Should those who have passed the bar be uniquely designated on this site?

Question

Issues about the law and legal matters are somewhat unlike other topics of StackExchange sites.

An attorney has to pass the bar. A programmer, gamer, contractor, designer, writer, etc aren't required to have direct certification or authorization to work in their chosen profession (other than a business license perhaps).

I realize this breaks the Stack model to a degree, but . . .

Should those users who have passed the bar exam have some sort of special moniker or representation in their user "plaque" in order to designate them as a working professional?

I realize this could potentially open up other issues such as, what prevents a user from lying about credentials? However, I think it's a valid discussion.

I did review this question: Reminding people that you are not an attorney - Perhaps the site can handle this for you? regarding the disclaimer -- which I never saw, coming from other stack accounts.

Answer 1

In general, people's contributions on the Stack Exchange network of sites should be judged on... well, the merits of each post.

While it's certainly a valid discussion, I believe that this would be, ultimately, a mistake.

Let me illustrate. I haven't passed the bar. (In fact, because of the split legal system in New South Wales, I may never need to. But that's a technicality, and I don't mean for it to detract from the crux of your suggestion.) Because of my limited legal education, I can answer certain types of questions and more readily cite authorities in support of those questions. At the end of the day, however, it's not my legal education but the quality of my answers that (I hope) people are voting on.

This is because even if I had been admitted, no lawyer is an expert in all fields of law. Even if we could designate certain specialists in some way, the fact that you are a specialist doesn't automatically make your answer superior to others for that reason alone.

What makes an answer better - in my opinion - is that it answers the question (you'd think this would be a given, but it really isn't), it cites appropriate authorities, and it is in plain enough language to be understood. The goal of this site is to make the internet a better place, and we can't do that if answers are privileged because of some appeal to authority.

Finally, a similar question has come up on Health SE - Should we have a “verified physician” tag next to certain users? - and I'm just going to quote Robert Cartaino's answer:

No, we don't sanction one user over another based on their credentials. That is simply not how the Stack Exchange model works.

We — as a community — vet answers. This type of certification of users had been requested as recently as our Engineering site (Are expertise verified user flairs possible?), but we simply do not pre-qualify one user's participation over another based on who they are.

A user's answers — or anything written on the internet for that matter — should never be taken verbatim. You should remain skeptical and vet the information you see. Ask questions and clarify posts wherever you are able. It is that strong culture of peer review and wiki-style editing that makes this all work. And that is the strength of Stack Exchange.

---

_{Another benefit of citing authorities - I hope - is that some people will take the time to try to read the relevant parts, and become more confident and able to do so. In that way, we're increasing access to the law, which is a particular problem. Note that this doesn't replace an actual legal education, and I wouldn't want people to decide they can represent themselves in court based solely on the fact that they've asked a bunch of questions on Law SE. However, hopefully this kind of site can help people be more informed about the law and the way it affects them, as well as their own responsibilities and rights with respect to each other. But this paragraph is my own sort of... aspiration for the site and if it happens is a good thing, and if it doesn't... well, the site can still succeed.}

Answer 2

I've argued that this site should go in the opposite direction of your suggestion: that each answer should speak for itself by reference to statute and case law rather than relying on the author's assertions.

For example, it doesn't matter whether I think that 17 USC 106 prohibits the forwarding of personal videos sent by email, no matter how much experience I have. What matters is what the case law says.

Expertise is only a shortcut that would potentially let me create an answer more quickly than another user. It would also let me create an answer that is potentially more robust to criticisms that I haven't considered the most up-to-date law.

Answer 3

One of the hard things about a technical site vetted by a community of non-technicians is that we'd expect votes to correlate with the answer people expect (or the answer people might hope is true) rather than the answer that's correct.

Of course, the law is full of situations where there's no correct answer. But it's also full of stuff that really isn't contested to which everyone stipulates before trial.

Maybe one of the ways to treat this issue is by encouraging more voting by those with more background.

All said, the SE model is good. I wonder if a way to feetwet's notion of vetted answers might come through more community wikis...

Answer 4

I completely agree with @jimsug's answer.

In addition, I'd like to point out that while your premise may look sound it could still cause problems.

An attorney has to pass the bar. A programmer, gamer, contractor, designer, writer, etc aren't required to have direct certification or authorization to work in their chosen profession (other than a business license perhaps).

They aren't required. But what if they do get very noteworthy certifications anyway? The list of sites which would like to follow with flairs like you're suggesting is long.

As long as it's not implemented anywhere on the SE network it's easy to explain why it isn't implemented on a specific site. It simply doesn't fit the model of the network. The moment it's implemented on one or more of the sites, others will try where the line is. If Law can have it, Health will want it. If Health can have it, (Electrical) Engineering will want it. But it won't stop there. Security, Seasoned Advice, Amateur Radio, Aviation, every field that acknowledges privileges based on certifications will want it. After that, people with 30+ years experience will want it too.

It will be harder to draw the line somewhere the moment one site crosses the current one.

Answer 5

Since stack exchange does not promote the dissemination of formal legal advice on its platform, it shouldn't matter if someone has passed the bar, you're just asking for people to break the rules if you do. If no one knows who is a lawyer automatically, people will continue to look at the content of the post rather than simply if someone has passed. However, individual users can cite their own reputable practices if they are relying on their own judgement to answer a question, or if perhaps they see something is clearly a mistake.

Answer 6

To provide a counterpoint to the other answers: Yes, I think certified and practicing professionals should be accorded deference not given users of uncertain or anonymous expertise. This applies to many Stack Exchanges. And the problem, to a degree, is that SE is not in the business of vetting users or credentials.

For example, we did have one user who claimed a J.D. in his profile and who didn't have anything of the sort. Fortunately, his utter lack of credentials and training was unmistakable in his answers.

On the other hand, one particularly valuable user is a retired lawyer. You have to take a few steps past his profile to discover that fact. When he writes an answer he simply answers the question based on his knowledge and experience. They are excellent and correct answers, but they almost never cite anything so if you don't know that he's an experienced lawyer and know that he is correct you may complain, "Hey, I don't see any references, why is this a good answer; why should I trust what you say?"

Perhaps our most valuable user to date is a practicing lawyer and is quite open about using her professional experience to inform her answers.

I believe active members of the community quickly get a sense for the expertise of the more prolific answerers. But two problems remain:

1. Somebody new to the scene, or just passing through, doesn't have that context.
2. When a bona fide lawyer shows up and starts answering questions it isn't immediately clear that they deserve the deference they should be accorded due to their expertise.

To solve these problems I would love to pin a badge on certain answerers that says: This is a professional, so listen to what they say! But not all lawyers want to advertise their credentials, and, as we have already seen, some pretenders would claim authority they lack.

Answer 7

Lawyers are only as good as the last advice they gave that actually was correct. And boy do they make mistakes!

My take on this is that although in the real world you would do best to avoid legal advice from unlicensed people, here on SE, knowledge is king, and the right knowledge can come from anybody.

I would not differentiate lawyers from non-lawyers at all. If you are curious, look at the profile, which may or may not truly indicate lawyer status.

Answer 8

If we ever return to this topic, I suggest we consider asking for a similar system as is used in reddit/r/science, where individuals are afforded a badge/label based on their specific area of practice. Such a system can become more or less elaborate - from multiple practice areas, to jurisdictions.

SE labels are more appropriate in this regard than in a 'science subreddit', where someone has a PhD in geophysics, or they have a degree in quantum mechanics. I recognize that sciences have crossovers, but I think they're more discrete than varied legal practice.

Answer 9

There is also the matter of where a poster might be qualified to practice. If we simply have a "passed the bar" designation, how would one tell whether the answers that someone with that designation is posting actually fall under his scope of permitted practice? Should the designation have qualifiers (e.g. "passed the bar in California, Utah, and Oregon" or "Qualified in German Tax Law")?