In civil cases they’re used by those who can afford them to oppress those who can’t.
Lawyers follow the doctrine that both sides need representation in criminal cases but time spent is still weighted to those who pay.
Lawyers claim a position of moral neutrality when picking a side as part of a process which compensates each side differently.
One dramatic way to reform the system is to enforce an equal budget to both sides of a case in civil and criminal cases. If someone pays for thousands of hours of legal representation to attack you, you should be able to spend that money on legal representation too.
All too often defending a case is not worth the price.
Anecdotally I’d actually like to bring a case against my landlord but the similar cases against them have been sat for years and often time out due to technicalities when someone can’t afford yet another solicitors letter.
Generally a mistake to blame individuals (lawyers) or people who trade their labor for money (working class) for systemic problems (capitalism corrupting a judicial system)
I see lawyers work on contingency every single day, for people who don’t have a pot to piss in. It’s also not generally out of the goodness of their heart, so I don’t want to make it seem like they’re philanthropists out here. If you have a case, odds are a lawyer will take it.
As far as defending a case, it’s interesting. I watch insurance companies spend 10 times what a case is worth to settle for the sake of defending it. Lawyers go after insurance companies all the time because the insurance companies have deep pockets, and sometimes you get an easy settlement. This is definitely not some kind of defense of insurance companies either, they’re the worst, but people will do their best to scam them wherever they can.
Yeah, I guess I’m missing the point. You said only high value cases get lawyers, and I just knew that to not be true, and so that’s what I said. Yeah, are people with 50/50 cases getting representation? Probably not. I certainly see enough pro se plaintiffs though, and from my perspective I understand why they can’t find lawyers.
my neighbor is a public defender and chronically overworked. all I know is she doesn’t get the low-hanging fruit and profitable cases, she gets to defend those who can’t afford representation - but crucially - only because it’s criminal, not civil. I look at all the cases decided by civil law where people have to seek legal aide because they can’t afford representation and weep.
Why do people hate lawyers? I genuinely don’t understand.
never interacted with the law much have you?
In civil cases they’re used by those who can afford them to oppress those who can’t.
Lawyers follow the doctrine that both sides need representation in criminal cases but time spent is still weighted to those who pay.
Lawyers claim a position of moral neutrality when picking a side as part of a process which compensates each side differently.
One dramatic way to reform the system is to enforce an equal budget to both sides of a case in civil and criminal cases. If someone pays for thousands of hours of legal representation to attack you, you should be able to spend that money on legal representation too.
All too often defending a case is not worth the price.
Anecdotally I’d actually like to bring a case against my landlord but the similar cases against them have been sat for years and often time out due to technicalities when someone can’t afford yet another solicitors letter.
Generally a mistake to blame individuals (lawyers) or people who trade their labor for money (working class) for systemic problems (capitalism corrupting a judicial system)
I see lawyers work on contingency every single day, for people who don’t have a pot to piss in. It’s also not generally out of the goodness of their heart, so I don’t want to make it seem like they’re philanthropists out here. If you have a case, odds are a lawyer will take it.
As far as defending a case, it’s interesting. I watch insurance companies spend 10 times what a case is worth to settle for the sake of defending it. Lawyers go after insurance companies all the time because the insurance companies have deep pockets, and sometimes you get an easy settlement. This is definitely not some kind of defense of insurance companies either, they’re the worst, but people will do their best to scam them wherever they can.
for high value cases, sure. not for the case that’s got little value in settlements for them to consume.
the rest get fucked. go to any courthouse and look at the people in civil cases who can’t afford a lawyer.
I see lawyers do it for anywhere from 10-50k settlements all the time. There’s law offices that just deal in volume PI settlements.
yeah settlements they can vamp off of.
who’s taking the case that’s not going to get a settlement? you do realize not everything is settled for money right?
Yeah, I guess I’m missing the point. You said only high value cases get lawyers, and I just knew that to not be true, and so that’s what I said. Yeah, are people with 50/50 cases getting representation? Probably not. I certainly see enough pro se plaintiffs though, and from my perspective I understand why they can’t find lawyers.
valid points.
my neighbor is a public defender and chronically overworked. all I know is she doesn’t get the low-hanging fruit and profitable cases, she gets to defend those who can’t afford representation - but crucially - only because it’s criminal, not civil. I look at all the cases decided by civil law where people have to seek legal aide because they can’t afford representation and weep.