A few words about the Metaverse Justice Watch

Obvioulsy, you didn't. Your supposition is getting more ludicrous by the minute.

YOu can try to bait me all you want. We both know the truth Weedy.

My problem, is people who claim to be what they are not. You don't fool me for one second.

That's the problem with this sort of business, katykiwi. No one in a virtual world where such a level of privacy and fantasy is insured is obligated to disclose any sort of legal, moral, or ethical information to anyone. And therefore such services as you and Jake offer can never meet the professional and ethical standards so necessary for credibility and regulation in real life.

The "truth" is, dear Katy, there are no "lawyers" in SL. There can be "mediators" IF both parties involved in a dispute agree to it.

So your sig line and the related posts you have made are simply posturing bluster.

Im confused ... must be all those bumps on the head in the telehubs ... if you arent under obligation to disclose your bar affiliations, does that mean you aren't an attorney after all?

*scratches head, and wonders off muttering*

Please refer to the following:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3703/is_199401/ai_n8729610

That contains the California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1-400, Advertising and Solicitation. Katy is very clearly advertising and including your name. Pay close attention to the following, which is forbidden under those rules:

5) A "communication," except professional announcements, seeking professional employment for pecuniary gain, which is transmitted by mail or equivalent means which does not bear the word "Advertisement," "Newsletter" or words of similar import in 12 point print on the first page. If such communication, including firm brochures, newsletters, recent legal development advisories, and similar materials, is transmitted in an envelope, the envelope shall bear the word "Advertisement," "Newsletter" or words of similar import on the outside thereof.*

Not at all. I just have a real issue with people putting others into positions of liability because they either lack the sense or the ethics to check with their local bar before playing online.

Feel free to stop transferring your emotions onto me at any time. Ask anyone here, if I were pissed or otherwise 'emotional' about this, trust me, tootz, you'd know it. (chuckle)

Ah, but there are very strict rules on how and where you are able to advertise your legal services. BTW, are you able to advertise under a fictious name?

Nice. Such a simple thing to remember and keep track of. Remind me not to retain his counsel.

Good point Cris

This whole thing bodes bad times in SL. I don't need anyone to speak for me. I'm not "the community". I am Satai Diaz. End of story.

In disputes about the TOS/CS I can absolutely represent peopelin a california court and give legal advice for the interpretation of the contract people have entered into with lindend labs. That is not questioned. If LL bans a client, lets say, they have the rignt to dispute it, and under the TOS the only place they can dispute it is California.


The intersting legal question is whether an in-world arrangement between to people, say a partnership or a realestate transaction is subject to the same clause. Since all relationships are, in thoery based on the TOS/CS, then it could be they are subject to the clause. I think this is a matter of first impression.

I suppose the logical way around it is in disputes not involving the TOS/CS, we are fuctioning like a mediation service. Where by parties agree to the resolution. they will then have a binding contracte between them they can enfoce in the state court. If I am to particpate in such mediations, then we would definetly have CA as the, or one of the, choice of law jusrisdictions as part of the settelment agreement.

Also, Katy is right, I am admitted to the federal bar in CA too, and I can , after application for admission pro hac vice practice in any federal court. The real question is am I competent to do so, or willing to make myself copetent to do so, and the answer is that depends on the needs of an actual client.

In these forums, I can offer opinion freely. Not all legal opinion is legal advice. Anyone in California who likes talk radio knows haindl on the law.

Now a lot of the the concerns raised her ein the forum invole attorneys statement to clients, and unless you have formed an attorney client relationship, then I am under no obligation to disclose the limits of my practice. If you approach me as a client and I misreprent them to you, that is unethical. But merely holding myself out as an atrorney accepting clients via this medium is not a misrepresentation.

The discalimer question is intersting: so I looked it up, and inso far as it is obvious by context that it is a solicitation and that it contains no untrue statement, and is not misleading, it passes muster under california rules of professional conduct 1-400 d.

And actually services provided to a client in reprsenting them ion a TOS/CS violation do not have to be cleared by linden lab. That is tantamount to saying that if Nolan sues chevron, Chevorn gets to tell nolan's attorney if he can represent nolan.

If any thing I might be required to file a FBN for the name Reiveld and Moonflower should I ever have to amke an appearance in California Court.

I donlt know if forums posts count as letterhead, that is something I had not thought of.

Just check with your local bar, would ya? Is it really more important to think you're right than to be right on this one?

Actually though, sections 1-400 D(4) says communications are not allowed if they: "Fail to indicate clearly, expressly, or by context, that it is a communication or solicitation, as the case may be"

also I think that a forum post is not a mail equivalent for purposes of this section. Asagianits an area of first impression.

In this case I think the context clearly identifies it as a solcitation, in much the asme was as the phone books do.

We are allowed to advertise under a FBN, although again, I think this is unclear. If I am retained by a client I will disclose my personal information to the client obviously. I would be more willing to do that here, but I am not sure how it will be used. I think I will ask the state bar on this.

As far as limitations on where attorneys can advertise, that is not the issue, as long as I do not practice in jurisdictions where I am not admitted. In this case my practice is limited to california, but that is again something disclosed to the client. Though i do not hide it.

Either the "firm" of J&K is going to take cases in SL into the legal system in RL, which presents all kinds of interesting issues - or - J&K is going to offer dispute mediation services inworld under the aegis of the ToS, the CS, and whatever precedent they can invent and make stick.

Or they are going to do niether and are simply employing scare tactics. Not sure, but it kind of feels that way.

Well cienna like I said I am right on the TOS/and the mediation. Absolutely right.

As far as the other thing, even the state bar ethics hotline is uncertain so it will have to be contested in the courts. We are a long long way from that. And obviously it is much eaesier to get two parties to agree to a mediation.

What was this thread about again?

There's your answer, Nolan. All three.

Mediation, with the strong-arm threat of taking it the long way to the RL "courts".

Atually I would avoid being the mediator and the adovcate who enforces a mediation agreement. But a certainly I think a written agreemetn can be coducted through the sl medium, and that agreement would be enforceable inreal life courts.

How is SL any different in that sense, than e-mail or the telephone. Here everyone is saying wow, sl is a platform and not a game, and katy and I are using as a platform to start a real business-mediations between parties and advocay on behalf of SL usesr who have TOS/CS issues. Which we are ethically allowed to engage in. And yet we are getting grief?

I guess its only certain people, with certain viewpoint who can use the "platform"

Really so much of what is being said about this is meant to be between the attorney and the client. right now I have not signed any fee agreements.

Not at all, Jake, I think yours and katykiwi's idea is very interesting, and I wish you luck. Speaking for myself, it's just natural caution and the wish to "test" a new idea, is all.

My only serious issue is that I can't see how it can be anything but a dispute resolution service, and a voluntary, non-binding one, at that. Unless I'm misunderstanding, I'd guess that your role would be as an advocate, and that the mediator would be someone appointed by a "third party in authority" or someone agreed upon by both the disputing parties.

I would, however, hate to see it come down to a choice of mediation or appeal to an external, RL court. But I suppose that might be an inevitable development.

I think the idea is to facilitate a resolution between tow parties that they are both happy with. It hasn't been done yet in SL and We thought it would be appropriate. I am well acquainted with the notion that if any of this goes to the courts the mediation has failed entirely.

Strictly speaking, unless you have some form of leverage between the two parties, I don't see how mediation could work here. No one has any actual power to enforce. I suppose counting on good will is possible, but the cynic in me has a difficult time embracing that it can work.

Well that may be true. But somehow we have to start trying sometime.