4 ms·

Pardon me if this is different in the states, but in a number of EU countries you're entitled to a state-sponsored lawyer if you're at a threat of being unable

Pardon me if this is different in the states, but in a number of EU countries you're entitled to a state-sponsored lawyer if you're at a threat of being unable to defend your rights simply because of financial means. This generally only applies when you're the one who is sued, plus caveats depending on the jurisdiction.

xbdobd 7y ago
State provided lawyers only for criminal cases. Furthermore, in the US, the victor pays their own legal fees, unless the case was clearly malicious.
ceejayoz 7y ago
The US provides this (in theory; public defenders are often overloaded and underfunded) for criminal cases, but not for civil or immigration ones.
- satya71 7y ago
  Indeed, often in the US you could do better without the public defender. Many public defenders push their clients into plea deals despite innocence to save time.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    To be clear, that's not the defenders' fault. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/31/us/public-defender-case-loads.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/31/us/public-def... > Now, reformers are using data in a novel attempt to create such a standard. The studies they have produced so far, in four states, say that public defenders have two to almost five times as many cases as they should. > The bottom line: Mr. Talaska would have needed almost 10,000 hours, or five work-years, to handle the 194 active felony cases he had as of that April day, not to mention the dozens more he would be assigned that year. (The analysis did not include one death-penalty case on his roster, the most time-consuming type of case.)
sjy 7y ago
According to the European e-Justice Portal [1], the right to legal aid is contained in art 6(3)(c) of the ECHR and art 47 of the CFR. However, the first right only applies in criminal cases and the second right is limited 'in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.' Apparently, 'the broad objective in some States seems to be to make legal services and access to justice generally available, whereas in others, legal aid can be available only to the very poorest.' Based on that summary, it seems like the position in most of the EU is probably much the same as the common law world (US/UK/CA/AU/NZ): you'll probably get legal aid if you're destitute and facing potential imprisonment, but you're unlikely to get legal aid to defend a copyright infringement case, especially if your net assets are non-zero and you can easily make the case go away by just removing some web links. That may mean that you are thereby deprived of your rights, if your legal argument is correct, but resource-starved legal aid bodies will prioritise cases that involve a smaller chance of someone being wrongfully convicted. [1] https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_aid-55-en.do https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_aid-55-en.do
- Etheryte 7y ago
  I don't see how you went from "some states make legal services generally available, while others make it available to only the poorest" to "in most of the EU you'll probably get legal aid only if you're destitute". I appreciate the reference, but I don't agree with your conclusion.
  - sjy 7y ago
    My conclusion was based on the fact that this is how it works in the common law world, and the letter of the law in the EU is pretty much the same. It might be incorrect. I was hoping someone from the EU would provide more information if so.

xbdobd 7y ago

State provided lawyers only for criminal cases. Furthermore, in the US, the victor pays their own legal fees, unless the case was clearly malicious.

ceejayoz 7y ago

The US provides this (in theory; public defenders are often overloaded and underfunded) for criminal cases, but not for civil or immigration ones.

satya71 7y ago
Indeed, often in the US you could do better without the public defender. Many public defenders push their clients into plea deals despite innocence to save time.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  To be clear, that's not the defenders' fault. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/31/us/public-defender-case-loads.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/31/us/public-def... > Now, reformers are using data in a novel attempt to create such a standard. The studies they have produced so far, in four states, say that public defenders have two to almost five times as many cases as they should. > The bottom line: Mr. Talaska would have needed almost 10,000 hours, or five work-years, to handle the 194 active felony cases he had as of that April day, not to mention the dozens more he would be assigned that year. (The analysis did not include one death-penalty case on his roster, the most time-consuming type of case.)

sjy 7y ago

According to the European e-Justice Portal [1], the right to legal aid is contained in art 6(3)(c) of the ECHR and art 47 of the CFR. However, the first right only applies in criminal cases and the second right is limited 'in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.' Apparently, 'the broad objective in some States seems to be to make legal services and access to justice generally available, whereas in others, legal aid can be available only to the very poorest.' Based on that summary, it seems like the position in most of the EU is probably much the same as the common law world (US/UK/CA/AU/NZ): you'll probably get legal aid if you're destitute and facing potential imprisonment, but you're unlikely to get legal aid to defend a copyright infringement case, especially if your net assets are non-zero and you can easily make the case go away by just removing some web links. That may mean that you are thereby deprived of your rights, if your legal argument is correct, but resource-starved legal aid bodies will prioritise cases that involve a smaller chance of someone being wrongfully convicted. [1] https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_aid-55-en.do https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_aid-55-en.do

Etheryte 7y ago
I don't see how you went from "some states make legal services generally available, while others make it available to only the poorest" to "in most of the EU you'll probably get legal aid only if you're destitute". I appreciate the reference, but I don't agree with your conclusion.
- sjy 7y ago
  My conclusion was based on the fact that this is how it works in the common law world, and the letter of the law in the EU is pretty much the same. It might be incorrect. I was hoping someone from the EU would provide more information if so.