How dangerous is it for British lawyers to give advice on Law Stack Exchange?

Question

How risky is it for people to self-identify as legal professionals and answer questions here?

In Britain, precedent such as Chaudry v Prabhakar – 1989 can make British lawyers reticent to give informal advice, even when outside of a professional or business context.

I do wonder whether the site disclaimer is sufficient to protect against a claim for incorrect advice however.

Law Stack Exchange is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for individualized advice from a qualified legal practitioner. Communications on Law Stack Exchange are not privileged communications and do not create an attorney-client relationship.

It is also questionable as to whether professional indemnity insurance in the U.K. would cover a British lawyer sued in this way.

So, what are the risks for British lawyers, and do other countries rulings similar to Chaudry v Prabhakar – 1989?

_{I don't believe this is a duplicate of other 'advice on stack exchange' questions, as it addresses more specific concerns. Also, I posted this on the main site rather than on Meta as it's an interesting legal question in its own right.}

_{Also I acknowledge that there may be selection bias in responses by legal professionals prepared to answer this. *8')}

Answer 1

Chaudhry v Prabhakar is unlikely to be applicable

Giving specific advice one-on-one in a field of known expertise when specifically asked creates a duty of care. Giving general advice on a mass-communication forum to general questions when all parties are aware that specific legal advice is specifically off-topic doesn’t.

Answer 2

I do wonder whether the site disclaimer is sufficient to protect against a claim for incorrect advice however.

Yes, the disclaimer is sufficient.

The disclaimer impliedly puts a person on notice that he should not blindly rely on the answer(s) to his question. Law SE also states very clearly that "the answers are not legal advice", which further precludes the sort of reliance on which Chaudry is premised.

Oftentimes some of us include references of law which are available online for free. This gives users the opportunity to verify for themselves the substance of our answer(s) and read further if they wish. Simultaneously, this habit preempts the issue of user's reliance insofar as that user is put in a position (or closer thereto) of being able to make an informed decision regarding his matter.

In Britain, precedent such as Chaudry v Prabhakar – 1989 can make British lawyers reticent to give informal advice, even when outside of a professional or business context.

The Chaudry decision reflects that the "knowledgeable" defendant was quite sloppy. Accordingly, a lawyer should be reluctant to post sloppy answers on Law SE, be it on grounds of the consequences of a sloppy answer or on grounds that the lawyer's sloppiness itself tends to undermine the so-called "public confidence in the legal system".