If you’ve ever binged Suits or Boston Legal in a weekend, the thought “I could probably do this” has most likely crossed your mind. Surely, you’ve accumulated enough knowledge to get yourself out of a wrongful conviction or to defend your cousin in a cat ownership dispute, right?

Unfortunately, most times, we’re overestimating our legal knowledge. As of 2024, there are over 1.3 million actual lawyers in the United States. But who knows how many self-proclaimed legal experts are out there, especially online?

One Reddit thread might give you an idea. One netizen’s question revealed just how many folks may be overconfident in legal know-how. Their question “Lawyers of reddit, what’s the most laughable, ‘I am not a lawyer, but…’ claim you’ve ever read?” brought out many professionals to reminisce about how hilariously wrong some folks have been about law.

#1

As a lawyer I love seeing all of the Facebook posts telling Facebook what they do and do not consent to. It’s the online equivalent of Michael Scott “declaring” bankruptcy.

Image credits: thekickassduke

#2

When I was a judicial intern I saw an arraignment where the defendant claimed the court had no power over her, because she was a sovereign citizen who did not recognize the federal or state governments.

Later learned that her sole source of income was Social Security.

Image credits: BAM521

#3

I once saw a defendant argue for a not guilty verdict because there was no “Mr or Mrs commonwealth” who testified.

Obviously the charges were commonwealth v defendant. He doesn’t understand that. He was found guilty. The judge did not appreciate that.

Image credits: Super_C_Complex

#4

I’m a lawyer in the U.S. and for some reason people are obsessed with common law marriage. I see people on Reddit and even hear them IRL warning other people about how “You’ve lived with her for more than X years, you’re common law married so you have to take that into account!” or “Well, we’ve been living in the same apartment together for X years, so we’re common law married now.”

Common law marriage is only a thing that can be done in a small handful of U.S. states now, and there are requirements to it. You have to hold yourself out as being married, live together, present yourselves to the world as being married, etc. You’re not going to wake up one day and accidentally be “common law married.”

**ETA:** Guys, I never claimed to be talking about the law in Canada or Australia. I’m aware that it’s different in those places.

Image credits: SaltySolicitor

#5

I’ve found that redditors are absolutely *obsessed* with correcting each other with the idea that a*****t and battery are often confused, and that a*****t only ever means to put someone in fear of imminent harm. To the point where if I even point out that that is only true *some* times, in *some* places, I will be downvoted. Roughly a third of States define a*****t as some version of “purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another”.

Image credits: DoctorBaby

#6

In general people arguing for an hour before realizing they live in different countries.

Image credits: not-a-bear-in-a-wig

#7

Guy claimed he could lawyer himself because he played Phoenix Wright ace attorney.

Image credits: cacmonkey

#8

“I’m not a lawyer but I’m fairly certain that I could frame a dog for murder”.

Image credits: human_of_reddit

#9

I once had a person claim that within there was no such thing as the adversarial system and that we were just trying to inflame a contested divorce.

Should mention we live in a common law system and both parties had retained separate counsel.

Image credits: SweatCleansTheSuit

#10

My favorite is “if you ask an undercover officer if he is a police officer he can’t legally lie to you.”

Yes. Yes he can.

Had an undercover in on a deposition once and he had been wearing a wire for part of the investigation. He was asked if he was undercover by a codefendant and his response was “yea, obviously, I’m here buying d***s from you guys cause I’m an undercover police officer. I have a wire hidden under my beard and everything you f*****g moron.” He said it with such immense sarcasm they didn’t think twice about it and sold him a trafficking amount of c*****e.

Image credits: cawlaw84

#11

Anything on /r/legaladvice. DO NOT GO THERE FOR ACTUAL LEGAL ADVICE. I go there to laugh because come on.

In real practice, though, we get those nutty Pro Per Plaintiffs suing for millions or billions because of some slight, or because the Gubment doesn’t have jurisdiction over them as FREE MURICANS or because they’re SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUALS.

Image credits: Coolest_Breezy

#12

I had a non-lawyer try to tell me that testimony was not reliable evidence and that a judge could not rely upon it in making a factual determination. This was in the context of a small claims case I was helping my client prepare for. It was my client’s word against the opposing party’s, plus some photographs he was planning on introducing. I told the opposing party that “I’ll guess we’ll see what the judge does….” Spoiler: the judge found my client’s testimony much more compelling and ruled in his favor.

Image credits: anon

#13

This wasn’t online, but a guy was representing himself pro se against a client of the legal clinic i worked at at the time.

she had a semi-public job doing promotion for a local pro sports team. some dude did a brief fan interview with her at a game, and that lone interaction sparked a 5 year stalking saga (during which she got married and had kids with someone else) that culminated in the stalker making the following claim: he wanted a paternity test for her children, because he was convinced she had paid someone to follow him, find out when he masturbates, break into his home, steal his semen, and deliver it back to her. apparently she had then impregnated herself with his kleenex semen and her two small children were actually his. i’ve never seen a judge looked as shocked, or as tired, as i did on the day that motion for paternity was denied.

Image credits: mutherofdoggos

#14

The “sovereign citizen” stuff is my favorite. “The United States is a corporation and the law of the seas applies! Just look at the fringe on that flag! I do not consent to jurisdiction!”

Runner up is “you can’t show me any law that requires me to pay federal income tax!”.

Image credits: HeartsOfDarkness

#15

One of my clients was told by someone on the staff of the nursing home where her mother lives that if an Enduring Power of Attorney (basically a power of attorney made in contemplation of future mental incapacity that unlike most powers of attorney does not become invalid if the donor becomes incapacitated) is voided if the original staples that held the pages together are removed. I can see a tiny grain of truth to this in that if the validity of the document was contested the fact that it had been taken apart and stapled together again might be some evidence to support that but there is no way that evidence alone would determine the issue.

And don’t even get me started about people who use the term “hearsay” but don’t know what it means. This has become an epidemic.

Image credits: Kenn1121

#16

I work a lot in Real Estate law and I generally enjoy reading anything that comes up related to Landlord-Tenant laws. Generally speaking, Reddit loves to jump on the “illegal” and “don’t pay” bandwagon. These are terrible pieces of advice. I have seen plenty of people recommend solutions that would likely result in eviction. I usually hop in, politely inform the poster that laws vary from State to State and that OP should review local LL/Tenant laws.

Image credits: xemp1r3x

#17

My answer is actually basically all of the “I am not a lawyer, but…” claims.

The funny thing about being a lawyer is that the answer is almost always “it depends.” Sure, the laws generally stay the same but the outcomes are so contingent upon the facts that you can never know with certainty how something will turn out. Thus, my answer for 90+% of my clients is it depends on (who the judge is, who shows up to testify, what the witnesses say, what theme opposing counsel goes with, etc…). More importantly, we are not allowed to guarantee results and for good reason – the simple fact of the matter is judges, juries, prosecutors, and opposing counsel can make different decisions based on identical facts and laws.

I think the only time “I am not a lawyer, but” would be appropriate is if someone is saying “I am not a lawyer, but you need to consult with an attorney.”.

Image credits: hostilecarrot

#18

My favourite: “the judge cannot determine this matter because he is a member of the freemasons, and the freemasons do not believe in the concept of private property.” This case ended with the non lawyer accusing everyone of being a freemason.

The same non lawyer also ran an appeal in that case based on the fact that the judge was not a real judge, because the judge had not taken his oath of office. The non lawyer had dug up a transcript of the judge’s swearing in ceremony which read *judge Smith takes oath of office*, when the judge took his oath, instead of the actual words of the oath. The non lawyer referred to outdated and repealled laws from 1730, which said all oaths had to be transcribed word for word, as a basis for the fact that the judge was not a real judge.

If his interpretation was correct, I think no current judge in Australia is a ‘real judge’.

Image credits: thatdogoninstagram

#19

A tale from back in my public defender-ing days:

Sovereign citizens are a special kind of stupid. Percentage-wise, I don’t know how many of them are true believers and how many think they’ve just found some clever loophole or another. At any rate, they were always the most interesting clients.

One of them was a young gent who decided to represent another buddy of his to spin his nonsense to the judge. Unfortunately, the fellow who would become my client was a regular defendant in that same courtroom—and everyone there knew he wasn’t a lawyer. When he was arrested—which is to say immediately—the judge was not swayed by his argument that he was “acting of counsel” rather than “practicing law without a license.”

The operating a motor vehicle charge which would follow was only semi-related.

Image credits: Silentclock1

#20

There seems to be a general misunderstanding that testimony is not evidence. For example, I see this a lot in r**e cases. People will say the victim has no evidence; that it’s just a he-said/she-said. What a witness says on the stand is evidence. It’s just up to the trier of fact to decide whether it’s credible evidence.

Image credits: marksy_momma

#21

I’m in real estate, Over the last year or two I’ve seen a lot of people try to quote the law as if they are lawyers. No Karen, misinterpreting your lease contract and the law supporting it does not mean you get to do what ever you want. “Mitigate damages” is not a get out of jail free card.

#22

My two favorites are when people talk about the McDonald’s coffee case as an example of greedy plaintiffs taking advantage of the system or, conversely, when they say “X Company has an army of lawyers on staff to fight the case.”.

#23

Met someone who said they knew everything about the law and was studying to be a lawyer. Turns out she was temping as a paralegal for the better part of a week.

#24

Am (legally but I quit) a corporate lawyer. Basically no one understands fair use and copyright. I keep seeing people analyzing songs and art and calling everything plagiarism and copyright infringement; I’m not talking songs, but stuff like chord progressions or character names. Just because something exists within a work doesn’t make it the author’s exclusive property.

#25

This random guy at the deli told me, “I’m not a lawyer but I know for a fact my baby mama ain’t gonna get a dime of this child support money!” I asked him why he thought that and he said it was because she owed back taxes with the IRS and they were going to garnish the child support payments to pay it off. All I responded with was “wow that’s new!”.

#26

My favorite was on advice for home invasion. According to the poster, you could shoot to k**l anyone who comes in uninvited.

Absolutely not the case, because self defense by definition requires “reasonable force”. It’s more lenient in some states and even more lenient in rural areas, but it’s just irresponsible to spread this kind of misinformation.

————-

Edit: For anyone saying anything along the lines of “nuh-uh, you can always use lethal force if _____” or “nuh-uh, in THIS state…”, no, that’s not what the law says. Anywhere. Reasonable force is an intentionally vague concept, and it’s always interpreted case-by-case. Just because the defendant felt threatened doesn’t mean a majority of the jury in his case would, even if this is *usually* the case. Stand your ground laws, castle doctrine… they exist to support defensive use of force, but you’re always bound by reasonable force.

And often times, reasonable force *can be lethal*, but the judge and jury are the people who will decide whether or not you were justified. A group of people who may not share your same views put themselves in your shoes and decide if you did the right thing.

The jury decides. Not you. Not your sheriff. Not your CCW instructor. If you’re on trial for the use of force for self-defense, you absolutely shouldn’t feel smug about it. The law has an unpleasant habit of surprising everyone.

Stop making blanket statements about the law. If the law was black and white, we wouldn’t need attorneys at all.

#27

Absolutely the best IANAL arguments I saw on Reddit came during the “Deflate Gate” scandal in the NFL. For those who do not know, Tom Brady, the superstar quarterback for the very successful New England Patriots, was found to have deflated footballs in violation of league rules. That’s kind of a minor thing, but it was against one of the best players in the league’s history, and Brady fought it like crazy. The issue resulted in litigation in the Southern District of New York and, later, the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals.

Patriots fans vociferously defended Brady and, frankly, I would expect nothing less. But some of the legal arguments Patriots fans would make were astounding. It was some time ago, so I do not recall specifics, but it was as if every Patriots fan on Reddit suddenly got a law degree and had years of experience practicing law.

What I do remember, though, was their fans would often re-hash the legal arguments Brady’s (very talented) attorneys made in court filings as if they were gospel. But attorneys are paid to be persuasive — everything we write seems compelling at first blush. But even if we write it authoritatively, it could certainly be wrong and lose. And that’s ultimately what happened to Brady. Although, credit to his attorneys, he had some success at the trial court level, which was mind-boggling to me. The 2d Circuit corrected that.

#28

Literally anyone who claims to be an expert on the law who obviously don’t know s**t. Like they’ve seen a couple of police procedural TV shows where they heard Miranda rights and they think they’re now qualified to argue a case before the supreme court.

Where I run into this personally is whenever I’m throwing someone out of the hospital where I worked. “I have a right to be here!” No, you have the right to seek *medical attention*. If you’re just a visitor and you’re here to steal meds and pick fist fights you’re out the door, a*****e.

#29

This just happened this week. I’ve had some pretty rough ones, but this lady…

I represent a landlord who is trying to evict a tenant for multiple lease violations. Tenant sends my clients a cease and desist letter for harassment (she didn’t like that they told her she had to keep the house clean, or that she refused to permit them entry to the premises for repair work, that’s harassment). She’s told them on several occasions that they “have to fix” this or that, and it has to be fixed yesterday, but then has every excuse in the book why they can’t do it with reasonable notice that the landlord is coming (24 hours or more), even so far as to call the cops on my client when he comes out at the prescribed period of time.

Client gets tired of crabby lady, and sends me in to read the lease to figure out how to get rid of her. Well, she’s a nuisance to the neighborhood, she has the cops at the house weekly, she has a dirty house, she hasn’t paid her utilities in months (lease says it’s her responsibility), etc. I count 8 violations total, and some have multiple occasions. So I send her out the notice that her lease is terminated and she needs to vacate by a certain date. She ignores termination letter and informs me that utilities are being cut off, and I need to grant her permission to get an extension to pay the city utility bills. I ask her when cutoff is, because if it’s past the date we told her to leave, it won’t matter. Tenant proceeds to tell me she’s sure that I’m aware of the law and statutes in my state, with my license to practice, and that she’s done with my nonsense. Water was cut off that day.

My clients, concerned that children, including a diabetic, are without water, call city to have it reconnected and put in their name. I inform the tenant that she will have water that night, and that this does not mean the lease is still active, we have terminated the lease, and she must move out. She proceeds to tell me that I’m harassing her, that I could lose my license, and that I need to stop harassing her immediately, and insinuates that I don’t understand English, or the law. She may not be a lawyer, but she knows her rights, and I’m violating her rights, which is discrimination.

I’ve learned only two things from this:

1) Tenant does not, in fact, know her rights

2) Tenant does not, in fact, understand my state’s laws, or the English language

I filed the eviction proceedings days ago, we’re just waiting for our summons to get her to court, so we can get her out.

#30

Charlie: Says the guy who knows nothing about the law!

Dennis: I can absolutely keep a hummingbird as a pet, bro. It’s no different than having a parrot or a parakeet. It’s a bird, bro.

Charlie: You really can’t, and I’m not saying I agree with it. It’s just that bird law in this country–it’s not governed by reason.

Dennis: There’s no such thing as “bird law”.

Charlie: Yes, there is.

Dennis: You know what? I’m going to get a hummingbird and I’ll show you.

Charlie: Hummingbirds…hummingbirds are illegal tender!

Dennis: I’m going to get one.

Charlie: You cannot.

Dennis: To spite you, I’m going to get one.

Mac: Where are we with gulls?

Charlie: You can keep a gull as a pet, but you don’t want to live with a seabird, okay, ’cause the noise level alone on those things…have you ever heard a gull up close? It’s going to blast your eardrums out, dude.

#31

Many years ago… a*****e former judge owned a company the owed my employer (I was controller) a bunch of money. He signed a “security agreement” for their receivables, meaning we could collect the company’s receivables to recover our debt. The only problem was one of his employees was a friend of my boss and brought in a copy of exactly the same agreement, but with another company, dated a month before. Now, being a CPA candidate, I was studying business law and said, well, this looks like fraud and we can sue his a*s for the entire company. My boss calls our attorney (who hated the judge with a passion) and related the situation. Yep, fraud. We went to court, got summary judgement (the judge just laughed at the crooked judge) and we owned the company. It was fun.

from Bored Panda https://ift.tt/UEAPfhc
via IFTTT source site : boredpanda