I am also not a lawyer, but I think states don't want there to be confusion between "licensed professionals" and people providing a service that could be mistaken for work done by a licensed professional:

https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/unauthorized-practice-of-a-...

You have to remember that if "someone draws up a lot line for you" for money then you might be providing a licensed service without a license.

The rules to cut hair in NY are harder than the rules to be a computer programmer:

"Complete a 1,000 hour approved course of study and pass both the New York State written and practical examinations." - https://dos.ny.gov/cosmetology

It's somewhat interesting to use the disclaimer that one isn't a lawyer in a paragraph stating that such disclaimers are invalid.

In my experience, people generally believe that stating one isn't a doctor or lawyer protects against an accusation of practicing without a license.

> In my experience, people generally believe that stating one isn't a doctor or lawyer protects against an accusation of practicing without a license.

I can't believe you that as a lawyer you would claim that!

There's a difference, in that discussing the law and the implications of it are things we expect people to do constantly and not just by lawyers. For instance, I'm sure a lot of discussions in Wall Street around the contract Musk signed for Twitter were done by non-lawyers.

I do not think that such a disclaimer would help if we were talking about your, djoldman's, plea bargain negotiations.

> The rules to cut hair in NY are harder than the rules to be a computer programmer:

Occupational licensing was a key element in Jim Crow. Why should there be exams and licenses for barbers (who are legally allowed to cut facial hair) or cosmetologists (who are prohibited from cutting facial hair - beards & mustaches)? Because black people might get away with doing the job. And if black people were doing that job, then other black people would never go to a white barber or cosmetologist. Vagrancy (the crime of not having a job) was enforced almost exclusively against only non-white people. Then, they'd be sentenced to work on the chain gang (or other slavery-equivalent) in accordance with the 13th Amendment. Requiring a license (which minorities could never get) made it far easier to punish people for failing to be born white.

Whenever something in America seems to make no sense at all, the key is to think about how a white supremacist would use it to abuse non-white people. One key to understanding the history of racial inequality and civil rights in America would be to imagine that the South actually won the Civil War.

TL;DR - it is racism all the way down.

It depends. You can’t just disclaim:

“Want to buy pizza at my restaurant? (This restaurant not inspected by health department and pizza is not for human consumption)”

Because it’s obvious BS.

But you can say:

“This is dog food, not for human consumption.” On actual dog food.

Now I don’t know whether it’s BS in this instance or not but it would be very relevant to the situation.

Dog food is regulated by the FDA, 'not for human consumption' doesn't get you out of food safety requirements.

And typically dog food is rated for human consumption anyway, simply so that when a baby eats the dog food and coincidentally gets sick, the dog food manufacturer can avoid expensive legal battles.

Fair, I was thinking in the context of state/local regs…but you get my point.

“I am not an electrician and will not accept liability for any house fires. Having said that, what do you need rewired in your kitchen?”

In that case you are selling the equivalent service (ie rewiring, which is regulated). In this case the service being sold is not the same (approximate versus legally certified maps).

You do not get to choose whether you are liable when providing a service or product. You can't just say "Sorry, not liable if this widget blows up." Otherwise, and I know this is a big brain moment: everyone and every corporation would "choose" to not be liable for anything.

If the customer signs a waiver, that's different - but even waivers can't waive all liability. Half the stuff in a waiver isn't even legally effective, it's just there to make you think you can't pursue damages, because they assume you'll read it and go "well shucks, this says..." instead of talking to an attorney.

> I am not a lawyer

That's pretty obvious.

In this case, the work product does not need to be generated by a licensed professional. Informal drawings are useful for a multitude of purposes. If the user of the drawing doesn't need it to be certified, and I can make one on a napkin, why should it be illegal for a third party to draw it on napkin for me.

What is exchanged for the napkin, though? That's generally where courts draw the line between helping out a friend, and providing a service.

If you exchange something, like money, then you may be providing something under an oral contract, even if nothing is signed. And if you introduce a waiver, then you turn that oral contract into a written one.

> That's generally where courts draw the line between helping out a friend, and providing a service.

The point is that it isn't the same service being provided and they are very upfront about that with the customer.

When you provide what is legally considered to be a service, it comes with legal guarantees. You don't generally get to escape by saying something doesn't count, no matter how upfront about it, that you are. Consumer protections exist, regardless of whether you say they shouldn't apply.

One of the guarantees that probably applies in this situation, especially as it is California which tend to have a few stronger guarantees, is fitness-to-purpose. If there is a service, where an exchange is taking place, there is a guarantee that the product should be considered fit-to-purpose.

> The warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is not limited to sales by a merchant as is the warranty of merchantability. It may be imposed on any seller possessing sufficient skill and judgment to justify the buyer’s reliance. The Code drafters suggest, however, that a nonmerchant seller will only in particular circumstances have that degree of skill and judgment necessary to justify imposing the warranty.” (4 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005))

The products themselves are unmarked, which means it doesn't matter how upfront that they are with the first customer, because the product is allowed to be resold, and then the limitation on purpose aren't guaranteed to be seen anymore, but it needs to be, if you want to reduce your liability.

As noted in many other places, the very lack of a mark is exactly why these cannot be used in places where they have to be certified. Anyone that accepts it in that case, is in the wrong.

And you do get to escape liability with disclaimers quite well. Just look at every tax reporting agency out there. Massive disclaimers about how you are still liable for any mistakes they may make.

> You can't just say "Sorry, not liable if this widget blows up."

Clearly you can. Every software license has a disclaimer of liability. It's not like those are there for no reason. No, they are not an absolute shield that's effective in every circumstance, but you can and should have one.

It kinda depends on whether you're charging money and how. I can express legal opinions all day, without being a lawyer. I can write a blog with my legal opinions. I can sit in a room with you and regale you with them.

What I can't do is offer to represent you in a legal case, or imply (with signage, advertising, business cards etc) that I can provide any sort of legal services. And if I took money from you, it would have to be on the understanding that I was just providing entertaining opinions which it would be unwise for you to rely on.

At some point you have to grant that the clients of such a service have some agency and are able to evaluate straightforward disclaimers of liability or fitness.

The entire tax reporting industry would like a word with you. :(