How to solve the problem with lawyers...

[naruki_oni]

This morning I woke up with the solution to everyone's lawyer problems! The simplicity and effectiveness of it is mind-boggling, and it doesn't require widescale lawyercide.

The problem is not so much that we have so many lawyers. It's that there are good ones and bad ones (as in, competent and not), and Joe Citizen cannot afford a good one. Richie Rich, on the other hand, can get whatever he wants.

That's a bit simplified, and there are plenty of exceptions, so don't think I'm just bashing rich folk.

But that is a critical part of the problem with "getting justice".

The solution is to nationalize lawyers. Or at least make them all state employees. They get a specific payscale as any other government employee does, but they don't charge their clients for services.

The obvious flaw in this plan is their dependence on the State for income, and the idea that they may thus show unprofessional bias (conflict of interest) when litigating between State and Joe Citizen.

First, we've got far worse corruption today anyway, and even Richie Rich has trouble winning against the government, so that hardly would matter. Second, we put in very strong protections for these lawyers from being punished if they work hard against the State.

Sure, it's not a perfect solution, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we've got.

Richie Rich will no longer be able to buy his son out of jail for raping Joe Citizen's daughter (or son). Joe Citizen will no longer be hopelessly screwed when trying to recover payment for the landscaping work he did that Richie Rich decided not to pay for.

Lots of inequities and injustices can be repaired in this way.

What do you think? Silly idea?

Comments

That would fall under the category of Not Your Job.

[naruki-oni.livejournal.com]

Worrying about what people not connected to your case are saying to your client or opponent's client (or whoever's job we're discussing) is just going to give you a stupid ulcer. OJ's lawyers had plenty to deal with just trying to defend him, they didn't need to shoulder the burden of worrying that hundreds of millions of people said he was a murderer. (The fact that he was a murderer is beside the point - they don't get paid to worry what irrelevant people think of their client.)

Since that point is irrelevant, it only confuses the discussion here.

- I think we disagree in part about why the government is convoluted and what effect socializing the legal profession would have on it. But we also can't really prove anything, as it's not likely to happen.

- I had nothing to do with krikkert's posts. Also, while they do seem overly harsh, you seem to have misunderstood his assertion (which is still harsh, perhaps, but in a different way). He doesn't seem to be accusing you of being unethical, just of being naive. But I could be wrong - perhaps if he wants to clarify he will.

And when I said you were emotional, I was politely saying that you were being somewhat irrational. It's one thing to be angry and logical, but another to toss logic to the winds and lash out. You were somewhere in between those two, but you weren't really treating my points with a clear head. Maybe this is good practice for you? Well, probably only if you were to become a trial lawyer. ;-)

- Glad you don't think I was slapping you in the face, but that's how it came across to me.

- Again, the persecution and misunderstanding thing came across as directed at me. If you didn't think that intelligent people held very negative views of (some/many/most/all) lawyers, then you really haven't been paying attention. Ask a bunch of surgeons, for example, and at least 50% will have negative comments about lawyers.

This is not new by any stretch of the imagination. Do you think Shakespeare was a mediocre wit? He's the one who wrote about Shylock. And he didn't actually hate all the lawyers, but he acknowledged the sentiment held by many.

I can't really believe that you've only just now acknowledged an attitude that has been around as long as the profession.

But I can believe that you are being emotionally reactive to the discussion. And it's not my intent to anger you, so you may want to take a breather. This was meant as yet another intellectual exercise, not as a direct threat to end your profession.