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

[krikkert.livejournal.com]

Nice idea. It'd work in civil cases.

When it comes to criminal cases(or other State VS Citizen cases) - How about paying the lawyers by their relative performance? You'll be paid anyways, and you can't 'lose on purpose' because there's a risk that it might show through that you didn't perform as well as you should/could.

[niwikki.livejournal.com]

it wouldn't work in civil cases against the government (and yes, in the US the government can be sued civilly provided there's a statute allowing it or a contractual relationship in which the government has waived sovereign immunity).

in criminal cases, there's far too much potential for abuse. Lawyers are the only line of defense for persons accused of a crime. If the lawyers are working for the government, there would be no confidence in the integrity of the legal profession whatsoever.

And you NEVER want to pay an attorney in a criminal matter on basis of outcome. That simply gives rise to WAY too many potential abuses, even when attorneys are independent (which is why it's against the rules of Ethics for an attorney to take a criminal case on contingency). Also, sometimes the client is simply guilty -- are you going to pay the attorney less for representing the guilty person zealously and losing? If not based on win/lose, then how would you judge the attorney's "performance"?

[krikkert.livejournal.com]

Well.. I'm basing this on Norwegian law, not US; and you can't sue the State here(unless it's a matter of employment and then you don't sue directly).

Oh, and I'd like you to show me one person who actually has faith in lawyers' ethics, whether professional or not.. I doubt I could find one if I searched for a year.

LART

[niwikki.livejournal.com]

I know one: me.
I know more: my entire law school

Try again.

[krikkert.livejournal.com]

Heh. You know, that's like asking a politician if they believe that all politicians are crooks. A loaded question. So, I'll return the LART in kind.

[niwikki.livejournal.com]

so you don't count idealistic law students as persons. even ones who have no desire to practice law.
nice to know.

it's very nice to have my opinion entirely discounted. thanks.

[krikkert.livejournal.com]

I discount them not because they're idealistic, but because they are law students.

And no problem.

[niwikki.livejournal.com]

I hope you're enjoying yourself, because if you truly believe what you're saying then I pity you for wanting to enter a field where you'll have no faith in any of your colleagues.

Expect the worst from people, and that's what they'll give you.

[krikkert.livejournal.com]

I'm not entering the field of private lawyers.

[niwikki.livejournal.com]

you didn't limit your comment above to private lawyers.

[krikkert.livejournal.com]

Nope.

I'll have to decline your attack.

[naruki-oni.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but your "answers" do not match any questions I asked.

Perhaps you meant to LART someone who actually offended you?

And that's what I get for looking at my email...

[naruki-oni.livejournal.com]

instead of the thread. Oopsie!

You were LARTing krikkert. My bad. ;-)