[Shaudius]

There are a couple reasons making conclusory statements of law could be considered the unlicensed practice of law. First, some courts deem it. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vie...72&context=flr

Second, other courts use a reliance test. But I don't have time to find the "cocktail napkin" case I remember (would a reasonable person rely on advice a drunk lawyer writes on a cocktail napkin?).

Your second paragraph hits the nail on the head of what I'm getting at. The key word that you used is advice and your first paragraph alluded to it(conclusory statements, as I read it, conclusions based on facts). Statements of the law are not advice they are statements of the law. Telling someone, "Indiana Revised Code Section 402.32 states "blah blah blah"" is not the practice of law, it is serving as an encyclopedia. Your cocktail napkin probably went beyond this though, they have provided advice. Advice being the application of law to facts. One could make the case that knowing facts and state them in response to a question posed by someone is the unauthorized practice of law, but I fail to see how anyone could distribute any information at all about anything if unsolicited statements of the law were the unauthorized practice of law. If this were to be the case anyone who edits a Wikipedia page on the laws of any jurisdiction where they are not authorized to practice law would be committing the unauthorized practice of law and this is certainly not the case, and I don't think that any court of competent jurisdiction would rule it to be the case.