Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cheeetar]

Hi there, I'm Aqizzar.  I don't believe we've met.

Hi there, I'm Truean. Now we have. That was fun. Nice to meet you.

I glad you were nice about that.  I was actually being arrogant there and flaunting my stance on argumentative honesty.  Thank you for taking it kindly, and I hope we have interesting conversations.

My boss only charges $185 an hour, which isn't bad for a 40 year veteran lawyer with his own law practice. This other jerk isn't half as old and objectiony as my boss and he's trying to charge $375 an hour!

This is kind of what I'm talking about.  You're proud and impressed that he charges $185 an hour?  I think $100 an hour might be reasonable.  It's a professional job with professional pay.  Like an auto mechanic, but with a little more training and a lot less broken knuckles.

-Charging 20 minutes for a 5 minute phone call.
-Charging 30 minutes to review a "notice of hearing" (a little slip of paper).
-Charging lawyer's rates for basic secretarial services
-Having vague billing descriptions like "cut and paste ORC 4715 and charging 675 for it.
-Charging interest when none is provided by statute or contract.

At least now my lawyer is starting to make sense.  He demanded $1000 up front and $2500 as fast as I could pay it, then had the audacity to charge me $150 for a half hour of phone calls (if that much time) when some paperwork needed shuffling.  For a case to get the fine reduced from $1500 to $500, and then backed down from that too.  And he was the cheapest guy in town.

Lawyers should be banned. I see no point in them. They are there just to give the edge over the poor. Why can't both sides be defended by the government-issue defender guy?

Because the government doesn't want to pay lots of money for a good lawyer for everyone.

[Truean]

Hi there, I'm Aqizzar.  I don't believe we've met.

Hi there, I'm Truean. Now we have. That was fun. Nice to meet you.

I glad you were nice about that.  I was actually being arrogant there and flaunting my stance on argumentative honesty.  Thank you for taking it kindly, and I hope we have interesting conversations.

My boss only charges $185 an hour, which isn't bad for a 40 year veteran lawyer with his own law practice. This other jerk isn't half as old and objectiony as my boss and he's trying to charge $375 an hour!

This is kind of what I'm talking about.  You're proud and impressed that he charges $185 an hour?  I think $100 an hour might be reasonable.  It's a professional job with professional pay.  Like an auto mechanic, but with a little more training and a lot less broken knuckles.

-Charging 20 minutes for a 5 minute phone call.
-Charging 30 minutes to review a "notice of hearing" (a little slip of paper).
-Charging lawyer's rates for basic secretarial services
-Having vague billing descriptions like "cut and paste ORC 4715 and charging 675 for it.
-Charging interest when none is provided by statute or contract.

At least now my lawyer is starting to make sense.  He demanded $1000 up front and $2500 as fast as I could pay it, then had the audacity to charge me $150 for a half hour of phone calls (if that much time) when some paperwork needed shuffling.  For a case to get the fine reduced from $1500 to $500, and then backed down from that too.  And he was the cheapest guy in town.

Lawyers should be banned. I see no point in them. They are there just to give the edge over the poor. Why can't both sides be defended by the government-issue defender guy?

Because the government doesn't want to pay lots of money for a good lawyer for everyone.

In a nutshell, yup. As long as law school costs a shitload of money, I'm not working for free. Would you? Especially given the years of my life I've spent studying really hard stuff....

Sadly, Affordable legal advice is technically feasible for a small fee with only a couple ethical representation problems.

Legal Representation Insurance Policy Math:
$35/month* 12 months * 6,000 = $2.52 million per year.
This is $35* 12 months = $420/ year per person

That's a model for 10 lawyers, 2 accountants (CPAs) 4 secretaries and a courier to provide legal representation insurance to 6000 ordinary risk families (immediate blood or legal relatives only, including domestic partnerships). That way you'd have a lawyer to prepare a will, represent you in case you or your kids (teenagers anyone?) got in any trouble, got hurt, etc, store all your financial documents and even do your taxes/defend you against the IRS if needed.

The problems: Ethical conflict of interest.

The policy covers the immediate family, so if husband and wife get divorced and both are covered by the policy, then I can't represent husband and wife. If one wins the other looses. It's like trying to be for plaintiff and defendant at the same time. Doesn't really work. The same thing applies with intrapolicyholders. Consider that you and your neighbor both have this same policy. I can't represent you both if one of you sues the other. These are the only major ethical problems I've run across with this idea.

This would allow 10 lawyers to make $100,000 a year with full benefits, the accountants to make about $50,000 a year with benefits, the 4 secretaries to make about $35,000 a year and the courier to make about the same as the secretary. The rest goes to expenses including rent, insurance, paper, ink (rather huge for a law firm) and emergency funds as well as legally required reserves.

But, while we're at it, let's be perfectly honest everyone thinks, but I'd never need that, and it's $35 a month! Everyone isn't right though, we've all got a chance of winding up in court and everyone has to die (wills) and pay taxes (accounting). Neither consumers, nor the government prefer this model, otherwise I'd strongly consider doing it.

Adjusted for inflation (I did this a couple years ago) prices might be more like $40/month, but hell, that's less than most people spend on the cable bill. Tell an attorney he's not worth a little over $1 a day and he'll promptly throw you out of his office.

Lawyers should be banned. I see no point in them. They are there just to give the edge over the poor. Why can't both sides be defended by the government-issue defender guy?

Your neighbor wants your car. His family is bigger than yours; they have more guns, less morals, and your car....

Without lawyers, we degrade into "smash you over the head with a damn rock" style problem solving.
As for the poor not getting legal representation. I solved that problem above; it's just that no one wants to pay for it.

[Muz]

I find that people argue loudest when they don't want to lose. Look at the religion threads. I like analyzing them because they show what people are like when neither side has concrete points. They flay about desperately for any points.. usually chaining their really weak points to another weak point to some obscure concrete point/theory, like statistics or scientific method. Failing that, they try do discredit their opponent, hence the point-by-point replies.

If you have something you desperately want to believe in, you will fight. Anger is a method people use to control others. You yell at someone and they follow your orders. It's instinctive... so, when someone on the Internet disagrees with you, you just start saying the same thing again, but louder. Then you start with the name calling, etc.

When two people actually try to learn something from each other, they actually calmly debate. But that's very rare. If you're in the debate to win, you're bound to start fighting. Divorces are almost always started with hate, and they're going to fight to win.

Oh, and articulated opinions will always lose to crap. That's why people don't bother.
"Man: I bought the cat, so it belongs to me"
"Woman: I took care of your S*## cat!! It's mine!!!"
"Man: No, its cost is higher than what you spent on maintaining it."
"Woman: I took care of your damn kids too! I gave birth to them! Do you know how painful it is to give birth?!?!"
"Woman2 (friend of Woman): Yes, these men have no concept of childbirth! She's entirely right, all your kids belong to her under your stupid concept of whoever bought it owns it!"
"Man: It's not a matter of who created it, it's a matter of how much is spent on it"
"Woman: God created the cat! Are you saying that the cat should be returned to God!"
"Woman2: She spent more time and money on the kids than you!!!"
"Man: You're a housewife. All the money you spent on it was mine."
"Woman: Well, you should've thought about that before cheating on me you *(*^@! Everything you gave to me is mine, after all, your marriage vows said that you're supposed to remain loyal to me until you #(#$#@ die!"
"Man: I did not cheat with you, that was my sister!"
"Woman: How could you cheat on me with your sister?!?! Both of you are immoral, stupid, $#$@#$@#!"

Eventually, the man will get dragged down to her level and start making no sense.

[Blacken]

Lawyers should be banned. I see no point in them. They are there just to give the edge over the poor. Why can't both sides be defended by the government-issue defender guy?

"Just to give the edge over the poor"? Uh...no. Law is complex. And don't say "simplify it," because abstractive simplification creates gray areas that result in more lawsuits to codify those gray areas in law. A lot of lawsuits are filed specifically to explore those gray areas, with the law codified and specified within case law instead of statute law. Even with the level of specificity that exists in today's legal environment, there are a metric shit-ton of those gray areas. It is quite literally a full-time job to codify and parse statute law and case law.

If the government made available lawyers at fair-market rates, the people who can't pay for a legal consult still couldn't pay for it. If Mommy Government pays for them--well, no, Mommy Government won't pay for it, I will, because I pay taxes. Why should I pay for your consults? When someone comes in screaming bloody murder and demanding a lawyer because their employer fired them for being drunk on the job, who pays the legal fees in your silly little utopia? The taxpayer. Me. Was it worth the expended time? Certainly not, but we get to pay anyway.

The cost of a lawyer provides a barrier to entry. This is not a bad thing. If it's important enough, you'll find a way to pay for it. Hell, there are a lot of lawyers who even offer payment plans! If you can't afford it, then you are more than welcome to try to replicate a law degree on your own. But you get what you pay for.

(Incidentially, more lawyers than not never set foot inside a courtroom; trial lawyers are a minority compared to tax law, contract law, and other sub-fields of the profession.)

[Jude]

I love arguing. One of my favorite sayings is an Israeli one "Two Israelis having a friendly discussion sounds like four Americans having an argument." I really identify with Israelis in some ways.




............you bunch of retarded, inbred mouth-breathers

[Truean]

If Mommy Government pays for them--well, no, Mommy Government won't pay for it, I will, because I pay taxes.

True Blacken. Yet have you considered a third option--"the English Rule?" This is as opposed to the "American Rule."
English Rule is where the looser pays the legal costs, all of them for both sides. We have adopted this policy in some specific areas in the U.S. and Landlord-Tenant comes to mind.

The idea of the English rule is that "meritorious cases" (those with a higher chance of winning) will be put forth.

[JoshuaFH]

Hey Truean. I've heard of some stories where people are attacked with frivolous lawsuits in order to force people to appear in court, all with the ulterior motive to bleed someone into bankruptcy due to the exorbitant cumulative legal fees it entails. Now, I probably don't have all the facts straight, as would be the norm for a philistine like me, but would this "English Rule" prevent such abuses of the legal system?

[Cthulhu]

I don't know if that'd work in America, we Americans love to buy things we can't afford.  We'd probably just pay the legal fees and credit and then cry that the credit companies are eating us.

[darkrider2]

Government won't pay for it, I will, because I pay taxes. Why should I pay for your consults?

Ok this statement made no sense to me... you do pay insurance right? for your car, house, etc.

If your house burned down and it wasn't your fault, under your logic none of the other people using the same insurance company should have to pay a single penny to help you...

In my understanding insurance is where a bunch of people pool a little bit of their money together and it goes to help the unlucky one who gets his house burned down, in essence taxes are very similar, everyone pools their money together and it goes towards things like fixing roads, snowplow service, public parks...

This is also why I can't understand people who will say they want more tax cuts then turn around the next second and say government isn't doing their job right because the roads and parks are dilapidated.

[Truean]

Hey Truean. I've heard of some stories where people are attacked with frivolous lawsuits in order to force people to appear in court, all with the ulterior motive to bleed someone into bankruptcy due to the exorbitant cumulative legal fees it entails. Now, I probably don't have all the facts straight, as would be the norm for a philistine like me, but would this "English Rule" prevent such abuses of the legal system?

Short answer, it would typically limit them, yes.

The issue is that we cannot normally know in advance if a case is frivolous with 100% certainty.

The American System, where everyone pays their own legal fees, encourages early settlement.

The English System (English Rule) discourages people from bringing suit unless they think they have a shot, however once they have sued, they will rarely settle. Rather both sides will attempt a full trial to see who the looser is, because the looser pays.

There are numerous pros and cons to each system and that topic is a book in and of itself.

Please keep in mind that many stories about the justice system are greatly exaggerated.

[Leafsnail]

Britain can also have a "No win no fee" type policy, designed to allow the poor to bring cases against the rich, but which often results in large companies bringing in frivilous cases for tiny claims, but which force the other side to pay out huge legal costs.

[Blacken]

Truean: Loser-pays is fine by me, but you know that'd never happen here. Cheap populism is too tasty.

Government won't pay for it, I will, because I pay taxes. Why should I pay for your consults?

Ok this statement made no sense to me... you do pay insurance right? for your car, house, etc.

If your house burned down and it wasn't your fault, under your logic none of the other people using the same insurance company should have to pay a single penny to help you...

In my understanding insurance is where a bunch of people pool a little bit of their money together and it goes to help the unlucky one who gets his house burned down, in essence taxes are very similar, everyone pools their money together and it goes towards things like fixing roads, snowplow service, public parks...

This is also why I can't understand people who will say they want more tax cuts then turn around the next second and say government isn't doing their job right because the roads and parks are dilapidated.

Bad false equivalence.

The legal system is not "insurance". If you are accused of a crime, you already have access to free counsel. If you are sued because of an alleged tort, you pay it yourself, because it's not a criminal issue. You can get insurance against being sued (it's not cheap, but then again, neither is being sued), in the free market.

The government has its place in some services. Paying the legal bills of file-sharers who get caught by the RIAA and the filers of idiotic frivolous lawsuits is not one of them.

[Truean]

Truean: Loser-pays is fine by me, but you know that'd never happen here. Cheap populism is too tasty.

Yup, which is unfortunate in some cases.

Yeah. For those of you opposing this he just means that taxpayers are the real money behind the government.

As for why the government won't pay it, use the model at $35/person per month

$35 *300,000,000 = $10,500,000,000/month * 12 months = $126,000,000,000 per year

The government won't foot a $126 Billion a year bill to provide everyone in the US legal insurance.
By the way that one model assumes 0 corruption so go ahead and double that cost to factor that in.
Then of course, the courts are swamped enough as it is. If everyone had a lawyer, they'd need more courthouses, judges, etc. That'd cost money, and lots of it.

Finally, there has to be some gate keeping mechanism, both in the courts and in who would get a lawyer for what.

I will say that there are some notable instances of the poor getting screwed over for lack of civil legal representation in court though. Not really sure what a practicable way to fix that would be.

[Leafsnail]

...That's some pretty dodgy logic there, I have to say.  It certainly wouldn't be necessary to provide legal insurance to everyone if you were trying to make the system fairer.

[Truean]

...That's some pretty dodgy logic there, I have to say.  It certainly wouldn't be necessary to provide legal insurance to everyone if you were trying to make the system fairer.

All due respect, who would you exclude?