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's simplistic.

[thewrongcrowd.livejournal.com]

The vast majority of legislation is drafted by attorneys. And you aren't naive enough to think that there aren't a few attorneys whose number one function is to meet their billable hours quota.

I'm not saying there aren't a few Atticus Finch-types out there. But they are far and away outnumbered by Borg-attorneys, who are quite happy to obfuscate in order to win.

Re: That's simplistic.

[niwikki.livejournal.com]

Written by attorneys, maybe... but passed by politicians. If the law is too complex, maybe the politicians shouldn't pass it. It's not lawyers' fault that politicians are passing complex laws.

I would posit that the vast majority of lawyers are ethical (because if they weren't, they'd have been reported to their state bar and disciplined by now). The limited cases where attorneys have been unethical and disciplined are the ones the news media decides to pick up, and thus almost every time the public hears about attorneys it's when one did something bad. It's rare the media will report on the great work done by a bunch of attorneys volunteering for a cause. It's rare that an attorney who does hir job well will get recognized at all.

I'd argue that most attorneys are worker-bees, who are there to do the work that the client needs. They're not activists out there every day trying to change the world, but neither are they trying to screw anyone over. You just only ever hear about those few trying to screw people over.

Case in point: California just passed an initiative prohibiting a certain kind of law suit because "unethical lawyers were abusing a loophole in the law". Yeah. One small firm found a loophole and was abusing it. ONE FIRM. They were disbarred for it. There was no significant risk of other firms exploiting that loophole because they too would be facing certain disbarment. But because one firm was unethical, the media picked it up and made it sound like this was an epidemic all over the state, and now it's far more difficult to file legitimate law suits against businesses committing unfair business practices.

But no, negative stereotypes never hurt anybody, right?

Oh, come on!

[naruki-oni.livejournal.com]

You are blaming the politicians for something the lawyers came up with! Sure, blame the politicians for their part of the evil, but don't even think about excusing the lawyers!

Do you also think the vast majority of criminal are in jail, and the vast majority of people in jail are criminals?

Re: Oh, come on!

[niwikki.livejournal.com]

it takes 1-5 lawyers to write a bill, and over 200 politicians to pass it. I think the blame, therefore, does rightly fall on the politicians.

And you are absolutely wrong...

[naruki-oni.livejournal.com]

in that you want the blame to fall only on the politicos.

Pontius Pilate didn't hang Jesus, it was the people.

You can't absolve yourself of guilt if you knowingly took part in something evil just because you didn't make the final decision to implement it.

If I hand out flyers to local neighborhood boys to go to a fun party with free candy hosted by some philanthropic organization called NAMBLA, I am definitely guilty even though I couldn't be a member. I may not be as guilty as they are, but I share some of the guilt at least.

Re: And you are absolutely wrong...

[niwikki.livejournal.com]

If you live in the neighborhood but aren't involved even remotely with the party or flyers, does that make you as guilty as the ones who are?

That's how I see the attacks on lawyers, saying lawyers are to blame. Some may have taken part, yes. But the rest had nothing to do with it.

You're twisting the argument.

[naruki-oni.livejournal.com]

You said that the 1-5 lawyers who drafted the law were innocent because they didn't sign it into law. Actually, you may not have specifically said that, but you implied it strongly by implying that all the guilt is only for the legislators.

And for my example, I said I was handing them out. That makes me "involved". And not remotely, but practically intimately.

I never said anything about other people in the neighborhood who didn't take part in it.

Re: You're twisting the argument.

[niwikki.livejournal.com]

we'll just have to agree that we're interpretting each others comments completely differently than we each intend.

and with that, I suggest you read my latest post in my journal, as it's pertinent to this overall discussion and is the reason I'm withdrawing from this discussion.

Get some rest, then.

[naruki-oni.livejournal.com]

Don't feel bad about your choices. Just because a lot of people have bad feelings about lawyers doesn't make the stereotype right. And it also doesn't mean that "things are getting worse". There have always been bad stereotypes.

If you are interested in what you do and want to be ethical about it, then I encourage you to do your best. But for your own sanity, you'll need to develop a thicker skin (and that applies to no matter what you do).

Hell, I know that I didn't deserve to be kicked out of UF, but I didn't whine like some other people did. I made my case and then accepted the verdict. (Actually, I made my case after the verdict was handed out, thereby alerting me that there was a need for a case to be made - but why quibble over mere chronology?)

Just because a lot of people say bad things about me doesn't mean I should stop existing. If they were right, then I might consider it. But most all of them were dead wrong.

So sleep well and try not to let these kinds of discussions bother you in the future.