Maybe it's time for universal coverage, but not medical

[woolfe9998]

Our courts increased their initial filing fees to about $550. So if you're sued, it will cost you that much to appear in the case. However, I think this can be waived on a showing of economic hardship. The lawyer fees, however, are your own.

It's worth mentioning that poor people only rarely get sued unless they're insured for the claim because there is no incentive to sue someone who can't pay anything and would probably file for bankruptcy if you got a judgment against them. Also, often times if the poor person wants to sue someone they can get an attorney to take the case on contingency.

- wolf

 

[Nintendesert]

Let's just implement pay limits for lawyers, like $20. That sounds good.

 

[BoberFett]

Our courts increased their initial filing fees to about $550. So if you're sued, it will cost you that much to appear in the case. However, I think this can be waived on a showing of economic hardship. The lawyer fees, however, are your own.

It's worth mentioning that poor people only rarely get sued unless they're insured for the claim because there is no incentive to sue someone who can't pay anything and would probably file for bankruptcy if you got a judgment against them. Also, often times if the poor person wants to sue someone they can get an attorney to take the case on contingency.

- wolf

Is that why RIAA has sued thousands of people who have very little money for staggering sums over a few shared songs?

"Yes we're suing you for millions, but we'll settle out of court for a mere $5,000."

Corporations don't always sue to win.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Our courts increased their initial filing fees to about $550. So if you're sued, it will cost you that much to appear in the case. However, I think this can be waived on a showing of economic hardship. The lawyer fees, however, are your own.

It's worth mentioning that poor people only rarely get sued unless they're insured for the claim because there is no incentive to sue someone who can't pay anything and would probably file for bankruptcy if you got a judgment against them. Also, often times if the poor person wants to sue someone they can get an attorney to take the case on contingency.

- wolf

"The lawyer fees are your own". That's the thing. There's no real equivalent to health insurance however costs can be just as ruinous.

Hypothetical:

You are an "average American" demographically speaking. You have limited financial means and you find yourself charged with a serious crime. You don't qualify for legal aid. You find yourself at odds with an entity with unlimited funds for practical purposes. You hope the jury will find in your favor. Guilty you are punished criminally. Innocent and you are harmed financially. It's like the days before there was health insurance at all. There aren't cost control measures at all.

At least the legal system is fairly simple and the experts would craft the law. Of there's something legislators ought to know is law and it's cost and effect on ordinary people.

 

[justoh]

Or you could just be a normal law abiding citizen and not have to worry about all this. The choice is yours.

 

[BoberFett]

Or you could just be a normal law abiding citizen and not have to worry about all this. The choice is yours.

Ostensibly, yes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Or you could just be a normal law abiding citizen and not have to worry about all this. The choice is yours.

It's nice that only the guilty are charged where you live and that law enforcement is incapable of error.

 

[BoberFett]

It's nice that only the guilty are charged where you live and that law enforcement is incapable of error.

I'm sure that mayor deserved it...

 

[woolfe9998]

"The lawyer fees are your own". That's the thing. There's no real equivalent to health insurance however costs can be just as ruinous.

Hypothetical:

You are an "average American" demographically speaking. You have limited financial means and you find yourself charged with a serious crime. You don't qualify for legal aid. You find yourself at odds with an entity with unlimited funds for practical purposes. You hope the jury will find in your favor. Guilty you are punished criminally. Innocent and you are harmed financially. It's like the days before there was health insurance at all. There aren't cost control measures at all.

At least the legal system is fairly simple and the experts would craft the law. Of there's something legislators ought to know is law and it's cost and effect on ordinary people.

Yes, if you lack economic resources, you can be screwed in the legal system.

For civil lawsuits, that is why people buy insurance. Homeowner's insurance, auto insurance etc., general liability insurance for businesses, contractors, etc. If you're sued, your carrier pays the legal bills. So yes, there is an equivalent to medical insurance here. It just doesn't cover every situation. I am insurance retained defense counsel, meaning that none of my clients are paying my bills. It's all paid by their carriers.

There are some procedural areas where certain courts could simplify things which would help contain expenses but not on a grand scale.

Small claims court is cheap and available for claims at or below $7500. No lawyers allowed.

In the end, our legal system is like everything else in our society. The more money you have, the better your access and the more favorable outcome you're likely to get.

- wolf

 

[justoh]

I don't see what the problem is. If you have money you can pay for your own rep. If you don't, it's provided for you. And you could always just defend yourself if you don't want to spend the dough. Just head on down to the library. Pull yourself up by your boot straps.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, if you lack economic resources, you can be screwed in the legal system.

For civil lawsuits, that is why people buy insurance. Homeowner's insurance, auto insurance etc., general liability insurance for businesses, contractors, etc. If you're sued, your carrier pays the legal bills. So yes, there is an equivalent to medical insurance here. It just doesn't cover every situation. I am insurance retained defense counsel, meaning that none of my clients are paying my bills. It's all paid by their carriers.

There are some procedural areas where certain courts could simplify things which would help contain expenses but not on a grand scale.

Small claims court is cheap and available for claims at or below $7500. No lawyers allowed.

In the end, our legal system is like everything else in our society. The more money you have, the better your access and the more favorable outcome you're likely to get.

- wolf

Seems there ought to be some solution here. If you have health coverage you don't get the worst if your plan isn't gold. I'm aware that free legal access can't mean filing a suit for having a bad day. If a case is arbitrary or frivolous then the cost coming back on the one who filed should curtail most abuse.

What brought this on are a number of posts highlighting serious abuse by LEO who have an effective right of abuse in too many cases. With powerful people to protect them the injured are often helpless.

Then we have Zimmerman, a situation that I've frankly ignored as hopelessly fubared. His guilt is immaterial. If not for legal donations he'd be ruined for life. I'm not sure that's not the case anyway. Regardless, most people are neither famous or infamous, just destroyed financially without even a potential for aid.

People ought to think "what happens next" with most things. When we hear someone is acquitted do we think "well that's over with"? You know legal fees, and so you know that's hardly the case but it is hardly ever mentioned.

I'm the health care guy with lots of ideas to address that.

Your the attorney. What can be done?

Some pool of resources for catastrophic situations at least ought to exist, and as I have said about health care, experts need to lead.

 

[justoh]

It would only make sense to reimburse people if they are acquited. And then how do you set reasonable limits on how much could be claimed? And how much of a problem is this? So far you only cite instances of abusive police action, which are irrelevant, since they aren't facing prosecution, and then a case like zimmerman where legal fees don't seem to be a problem because of the good will of the public.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

If you are seriously wronged you might find someone to take a case for a huge cut. Let's have ordinary citizens have a chance and not just the rich and powerful.

How do you propose to pay for universal legal coverage? People are willing to pay their doctor or dentist, but not their lawyer--which suggests that most of what they are contesting just isn't worth the price of contesting.

Right now we have a massive oversupply of JDs, many of whom are underemployed-and-involuntarily-out-of-field. Prices are pretty much going to be as rock-bottom as they can get based on the supply, at least if people are willing to shop around and don't require their attorneys to have expensive fancy offices and secretaries.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

1. Establish "loser pays" rules.

There should be some sort of a deterrent against baseless lawsuits, but loser pays could have a chilling effect since many parties lose perfectly legitimate lawsuits. It might effectively make it impossible to sue corporations, in practice.

4. Allow judges and juries more leeway to declare lawsuits frivolous, with deterrent-level punishments for those who file them.

This sounds more reasonable and practical.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

public defenders?

This is an area where we could use more taxpayer support to insure that defendants are receiving a proper defense. (Remember, it costs us money to keep innocent people incarcerated.)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It's probably a good thing these exist, but they tend to suck due to limited pay. The really good lawyers go private and charge a fortune for their skills. Maybe hire more of them so they're not trying to balance 10 cases at a time?

10 cases? Lol! That would be a like a vacation for those guys. It's more like 100 or 150 cases at a time.

 

[woolfe9998]

Seems there ought to be some solution here. If you have health coverage you don't get the worst if your plan isn't gold. I'm aware that free legal access can't mean filing a suit for having a bad day. If a case is arbitrary or frivolous then the cost coming back on the one who filed should curtail most abuse.

What brought this on are a number of posts highlighting serious abuse by LEO who have an effective right of abuse in too many cases. With powerful people to protect them the injured are often helpless.

Then we have Zimmerman, a situation that I've frankly ignored as hopelessly fubared. His guilt is immaterial. If not for legal donations he'd be ruined for life. I'm not sure that's not the case anyway. Regardless, most people are neither famous or infamous, just destroyed financially without even a potential for aid.

People ought to think "what happens next" with most things. When we hear someone is acquitted do we think "well that's over with"? You know legal fees, and so you know that's hardly the case but it is hardly ever mentioned.

I'm the health care guy with lots of ideas to address that.

Your the attorney. What can be done?

Some pool of resources for catastrophic situations at least ought to exist, and as I have said about health care, experts need to lead.

I have some specific ideas about simplifying certain aspects of civil procedure that would cut costs to some degree. Other than that, there isn't much you can do. If you're middle class, make sure you buy liability insurance for car and home. That protects you from roughly 75% of all potential lawsuits. If you're poor, you're judgment proof and probably won't ever get sued. There are also public interest law firms, i.e. legal aid clinics, which dispense services for the poor either pro bono or on the cheap. Much like free medical clinics.

Legal services aren't something you can "cover" universally like healthcare. It just doesn't lend itself to that kind of paradigm.

I wouldn't worry about Zimmerman. He'll make a fortune selling a book.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Not only that, but if you're middle class you will likely be denied a public defender. If you have any assets and reasonable income, the court will commonly deny requests for a public defender, so if you weren't broke before you will be after the SWAT team breaks down your doors, shoots your pets, plants drugs in your house, then keeps up the lie to avoid embarrassment.

IMHO, anyone who is facing criminal prosecution should be allowed to opt for a public defender regardless of income. (If you have $50 million in the bank and are dumb enough to want a public defender, that's your problem.)

 

[Zebo]

We're not quite Mexico but best investment you can make is sponsor FOP in your area golf/poker/fishing trips whatever. Get in with cops so it never gets to court. Plus if you own a business they will be there in a second.

You're either cops or friends of cops or little people. - blade runner.

 

[justoh]

IMHO, anyone who is facing criminal prosecution should be allowed to opt for a public defender regardless of income. (If you have $50 million in the bank and are dumb enough to want a public defender, that's your problem.)

Who will pay for all the new PDs, even if that was an otherwise sensible idea, which it isn't?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Let's just implement pay limits for lawyers, like $20. That sounds good.

Law school tuition could cost over $150,000 total... Congrats. Your $20/hour limit would eliminate having lawyers, which means we'd just have to settle disputes the old fashioned way.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Who will pay for all the new PDs, even if that was an otherwise sensible idea, which it isn't?

How do we pay for jails, police, and prosecutors? It would be funded the same way.

 

[justoh]

How do we pay for jails, police, and prosecutors? It would be funded the same way.

But it wouldn't be funded, mostly because sane people with means enjoy the advantage they have in life generally. If you had 50m you simply wouldn't opt for a public defender nor opt to pay for the universal adoption of PDs in criminal defense for those "dumb enough to want a PD."

I'm also not sure why people are seeking to confuse any reasonable scope or focus of the thread with the discussion of civil law. 2 pages and it's still unclear what this thread is about. Is it about criminal defense? Civil law? Only civil cases where the govt is the plaintiff?

Do you want publicly funded lawyers for both criminal and civil? Doesn't that seem ridiculous? And you have legal insurance options for civil Claims anyway, as well as generally the ability to get back reasonable costs.

In the UK and maybe other common law jdxs you can claim back some costs related to a legal defense, which seems like the only reasonable argument one could advance in this thread directly related to money, but it would be hard to set limits on what can be claimed.