When you cut to the core, though, isn’t that the basis of almost every profession? A good auto mechanic will listen to the customer’s description of the problem, perform diagnostic tests, weed out what doesn’t matter and apply repair principles to try and fix the client’s vehicle.
Same with a plumber, carpenter, or appliance repairman.
Ahem.
While I agree that there are some talentless hacks in PD offices, my experience was that their numbers were not dramatic. I agree that the vast majority were not young F. Lee Baileys either, but apart from ideological considerations, I would gently point out that, if you desire to be a litigator, there are few places right out of law school that give you as much court time as quickly as the PD’s office does.
Choosing to invest a few years to pick up valuable trial experience that would not come elsewhere – perhaps a third category.
Well, sure, in that they all use inductive and deductive reasoning to problem solve in their particular field. “Learning to think like a lawyer” is just the learning the application of inductive and deductive reasoning (as well as reasoning by analogy in the case of case law, pun intended) in the field of law, learning to parse law and analyze it according to legal theory.
I love the word parse, by the way. Parse parse parse.
Well now DSYoungEsq, your declaration of my avoiding the main purpose of your thread illustrates the main problem with legal profession today. Lawyers learn to pontificate. And pontification leads to dogmas and lawyers forget how to think.
Let’s think together…
No man over thirty would question the simple proposition that an increase in the number of practicing lawyers would cause lawyer fees to drop. And as practicing law is a job with inherent rewards very soon the mean annual salary of lawyers would decend to the base level of, let’s say, an anthropoligist.
Ah yes but, a reasonable man might ask, would the quality of legal representation drop as well?
Absolutly not. The injudicious system in place today stems from the predatory relationship between a lawyer and his client. Remove the contrived props that allow lawyers to milk the judicial system of obscene profits to the extent of doing great harm to his countrymen, and then a corps of hungry and dedicated lawyers will rise anew to share a common set of ideas and dreams with plumbers, bricklayers, butchers and bakers and indian chiefs.
Milum, could you point out specifically:
Why you believe a massive influx of untrained, unliscensed people acting as lawyers will not cause legal representation to decline?
Why the system in place today is “injudicious”?
How the lawyer-client relationship is predatory?
What are the contrived props that allow the lawyers to milk obscene profits, and how this does great harm to his countryman?
Why this corps of untrained, unliscensed hungry lawyers will arise, why they will be more ethical than trained liscened lawyers, why they will share a common dream with five other professions, what that dream will be, and how this will end up benefitting everybody?
You seem to be implying that the licensing of lawyers is the only, or the best, way to deal with the overbooked issue. Why not build more courts and elect/appoint more judges, if they’re needed? Seems like this argument is secondary, at best, to the issue at hand. Surely there are other ways to keep the process moving.
Exactly. Why not?
The EBAY example was just that-- an example. I simply meant to point out that there are other, nongovernmental, ways that people can obtain information about the quality of services provided by someone they interact with. Hey, I can get my dumb-ass brother-in-law to do a break job on my car, and that could be much more dangerous than having an unlicensed lawyer represent me in my divorce proceedings against his sister.
Dude, you cannot seriously want an unliscensed self taught surgeon.
While your not answering questions, could you please answer mine, milum. Do your views of opening the bar to non-lawyers include the practice of criminal law, or, more specifically to criminal defense?
Great Scott, man, how many more lawyers do you want in this society? Have you opened the Yellow Pages in the last 20 years?
I am sure that there are at least a handful of lawyers in there who: a) have passed the bar exam; b) are not part of any judge-lawyer-Masonic conspiracy; and c) charge a reasonable fee that allows them little more than expenses and a decent wage.
I’m not sure how allowing, say, my knucklehead cousin to pretend he’s a competent jurist would actually help anyone.
** Inditement of Lawyers for the Capital Crime of Heresy**
Count one:** Deviation of Purpose**
In that the United States legal profession exists soley as an instrument for the protection of the inherent rights of the American people as guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the conduct of proper legal afffairs by lawyers, and by extention, the lawyers who are judges, has circumvented, rather than abetted, the enactment of true justice.
By virtue of the decreed deliberate exclusion of a whole class of American citizens (who today may not speak before the courts on behalf of their fellow countryman) the ordainded jurists, who are simply self-annointed lawyers, have established a de facto monoply of legal representation based upon the issuance of money to the legal representitive. This practice constitutes the selling of justice and violates the spirit and letter of the law of the equal rights clauses of the Constitution.
Count Two: Corrupting the Youth
Whereas the young are unsophicated in the crass ways of a defective society, their youthful idealism and enthusiasm to do that which is good invigorates and stimulates an aging society away from self-agrandizement and towards community altruism.
A young person with such beliefs is therefore anathema. His thoughts are antithetical to the established order of “The Profession”, and so, in law school and in the reality of the first year of working within the tight unforgiving confines of law-as-it-is, he undergoes a cleansing by way of mental conditioners that wash such thoughts from his innocent young head and protects the established system of a form of law that is out of control and corrupt. Many young lawyers turn to drink.
Reminds me of the guy in my office last night who was shocked that I wanted to charge him a fee. I wanted to charge him $550, only if he won his case. He stood to gain more than $12,000 if he won.
But hey, maybe instead of paying my next mortgage payment, I can send a note explaining that I’ve been doing a lot of pro bono work. I’m sure the bank will understand :rolleyes:
No, I only imply that licensing is one part of the judicial efficiency puzzle.
Some well-known golf courses require that you submit your handicap verified by your local pro before you’re allowed to play the course, and won’t let you play if it’s too high. Why? They need to keep the flow of play moving, and guys shooting 130 take longer to play than guys shooting 80. There are other things those courses can (and should, and do) do to speed up play so as to maximize the number of golfers who can play the course. That doesn’t mean the handicap requirement isn’t an important part of that puzzle. **
Suffice to say that your serious advocacy of the unregulated practice of medicine only hurts your credibility. Why do you think medical licensing schemes arose in the first place?
I’m staying out of the way for the most part, to let the debate that finally showed up begin to flow, but I’ll simply answer this one with: Because it costs money, lots of money, and taxpayers aren’t currently (if ever) in the mood to pony up serious dollars to pay such an increase.
Gee, didn’t they charge Socrates with pretty much the same things? Pretty good company…
As a practitioner with more than 35 years in the trade let me say a few things.
First, the law, the rules that govern how things work, is hideously complected and in a constant state of change. Those rules are, to the greatest extent, established by the people acting through their elected representatives. To the greatest extent the rules that are judge made or traditional continue at the sufferance of the people and their legislators who could change the rules at the blink of an eye if a need to do that was seen. The legislature’s impulse to tinker is nearly irresistible. While a license to practice law is no guarantee that the licensed lawyer knows the law or knows how to find out what it is, but it certainly gives a better chance that he is than does an “every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost” approach to the constant and real problem of conflicts within the society.
Second, a new law school graduate is pretty raw stuff but, depending on character and initiative and basic brights and willingness to do hard work, he is a lot better suited, knows a lot more about what he is doing, is better equipped to find out what the rules are than you standard tavern loud mouth (the class most likely to dominate the inferior courts in an “every man for himself” system).
Third, while increasing the number of courts and judges might serve to elevate the chaos resulting from the appearance and participation of unqualified counsel, it just ain’t going to happen. I don’t know what it’s like where you are, but around here the legislature has been very busy taking funds and staff away from the courts. That the people and their representatives would stand for the increase in funding necessary for even a modest increase in courts, judges and support staff is a proposition not worth discussing.
Fourth, we are dealing with a system that has had a gradual and steady development for some 1000 years in England, Iceland and the United States. Every movement away from private vendetta toward the system we see to day, at least in the traditional Western countries, is directly connected to the development of central governments and the general progress to what we chose to regard as civilized society. The structure of the courts and the practice of law has been very much a part of that. For the most part the system we see to day is in place because its predecessors did not give the people and the government what they wanted–a fair and orderly hearing before and impartial authority.
Fifth, I have had the misfortune to be caught up in proceedings involving people who want to act as their own counsel. Anybody remember the great tax protester movement that claimed that the income tax amendment was not properly ratified because Ohio was not a State and that State courts were not Article Three Courts, and on top of that the flag has yellow fringe? Without exception a complicated case (anything beyond speeding or letting your dog run at large) without qualified counsel turns into a dog and pony show. Without exception. I suppose that with enough experience a layman could master the secrets of the trade but I sure don’t want that guy plugging up the courts and screwing up peoples lives and fortunes during the learning process.
Sixth, the “anybody a lawyer” impulse is the impulse of the perpetual malcontent. Look at the trades we license for the protection of the public–every thing from accountants to veterinarians. Do veterinarians perform a service for the public more vital to the social order? Is it unacceptable that an unlicensed vet neuter your cat but OK that a layman without training assert a claim against you in court? As a practical matter there are all sorts of people out there doing things that are generally regarded as within a lawyer’s jurisdiction. Real estate agents habitually do conveyancing. Insurance agents and stock brokers do estate planning. We do however reserve the responsibility of representing people in court to licensed persons. I suppose that we could do it differently but, if so, it will come to tears.
Our friends basic problem, beyond discontent, is that he seems to think that because the present system does not produce the right result in every instance the system is broken. He is wrong. The system works. It works because the people who run it generally know what they are about. The supposed imperfections will not be fixed by injecting people who do not know what they are doing into the program. The opinion of contrarians may differ. They always do.
Rather than open up the legal profession to idiots who’ve watched too much “Law & Order” or “JAG” and thought “How hard can it be?”, I am hoping the plan provided by my current employer becomes more widespread. It’s called Pre-Paid Legal Services. You’d never imagine it but the legal profession is actually taking steps to make itself more affordable.
I have an actual, reputable law firm at my disposal, ready to provide the following services at no extra cost beyond the $16/month I pay for the service.
Preventive Legal Services
Phone Consultations on Unlimited Matters
As a member, you can consult with your Provider Law Firm toll free by phone on any personal or business-related matter. Just call your Provider’s toll-free number during regular business hours when you have a legal problem or question.
Phone Calls and Letters…
A phone call or letter from your Provider Lawyer can get you the results you want fast. Your Provider Lawyer will recommend a letter or phone call when that is the best step for you. One call or letter per personal subject related matter is free with your membership. Plus, you’ll receive two business letters each year at no additional cost! Additional assistance for same subject at 25% discount.
Contract and Document Review…
You can have an unlimited number of personal legal documents, up to ten pages each, reviewed by your Provider Lawyer. Included each year is one business document review at no additional cost! Your Provider Lawyer will analyze the documents and suggest changes for your benefit before you sign.
Wills for You and Your Family…
A Will for you at no additional charge, not just a “simple” Will, but one that meets most Americans’ needs - with free yearly reviews and updates. Wills for covered family members are just $20 each; changes and updates $20. Trust preparation is available at a 25% discount.
Minor Legal Expenses
Your Provider Lawyer will represent you or your covered family members against moving traffic violations at no additional cost to you. Now you can have help with traffic tickets and not have to worry about the cost of representation.
Major Legal Expenses
Your Provider Lawyer will defend you or your covered family members when you are charged with Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter, Negligent Homicide, or Vehicular Homicide at no added cost to you.
And add up to 2.5 hours for help with…
* Damage recovery service
* Driver's license assistance
* Personal injury legal expenses
Lawsuits cause tremendous emotional and financial stress. Your Pre-Paid Legal membership offers assistance when you need it most.
Up to 60 hours of lawyer time…
During your first membership year, you have up to 60 hours of your Provider Lawyer’s time at no additional cost when you or your spouse is named defendant or respondent in a covered civil or criminal action filed in a court of law. The criminal action must be one which arises out of the direct performance of the covered person’s employment activities. Your Provider Firm can advise you of the documents required to determine coverage under this benefit.
Of these 60 hours, up to 2.5 hours may be used for all legal services rendered in defense of the covered suit prior to actual trial. Up to 57.5 of the remaining hours are available for actual trial time including covered criminal preliminary hearings.
Your hours of service increase…
When you renew your membership, your hours of lawyer time increase as follows:
2nd year renewal: Up to 120 hours of assistance at no additional charge including up to 3 hours of pre-trial time.
3rd year renewal: Up to 180 hours of assistance at no additional charge including up to 3.5 hours of pre-trial time.
4th year renewal: Up to 240 hours of assistance at no additional charge including up to 4 hours of pre-trial time.
5th year renewal: Up to 300 hours of assistance at no additional charge including up to 4.5 hours of pre-trial time.
Your Pre-Paid Legal membership will help you defray the costs of an IRS audit and give you the legal support you need.
Up to 50 hours of lawyer time…
You have up to 50 hours of your Provider Lawyer’s time available at no additional cost when you or a covered family member receives written notice of an IRS audit or are requested to appear at IRS offices regarding your tax return. Your 50 hours are available as follows:
Up to one hour for consultation, advice, and assistance when you receive written notice from the IRS of audit or appearance.
If there is no settlement within 30 days, you have up to 2.5 hours for audit representation, negotiations, phone conversations, and settlement conferences prior to litigation.
If there is no settlement without litigation, up to 46.5 of the remaining hours are available for actual trial appearance if the IRS sues you, or you pay the disputed tax and sue the IRS.
Your Provider Lawyer will render assistance at a 25% reduction to his or her standard hourly rate* for you or your spouse should you need legal services not covered by this plan. A retainer may be required for services being rendered under this benefit. Five days are required for preparation for court representation.
*Hourly rates for Referral Lawyers and court appearances may
vary.
Sure thing, scotandrsn, schemes such as yours will undoubtedly become necessary in this contentious, ever- conniving world. I remember the debit routes for time payments of cemetery plots throughout the poor neighborhoods of the south back during the sixities.
It is good to bleed the poor with threats of legal maltreatment and incarceration.
Your golf course analogy really isn’t relavent. Firstly (and I say this as an avid golfer) it applies to only a tiny fraction of golf courses. Secondly, playing golf is not a right, but defending oneself in court is. Thirdly, it’s unlcear if having a large number of unlicensed lawyers would slow things down or speed things up. One might just as easily argue that ignorance of the nuances of the law would lead to fewer procedural delay tactics.
Well, you made a statement that you expected to be accepted as an axiom. I think everything is open to questioning in this forum. The procedures that require a doctor’s oversight, even in our current system, has changed over time. There is no clear “absolute truth” about which medical precedures must be doctor administered and which do not.
But I’d like to add that in order to conceive of a society in which lawyers need not be gov’t certified, one must think beyond the ramifications of “gee it would be chaos if we just lifted the ban tomorrow”. Our society has evolved over many, many years with the assumption that all lawyers are certified by the government. It would indeed be folly to change that overnight. But it is also incorrect to believe that, had we never required certification of lawyers, that no other (private) institution would have arisen to provide people with the info needed to make intelligent decisions when choosing a lawyer.
There are also many gradations of legal trouble that one might find oneself in-- from challenging a speeding ticket to being charged with serial homicide. It’s unclear that there is a single solution for the entire continuum of legal needs.
I wish you’d respond to the questions I and others have asked about the specifics of your proposal; I feel a little like I’m debating Time Cube. But I’ll give it a shot.
Your main problem with the legal profession seems to be that they like to get paid for the work that they do (ignoring for a moment that the Sixth Amendment guarantees you counsel in a serious criminal matter if you can’t afford one), which consitututes the “selling of justice”. Okay. Are these proposed unliscensed lay-lawyers going to work for free? Why will being unliscensed and working for free make them better lawyers than those we have in our current system? In short, again, exactly how will getting rid of the liscensing requirement create a better legal system? Also, didja get a load of this guy?
Man, I don’t even know where to get hemlock…anyway, again, specifics please. How exactly does law school go about turning good people into evil ones? The one I went to just taught me some laws and stuff.
(Oh, and Spavined Gelding: <clap clap clap>)
______ Da Da and a Tale of Two Lawyers ______
Da Da works for me. I pay him little. It’s not my fault because the company that I have a long term contract with pays me little too. Da Da is an African from Niger who has been in the States for two years. His mother is a tribeswoman and his father is a Christian missionary. He loves America and has applied for citizenship. He is a hard worker, his english is better than mine, his morals are beyond reproach, and his manners are impeccable, but he can’t drive.
Oh but yes Da Da has a car, that’s his problem. He was caught speeding one day and couldn’t pay the fine so the State pulled his driving license. But Da Da needed to drive to get to work and back so he drove anyway and in a few weeks or so the Irondale police gave him another ticket for driving too slowly on the interstate and then cited him because his libility insurance had expired. Then late one night the Vestavia police pulled Da Da over for a taillight violation and jailed poor Da Da.
Naturally Da Da called me to spring him and I called one of the two lawyers that I feel are the most honest and fair-minded of the handful of local shysters that I know. Lawyer Ted then bailed Da Da from the Vestavia jail and then drove him over to the Irondale jail and made arrangements and then drove him over to the Gardendale jail where he set up a fine payment plan and Da Da was released.
Today Da Da lives in a two room apartment with five (count 'em) Mexicans but still drives because he must work so that he can pay his fines so he can get his driver licence back.
Da Da’s fines, fees and court costs totaled sixteen hundred and fifty dollars. Lawyer Ted’s attorney’s fee for four hours work was fifteen hundred dollars. The only other honest attorney that I know might have been cheaper but he just got out of federal prison and is afraid to practice law least he gets his licence revoked.
I wonder…what did Lawyer Ted do that I couldn’t have done that would have saved poor Da Da fifteen hundred bucks.
Da Da will have me paid off in eight more weeks.