Remember getting accosted at cocktail parties and weddings? Your cousin’s date found out you’re a lawyer and has a question or twelve for you about their esoteric legal issue. Before you can get a word in, you’ve learned that the date lives in Oregon, the problem arose in Florida, and involves various distinctions between importing live poultry and importing poultry that has been processed for retail grocery sale.

Or, more commonly these days, you fire up your social media and find that a friend, a friend-of-a-friend, or a stranger has tagged you and wants you to weigh in on a legal question.  (I call this the “Facebook subpoena” even though generally it has the force of “oh come on now what?” more than anything.)

Of course, you have no obligation to answer any of these questions. But can you? Should you?

In my own world, many of these questions are not seeking legal advice, but are more hypothetical/”stump the nerd” questions. I enjoy answering those questions, particularly if they are trolling questions or otherwise weird/out there. (Actual social media exchange I had a few months ago: “[Is it ethical to be] that person in the grocery store having a loud one-way conversation while wearing earbuds?” “Lawyers may not have that one-way loud earbud conversation in a grocery store if it's with a client or otherwise concerning information related to representation of a client. SCR 20:1.6. I do note that the attorney's oath prohibits lawyers from engaging in "offensive personality," but case law has required that the behavior be connected to the practice of law or one's character and fitness to practice law in some fashion. Bad behavior that is not criminal and that is not related to the practice of law is likely not a violation, so going on about the virtues of Dogecoin versus Ethereum may be boorish but is not regulated by the Rules.”)

Those sorts of conversations, in my view, are just conversations, and I’m happy to have them.  (I am, admittedly, a show-off.) But sometimes, I do get the “hey I’ve got a situation” questions from friends and acquaintances, in inconvenient forums.

Some people advise shutting these questions down right away. I tend to be cautious*, generally (I’m the one you talk to if you want to find out a way *not* to do something) but I do think there’s some room here, if you want to be helpful. It’s not a blanket “no” from me, but there are lots of caveats that might make it not worth it. (Plus, it’s a party and it’s tedious to talk about work at parties. Or, you were binge watching “Shameless” and just got to a [spoiler] part. Do you really want that interruption?)

If you do decide to engage, first, be careful you know who you’re talking to. Typically, you’re not running conflict checks based on casual conversations. But, you can easily find yourself making a potential client out of someone you shouldn’t—maybe someone in your firm represents the other party and you wouldn’t know about it unless you checked.  And, on sites like Twitter, accidental conflicts may be an even greater concern--people don’t have to use real names, so you never know whether “DogLover1978” is an opposing party or the judge in your case or anyone else.

Second, if you have a conversation in a hotel ballroom or on a Facebook thread, it is not confidential or privileged. Taking your online conversation offline to your firm e-mail account or another private channel may help, but taking your party conversation into a quieter part of the venue, short of a private conference room, probably won’t, as there are always going to be people milling about.

Third, make sure if you do decide to talk, you actually know what you’re talking about. During the day, most of us are pretty good at turning down potential clients when they call asking for services in areas of law we do not provide. At midnight from your bed, or after a few glasses of wine at an event, may be another story. If you end up giving casual advice to someone and it turns out to be wrong, there could be malpractice liability (particularly if the person believed you were representing them at the time the advice was given and that they could rely on the advice) or disciplinary problems.

And, if you find yourself back at that cocktail party and want a polite exit from the conversation, you have a few options. You can easily mention “I’m sorry, I don’t handle divorce, I can refer you” but if that won’t do the trick, you can blame your boss or partners (“sorry, my firm does not allow me to give legal advice to non-clients”); disciplinary authorities (“I could have a problem with my license if I give out advice like this”); or perhaps your current state (“I’m exhausted/have had a couple of drinks and shouldn’t try to have a discussion like this”).

I like a version of: “This bar mitzvah does not lend itself to a private discussion. If you do need legal help please call my office so we can run conflicts and discuss formal representation and fees.” (I have been informed that this is the professional equivalent of “Sir, this is an Arby’s,” but so it goes.) That usually ends the discussion for all but the most serious inquiries, and that’s really what you want anyway, right?

 *As always, this blog is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. But you knew that.