Is there a right to legal representation when it comes to civil suits?
If I have no money and someone sues me for some reason, will a lawyer be appointed for me? Or do I just have to represent myself?
No.
There is this though: http://www.lsc.gov/
Right. The legal aid office that I worked at didn’t handle general civil cases, but we did handle foreclosure defense, some divorces, some bankruptcies, matters involving utilities, some matters where a judgment creditor garnished a bank account that held social security benefits, evictions, and some other random stuff. It’s always worth calling a local legal aid office to find out if they can help. They also might have a referral program with lawyers who will handle the case for a highly discounted fee.
Some appellate courts also will appoint counsel, particularly if they feel like the unrepresented person may have a point, but that point won’t get made without a lawyer to help guide. It may be on a tricky point of law, or one in which the courts have split.
But at the trial level, generally, no, there’s no right to or availability of appointed counsel.
IANAL, but depending what else you have in assets, you may be “judgement-proof” anyway; somebody could sue you but it would be pointless because there would be nothing available to pay off the judgement.
It usually isn’t the poor defendant who is truly judgment-proof. If you have a job, your wages can be garnished. And most people have some assets. Such defendants won’t have enough assets or earnings to pay the whole judgment and they might be able to declare bankruptcy, but this sense of judgment-proof is only in the eye of the collector. The poor person certainly feels the pain.
Of course, that kind of judgment-proof may protect the person from the initial suit in the first place, if the cost of the suit will be greater than what the plaintiff could ever hope to collect. But in my experience there’s still plenty of suits aimed at the poor, especially because it is usually much cheaper to litigate against someone who doesn’t have a lawyer. Indeed, the poor in big cities often never receive proper service of process for various reasons, so the plaintiff can just get a default judgment. And what percentage of the poor do you imagine know that a default judgment can be challenged for insufficient service? There are whole departments of legal aid that do nothing but challenge improper default judgments all day.
The truly judgment-proof are those defendants who could afford to hire lawyers to make them judgment-proof. They set up trusts, corporations, offshore accounts, and do all manner of tricky legal maneuvers to maintain a decent lifestyle. Case in point: OJ (before the latest robbery).
Well in certain states, such as Texas, wages aren’t subject to garnishment, of course that doesn’t apply to things like child support, but it’s unusual for a creditor to garnish the wage of a truly poor person, because they usually work minimum wage jobs. If you file a wage garnishment against me, I’ll just quit Burger King and go work at Taco Bell, then you have to go to all the trouble of finding me and regarnishing all the wages etc.
And the judgements are only good for so long on average 3 years but in some states the judgements statute of limitations is 15 years.
This is one of the big problems discussed today. In today’s world you don’t have to be right to win, you just have to have bigger pockets than the other guy.
There may be a contractual right to representation. Say you are in a car wreck, and you have insurance. If you get sued, the insurer has to provide representation.
True enough. These things vary considerably by state. My experience in NY is that even the very poor frequently have their wages garnished.
Do you always have the right to hire a lawyer? I know small claims courts don’t normally allow counsel, but what happens when A files suit against B in small claims and B decides he wants hire a lawyer instead of defending himself? Can B have the suit moved to regular court?
Some states prohibit legal representation in small claims court. But in those cases, you can just sue in normal civil court.
ETA: And to answer your specific question, yes, there is usually a provision for transfer if one side wants an attorney.
A recent link via Slashdot: Pro Bono counsel appointed in RIAA lawsuit.
In Ohio you aren’t prohibited from having counsel in small claims, you just aren’t required to have it; the proceedings are simplified and designed for people to represent themselves, if they wish. If one side shows up with a lawyer and the other side doesn’t, I usually say something to assure the unrepresented that he or she is at no competitive disadvantage, and that I’m there to see that justice is done.
One wrinkle is that corporations, big, small or tiny, may appear through a layperson such as an owner or account manager, but cannot then do things that are limited to counsel (making motions or conducting cross-examination, most particularly).