fixed. Most (almost all) of the people who committed to this proposal are not legal professionals, so if a legal professional were to come and ask an "advanced" question, it probably would not be well received. And law isn't like programming: it's very hard to learn to be a lawyer through the internet, so I doubt that any users here will learn to be lawyers as they use the site.

This site can still be valuable, but it will have to find a role to fill that doesn't require legal experts.

You might not like this answer, but as Christian said in a related answer...

Legal Experts will not be interested in this site.

Almost all of the questions on this site are in the form of "what does the law say about issue x" (e.g. "Is it legal for me to jaywalk in [jurisdiction x]"). These questions are very useful to non-lawyers, who want to learn what the law says they can and can't do. However, lawyers spend very little time answering basic general legal questions. Most of their time is spent doing things like this:

  1. Applying the law to specific cases, e.g. "someone is accused of robbing someone else, there is x evidence, etc."
  2. Answering legal theory type questions, e.g. "why does the US constitution prohibit ________" (which is usually a complicated question).

Add in the fact that lawyers usually charge for their advice (and the fact that giving legal advice can have legal consequences), and I can't see why legal professionals would want to participate in a site that doesn't have much to do with what legal professionals actually do.

(You got this advice before the proposal began, so this should be nothing new.)

I don't really know how this issue can be fixed. Most (almost all) of the people who committed to this proposal are not legal professionals, so if a legal professional were to come and ask an "advanced" question, it probably would not be well received. And law isn't like programming: it's very hard to learn to be a lawyer through the internet, so I doubt that any users here will learn to be lawyers as they use the site.

This site can still be valuable, but it will have to find a role to fill that doesn't require legal experts.

Source Link
user81
user81

You might not like this answer, but as Christian said in a related answer...

Legal Experts will not be interested in this site.

Almost all of the questions on this site are in the form of "what does the law say about issue x" (e.g. "Is it legal for me to jaywalk in [jurisdiction x]"). These questions are very useful to non-lawyers, who want to learn what the law says they can and can't do. However, lawyers spend very little time answering basic general legal questions. Most of their time is spent doing things like this:

  1. Applying the law to specific cases, e.g. "someone is accused of robbing someone else, there is x evidence, etc."
  2. Answering legal theory type questions, e.g. "why does the US constitution prohibit ________" (which is usually a complicated question).

Add in the fact that lawyers usually charge for their advice (and the fact that giving legal advice can have legal consequences), and I can't see why legal professionals would want to participate in a site that doesn't have much to do with what legal professionals actually do.

(You got this advice before the proposal began, so this should be nothing new.)

I don't really know how this issue can be fixed. Most (almost all) of the people who committed to this proposal are not legal professionals, so if a legal professional were to come and ask an "advanced" question, it probably would not be well received. And law isn't like programming: it's very hard to learn to be a lawyer through the internet, so I doubt that any users here will learn to be lawyers as they use the site.

This site can still be valuable, but it will have to find a role to fill that doesn't require legal experts.