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. In 2024, there were 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
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.
Later learned that her sole source of income was Social Security.
Report
76points
#2
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.
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.
73points
#3
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.
Report
66points
Most of us have probably needed some form of legal advice at least once in our lives. The internet is a place where people seek advice on topics like relationships, hobbies, or home renovation. The same sometimes goes for legal advice as well. And with the advent of AI, more and more people are relying on AI tools like ChatGPT for legal know-how.
Recently, researchers from the University of Southampton discovered that when the source of the advice is unknown, people are more likely to use AI tool-generated legal advice than advice given by actual lawyers. What's even more worrying is that when the participants in the study knew that the advice was AI-generated, they were still willing to follow it.
#4
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.
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.
Report
64points
#5
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.
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.
52points
#6
In general people arguing for an hour before realizing they live in different countries.
50points
The researchers observed that AI tools used a more complex language, and that's probably why people were more inclined to trust them. Lawyers, on the other hand, were able to explain the intricacies of law in simpler terms, but that made people suspicious that it came from an AI tool.
The good news is that most of the time, people were able to distinguish between the AI-generated legal advice and advice written by an actual lawyer. "In the case of legal advice, it may be fine to use AI for some initial questions," the authors of the study concluded. "What are my options here? What do I need to read up on? Are there any similar cases to mine, or what area of law is this?"
"But it's important to verify the advice with a human lawyer long before ending up in court or acting upon anything generated by an LLM [large language model]."
#7
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.
Obviously the charges were commonwealth v defendant. He doesn't understand that. He was found guilty. The judge did not appreciate that.
43points
#8
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.
Report
40points
#9
Guy claimed he could lawyer himself because he played Phoenix Wright ace attorney.
Report
39points
Bored Panda discussed the dangers of taking legal advice from strangers on the internet with the author of this Reddit thread, u/bigfoot1291. "Reddit is chock-full of armchair experts who feel like they're qualified to chime in on situations they have no business talking about," the Redditor believes.
"So while I have no ties to the legal profession at all, I simply enjoy hearing about the most laughable instances of this, regardless of topic."
#10
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!".
Runner up is "you can't show me any law that requires me to pay federal income tax!".
38points
#11
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.
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.
Report
37points
#12
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.
36points
The netizen tells us that bad advice thrives in other subreddits as well. "r/relationship_advice is one of the worst offenders of this," u/bigfoot1291 says. "People see the most minuscule slices of someone's 'relationship pie' so to speak, and then oftentimes you'll see the most extreme advice for situations they don't even understand. I can't help but wonder how many relationships have been destroyed by places like that."
#13
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".
Report
35points
#14
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.
Report
33points
#15
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.
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.
30points
That's why the Redditor avoids giving out such advice online and fact-checks claims some netizens like to present as facts. "My parents raised me with a strong 'do your own research' mindset, and I need to have correct facts before speaking about something with an air of authority."
#16
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'.
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'.
29points
#17
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.
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.
Report
29points
#18
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.”.
28points
"People go to [law] school for 4-8 years and still only have niche specializations that they deal in," u/bigfoot1291 points out. "Making claims you're unqualified to make will oftentimes ultimately result in you looking stupid. Just because you want or believe something should be true doesn't make it true."
#19
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.
27points
#20
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.
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.
Report
26points