5 ms·

I find the need for lawyers a tragedy. Interactions with the judicial system are often some of the most important events in a person’s life. The fact that it’s

by rcme 4y ago

I find the need for lawyers a tragedy. Interactions with the judicial system are often some of the most important events in a person’s life. The fact that it’s necessary to pay someone hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour to help navigate the arcane process is sad and shouldn’t be necessary. It would be one thing if laws were meaningfully written down, so that anyone could read the statutes and build their own argument, but the laws are not written down in a way that has meaning unless you are willing to wade through centuries of case law.

RandomLensman 4y ago
Is the need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point? Why would it be wrong to avail yourself of someone else's expertise (and people use lawyers in non-case law jurisdictions, too)? Not sure anyone really would want to operate on themselves (because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong").
- rcme 4y ago
  > because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong" Most countries try to guarantee access to a surgeon when one is needed.
  - RandomLensman 4y ago
    Where I live, insurance for civil litigation is actually pretty cheap. For criminal cases, my understanding is that in a lot of places you will be given a lawyer if you cannot pay for one as a defendant.
    - lmm 4y ago
      They've been slowly bleeding those systems dry, putting caps on how much they'll pay and restricting who gets access.
  - madsbuch 4y ago
    In Denmark there is "fri process" that will ensure a lawyer is provided when really needed and you can't afford it – my guess is that other countries have similar systems.
    - iinnPP 4y ago
      The problem is that, most of the time, those lawyers are so loaded with cases that they cannot provide you full representation. Ask any US Federal DA or US Federal Public Defender who you know to be honest. Any. It may differ in your country, but it is unlikely.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Ask any US Federal DA There is no such thing as a “US Federal DA”. I assume you mean a US Attorney. OTOH, US Attorneys and Federal Public Defenders (in the judicial districts that have them, its a district by district decision under the governing law) may not be the most knowledgeablr about this since most cases are tried in state court and the federal indigent defense delivery system is very different from most state systems, both in structural model and caseload.
      - madsbuch 4y ago
        > It may differ in your country, but it is unlikely. It differs in my country, and it is very likely. The US follows an anglo approach to law. No country in the EU follows that – I do understand that it is the easiest to assume that other countries work like you expect, though not very productive.
  - NoboruWataya 4y ago
    Most countries also give you a lawyer if you need it, no? Like, you get public defenders in the US?
    - rcme 4y ago
      Not for civil cases. And the reputation of public defenders for criminal cases is not particularly good.
- brigandish 4y ago
  We all use technology to treat ourselves in lieu of a surgeon all the time, whether it's a Google search, a plaster, or cough medicine or whatever. Are you going to give up all the advances that differentiate your situation from that of someone in say, 17th century Europe, because an expert should do it because they're an expert? No thanks. I'll take advances that make things easy enough to avoid experts wherever I can get it and leave the bloodlettings (which, with lawyers, will be from your bank account) to others.
  - db48x 4y ago
    That’s not what he said. The key word there was _operate_, not _use a band–aid_. I wouldn’t recommend trying to take out your own appendix; it’s a really bad idea.
    - bloak 4y ago
      On the other hand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov (If it had been filmed, the video would probably be on YouTube with Dschinghis Khan's "Moskau" as the soundtrack.)
      - db48x 4y ago
        Yea, but he was already a professional practicing surgeon! The rest of us should not attempt this; we should hire a professional. It is similarly preferable to hire the services of a professional lawyer most of the time.
        brigandish 4y ago
        You've cherry-picked a procedure out of the thousands possible. The reason it's preferable to use a surgeon for things like appendicectomy is because there isn't a technology to do it for yourself or treat it before it needs surgery. There are, however, other treatments available for other maladies that mean you don't need a surgeon or won't need a surgeon, and thus surgeons can concentrate on other stuff that we don't have better, cheaper ways of taking care of. If AI can take care of parking tickets and small claims, perhaps speed up the process by making lawyers quicker at their jobs et cetera et cetera, then it's all good. If it puts pressure on lawmakers to simplify the law, all the better.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point" Both, but for most people it is simply the price point, so this is the more important issue. I think no one has a problem, that when setting up complicated contracts with multiple persons involved, a legal expert is necessary, but for very basic things, it should not be, but rather the laws should be more clear and simple.
- aaaaaA3 4y ago
  >Not sure anyone really would want to operate on themselves (because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong"). Not operate, but since over here in Europe just about any piece of paper passes as a prescription, I tend to print my own. (Most people don't know this, but EU pharmacies are required to accept prescriptions from other EU countries. There's no standard format or verification procedure, so forgery is trivial even if your country has a more secure domestic system) What's the point of going to (or even calling) a doctor for an antibiotics prescription? It's not like they're going to perform blood tests before prescribing. Want some Cialis for the weekend? Why go to a doctor? You can just pull up the contraindications on Google. Why bother doctor shopping for Ozempic? Just print your own prescription.
  - RandomLensman 4y ago
    Pretty sure, sometimes a doctor might know more than you on a prescription or their educated guess on which antibiotic is appropriate is better than yours, for example.
    - aaaaaA3 4y ago
      Hey, I definitely agree. On the other hand, every time I've gone to the doctor with a cold, I've always been prescribed the same antibiotic after basically no examination. If I had some new, unexpected symptoms, I'd probably want to at least call the doctor.
      - scatters 4y ago
        You do realize that antibiotics are completely ineffective against a cold? You're wrecking your digestive system and risking antibiotic resistance for nothing. If your doctor is prescribing antibiotics, either they're a terrible doctor, or they're a bad doctor and you're a worse patient.
        aaaaaA4 4y ago
        Yes, sorry. That's just language barrier raising it's head. What I meant was strep throat, obviously there's not much of a point in taking antibiotics for a viral infection. I don't need a doctor to inspect my tonsils, I have access to a phone with a flashlight. And for what it's worth, I think I've taken antibiotics twice in the past 4 years. Always according to the instructions on the packaging.
- lmm 4y ago
  > Is the need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point? Why would it be wrong to avail yourself of someone else's expertise (and people use lawyers in non-case law jurisdictions, too)? Even needing an expert at all is an issue - the law that governs society needs to be accessible to members of society, long before they reach the point of litigation.
  - RandomLensman 4y ago
    It might also be a function of legal tradition/system. In some places laws are quite easy to read for me, in others I find it much tougher (as a non-lawyer).
db48x 4y ago
In part I understand what you mean. I think it is extremely important that courtroom procedure doesn’t get so complex that it is impossible for an individual to cope with. In practice a lot of judges go out of their way to make self–representation possible. However, I don’t think that having professional lawyers represents a tragedy. Specialization is very important, and we would all be worse off without it. Teaching is even more important, and we use professional teachers. Building a house is also an important moment in our lives, and most people would do well to accept the advice of a professional architect.
- personjerry 4y ago
  I disagree, I think for important things like the rules that govern us (i.e. the legal system) we need to be able to fully understand and interact with them. Imagine if voting was so complicated that you had to pay someone to vote for you! Likewise, taxes should be simple and understandable and doable. Don't undersell our importance as citizens; We should demand more because we deserve well!
  - hnfong 4y ago
    > Imagine if voting was so complicated that you had to pay someone to vote for you I think they call this “representative democracy”.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    Imagine if computing was so complicated that you had to pay someone hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour to program for you.
- iinnPP 4y ago
  It is already far too complex for the average American. In other words, it is already too complex. In fact, it is so complex for the average IQ that even some judges can't do it right, even the basics.
  - mandmandam 4y ago
    The American legal system is broken to a Lovecraftian degree. The complexity is intentional - it's to make lawyers the maximum possible money while avoiding maximum accountability.
mgaunard 4y ago
Just move to a country not based on case law?
pjc50 4y ago
This is a tricky situation, but it seems like it should be possible if structured as a "McKenzie friend": https://www.legalchoices.org.uk/types-of-lawyers/other-lawyers/mckenzie-friends https://www.legalchoices.org.uk/types-of-lawyers/other-lawye... / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_friend
roenxi 4y ago
Professional advocates aren't a result of any specific legal system - if I'm at risk of having my life's savings and achievements summarily destroyed then I want someone of waaaaay above average verbal and emotional intelligence, who is thinking clearly and not under any pressure themselves, explaining why that shouldn't happen. There is a problem where the laws so complex and numerous it is no longer practical to understand them or follow them all. People have a bias and don't seem very good at separating "good idea in the current context" from "thing that should be legally required". Let alone navigating the complexity of the phrase "cost benefit analysis". Anyone who lives life while obeying all laws to the letter is at a serious disadvantage to the average human - although since it is impossible to know what all the laws are it is unlikely anyone could do this. But that arcanery isn't what drives the need for lawyers. You'd have to be crazy to engage with something as powerful and erratic as a legal system on your own. And crazy people do frequently represent themselves already.

by rcme 4y ago

RandomLensman 4y ago

Is the need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point? Why would it be wrong to avail yourself of someone else's expertise (and people use lawyers in non-case law jurisdictions, too)? Not sure anyone really would want to operate on themselves (because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong").

rcme 4y ago
> because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong" Most countries try to guarantee access to a surgeon when one is needed.
- RandomLensman 4y ago
  Where I live, insurance for civil litigation is actually pretty cheap. For criminal cases, my understanding is that in a lot of places you will be given a lawyer if you cannot pay for one as a defendant.
  - lmm 4y ago
    They've been slowly bleeding those systems dry, putting caps on how much they'll pay and restricting who gets access.
- madsbuch 4y ago
  In Denmark there is "fri process" that will ensure a lawyer is provided when really needed and you can't afford it – my guess is that other countries have similar systems.
  - iinnPP 4y ago
    The problem is that, most of the time, those lawyers are so loaded with cases that they cannot provide you full representation. Ask any US Federal DA or US Federal Public Defender who you know to be honest. Any. It may differ in your country, but it is unlikely.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Ask any US Federal DA There is no such thing as a “US Federal DA”. I assume you mean a US Attorney. OTOH, US Attorneys and Federal Public Defenders (in the judicial districts that have them, its a district by district decision under the governing law) may not be the most knowledgeablr about this since most cases are tried in state court and the federal indigent defense delivery system is very different from most state systems, both in structural model and caseload.
    - madsbuch 4y ago
      > It may differ in your country, but it is unlikely. It differs in my country, and it is very likely. The US follows an anglo approach to law. No country in the EU follows that – I do understand that it is the easiest to assume that other countries work like you expect, though not very productive.
- NoboruWataya 4y ago
  Most countries also give you a lawyer if you need it, no? Like, you get public defenders in the US?
  - rcme 4y ago
    Not for civil cases. And the reputation of public defenders for criminal cases is not particularly good.
brigandish 4y ago
We all use technology to treat ourselves in lieu of a surgeon all the time, whether it's a Google search, a plaster, or cough medicine or whatever. Are you going to give up all the advances that differentiate your situation from that of someone in say, 17th century Europe, because an expert should do it because they're an expert? No thanks. I'll take advances that make things easy enough to avoid experts wherever I can get it and leave the bloodlettings (which, with lawyers, will be from your bank account) to others.
- db48x 4y ago
  That’s not what he said. The key word there was _operate_, not _use a band–aid_. I wouldn’t recommend trying to take out your own appendix; it’s a really bad idea.
  - bloak 4y ago
    On the other hand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Rogozov (If it had been filmed, the video would probably be on YouTube with Dschinghis Khan's "Moskau" as the soundtrack.)
    - db48x 4y ago
      Yea, but he was already a professional practicing surgeon! The rest of us should not attempt this; we should hire a professional. It is similarly preferable to hire the services of a professional lawyer most of the time.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        You've cherry-picked a procedure out of the thousands possible. The reason it's preferable to use a surgeon for things like appendicectomy is because there isn't a technology to do it for yourself or treat it before it needs surgery. There are, however, other treatments available for other maladies that mean you don't need a surgeon or won't need a surgeon, and thus surgeons can concentrate on other stuff that we don't have better, cheaper ways of taking care of. If AI can take care of parking tickets and small claims, perhaps speed up the process by making lawyers quicker at their jobs et cetera et cetera, then it's all good. If it puts pressure on lawmakers to simplify the law, all the better.
hutzlibu 4y ago
"need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point" Both, but for most people it is simply the price point, so this is the more important issue. I think no one has a problem, that when setting up complicated contracts with multiple persons involved, a legal expert is necessary, but for very basic things, it should not be, but rather the laws should be more clear and simple.
aaaaaA3 4y ago
>Not sure anyone really would want to operate on themselves (because the need for a surgeon in an important event in their life is somehow "wrong"). Not operate, but since over here in Europe just about any piece of paper passes as a prescription, I tend to print my own. (Most people don't know this, but EU pharmacies are required to accept prescriptions from other EU countries. There's no standard format or verification procedure, so forgery is trivial even if your country has a more secure domestic system) What's the point of going to (or even calling) a doctor for an antibiotics prescription? It's not like they're going to perform blood tests before prescribing. Want some Cialis for the weekend? Why go to a doctor? You can just pull up the contraindications on Google. Why bother doctor shopping for Ozempic? Just print your own prescription.
- RandomLensman 4y ago
  Pretty sure, sometimes a doctor might know more than you on a prescription or their educated guess on which antibiotic is appropriate is better than yours, for example.
  - aaaaaA3 4y ago
    Hey, I definitely agree. On the other hand, every time I've gone to the doctor with a cold, I've always been prescribed the same antibiotic after basically no examination. If I had some new, unexpected symptoms, I'd probably want to at least call the doctor.
    - scatters 4y ago
      You do realize that antibiotics are completely ineffective against a cold? You're wrecking your digestive system and risking antibiotic resistance for nothing. If your doctor is prescribing antibiotics, either they're a terrible doctor, or they're a bad doctor and you're a worse patient.
      - aaaaaA4 4y ago
        Yes, sorry. That's just language barrier raising it's head. What I meant was strep throat, obviously there's not much of a point in taking antibiotics for a viral infection. I don't need a doctor to inspect my tonsils, I have access to a phone with a flashlight. And for what it's worth, I think I've taken antibiotics twice in the past 4 years. Always according to the instructions on the packaging.
lmm 4y ago
> Is the need to use an expert the issue or rather the price point? Why would it be wrong to avail yourself of someone else's expertise (and people use lawyers in non-case law jurisdictions, too)? Even needing an expert at all is an issue - the law that governs society needs to be accessible to members of society, long before they reach the point of litigation.
- RandomLensman 4y ago
  It might also be a function of legal tradition/system. In some places laws are quite easy to read for me, in others I find it much tougher (as a non-lawyer).

db48x 4y ago

In part I understand what you mean. I think it is extremely important that courtroom procedure doesn’t get so complex that it is impossible for an individual to cope with. In practice a lot of judges go out of their way to make self–representation possible. However, I don’t think that having professional lawyers represents a tragedy. Specialization is very important, and we would all be worse off without it. Teaching is even more important, and we use professional teachers. Building a house is also an important moment in our lives, and most people would do well to accept the advice of a professional architect.

personjerry 4y ago
I disagree, I think for important things like the rules that govern us (i.e. the legal system) we need to be able to fully understand and interact with them. Imagine if voting was so complicated that you had to pay someone to vote for you! Likewise, taxes should be simple and understandable and doable. Don't undersell our importance as citizens; We should demand more because we deserve well!
- hnfong 4y ago
  > Imagine if voting was so complicated that you had to pay someone to vote for you I think they call this “representative democracy”.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Imagine if computing was so complicated that you had to pay someone hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour to program for you.
iinnPP 4y ago
It is already far too complex for the average American. In other words, it is already too complex. In fact, it is so complex for the average IQ that even some judges can't do it right, even the basics.
- mandmandam 4y ago
  The American legal system is broken to a Lovecraftian degree. The complexity is intentional - it's to make lawyers the maximum possible money while avoiding maximum accountability.

mgaunard 4y ago

Just move to a country not based on case law?

pjc50 4y ago

This is a tricky situation, but it seems like it should be possible if structured as a "McKenzie friend": https://www.legalchoices.org.uk/types-of-lawyers/other-lawyers/mckenzie-friends https://www.legalchoices.org.uk/types-of-lawyers/other-lawye... / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_friend

roenxi 4y ago

Professional advocates aren't a result of any specific legal system - if I'm at risk of having my life's savings and achievements summarily destroyed then I want someone of waaaaay above average verbal and emotional intelligence, who is thinking clearly and not under any pressure themselves, explaining why that shouldn't happen. There is a problem where the laws so complex and numerous it is no longer practical to understand them or follow them all. People have a bias and don't seem very good at separating "good idea in the current context" from "thing that should be legally required". Let alone navigating the complexity of the phrase "cost benefit analysis". Anyone who lives life while obeying all laws to the letter is at a serious disadvantage to the average human - although since it is impossible to know what all the laws are it is unlikely anyone could do this. But that arcanery isn't what drives the need for lawyers. You'd have to be crazy to engage with something as powerful and erratic as a legal system on your own. And crazy people do frequently represent themselves already.