4 ms·

Lawyer A is the best Lawyer in the country. He is forced to be a "salaried employee of the state". Who do you think 'gets assigned' to his representation list -

Lawyer A is the best Lawyer in the country. He is forced to be a "salaried employee of the state". Who do you think 'gets assigned' to his representation list - a wealthy person or a poor person? Your solution works if all lawyers are the same OR if the whole system is clean of corruption. First is impossible, second is impossible. If you start thinking "we can make assignments fair/automated/etc." you already lost because the argument just switches to "who manages the control of assignment's fairness". Who watches the watchmen? The answer is: no one. The world is not fair. Deal with it.

knodi123 11y ago
> The world is not fair. Deal with it. I do deal with it. I have a pretty fulfilling life. But I'll never accept someone saying "The world is not fair. Don't ever try to make it more fair." Here's a thought- Let one party pick a pair of legal representatives, and let the other party pick who is represented by whom.
- wanderer2323 11y ago
  Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". But stop trying to force fairness. Side A picks a pair. Side B picks the representation. Both lawyers are equally mediocre. Side A's lawyer gets the materials analysis/arguments/speeches written by "Lawyer A", best in the country, now retired and working as the consultant. Do you know why "Layer A" is working as a consultant (for $$$) and the representation lawyers are mediocre mouthpieces? Easy: as soon as Lawyer A distinguished himself in a court a few times, nobody picked him as a part of the pair at the first stage anymore (out of fear of loosing him at the second stage of selection).
  - knodi123 11y ago
    > Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". Pardon me for misinterpreting "deal with it". There are rules governing ethics for legal professionals. Those who break the rules risk their careers. This seems like a problem that could be addressed, or at least drastically mitigated. I'm not saying that a solution rattled off the cuff in a forum on HN is what should be enshrined in law. But there's a reason everyone agrees Citizen's United is an insult to democracy. And we have the exact same problem in place in our courts, and that's an insult to justice. Unlimited money buys results. That's fucked up, and you'll never convince me otherwise.
    - wanderer2323 11y ago
      My thesis is: unlimited money will always buy results. Money is a shadow of power and the point of power is influencing the world. Your solution of "reducing things to a common denominator" which you claimed to be "the only fair thing" will only make the application of power indirect. FWIW I think the gradual curbing of the limits of power and hoping for human nature changing (or an alien invasion) is the way to go.
      - knodi123 11y ago
        I didn't actually say "reduce to a common denominator". I just said find a common denominator. I think the best solution will involve meeting in the middle- curbing excessive spending by whatever means are necessary, and also drastically increasing funding to public defenders to increase both their numbers and their prestige. And regarding "whatever means necessary"- just because I can't invent something off-the-cuff to satisfy a random stranger on the internet, doesn't mean that human ingenuity, and well-thought-out legislation can't find a 90% solution. And no amount of cynical pessimism is going to change my mind about that.
        marcoperaza 11y ago
        You want to tell a man that he can't spend all of his money to hire the best lawyers he can afford to try to defend his freedom? As for being able to come up with some "well-thought-out legislation", maybe you don't live in the same world as me, but the 20th century is strewn with the folly of those who think they can engineer society. I don't understand why so many of us are eager to repeat their mistakes.
        marcoperaza 11y ago
        You want to tell a man that he can't spend all of his money to hire the best lawyers he can afford to try to defend his freedom? As for being able to come up with some "well-thought-out legislation", maybe you don't live in the same world as me, but the 20th century is strewn with the folly of those who think they can engineer society by taking away the freedoms of others. I don't understand why so many of us are eager to repeat their mistakes.

knodi123 11y ago

> The world is not fair. Deal with it. I do deal with it. I have a pretty fulfilling life. But I'll never accept someone saying "The world is not fair. Don't ever try to make it more fair." Here's a thought- Let one party pick a pair of legal representatives, and let the other party pick who is represented by whom.

wanderer2323 11y ago
Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". But stop trying to force fairness. Side A picks a pair. Side B picks the representation. Both lawyers are equally mediocre. Side A's lawyer gets the materials analysis/arguments/speeches written by "Lawyer A", best in the country, now retired and working as the consultant. Do you know why "Layer A" is working as a consultant (for $$$) and the representation lawyers are mediocre mouthpieces? Easy: as soon as Lawyer A distinguished himself in a court a few times, nobody picked him as a part of the pair at the first stage anymore (out of fear of loosing him at the second stage of selection).
- knodi123 11y ago
  > Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". Pardon me for misinterpreting "deal with it". There are rules governing ethics for legal professionals. Those who break the rules risk their careers. This seems like a problem that could be addressed, or at least drastically mitigated. I'm not saying that a solution rattled off the cuff in a forum on HN is what should be enshrined in law. But there's a reason everyone agrees Citizen's United is an insult to democracy. And we have the exact same problem in place in our courts, and that's an insult to justice. Unlimited money buys results. That's fucked up, and you'll never convince me otherwise.
  - wanderer2323 11y ago
    My thesis is: unlimited money will always buy results. Money is a shadow of power and the point of power is influencing the world. Your solution of "reducing things to a common denominator" which you claimed to be "the only fair thing" will only make the application of power indirect. FWIW I think the gradual curbing of the limits of power and hoping for human nature changing (or an alien invasion) is the way to go.
    - knodi123 11y ago
      I didn't actually say "reduce to a common denominator". I just said find a common denominator. I think the best solution will involve meeting in the middle- curbing excessive spending by whatever means are necessary, and also drastically increasing funding to public defenders to increase both their numbers and their prestige. And regarding "whatever means necessary"- just because I can't invent something off-the-cuff to satisfy a random stranger on the internet, doesn't mean that human ingenuity, and well-thought-out legislation can't find a 90% solution. And no amount of cynical pessimism is going to change my mind about that.
      - marcoperaza 11y ago
        You want to tell a man that he can't spend all of his money to hire the best lawyers he can afford to try to defend his freedom? As for being able to come up with some "well-thought-out legislation", maybe you don't live in the same world as me, but the 20th century is strewn with the folly of those who think they can engineer society. I don't understand why so many of us are eager to repeat their mistakes.
      - marcoperaza 11y ago
        You want to tell a man that he can't spend all of his money to hire the best lawyers he can afford to try to defend his freedom? As for being able to come up with some "well-thought-out legislation", maybe you don't live in the same world as me, but the 20th century is strewn with the folly of those who think they can engineer society by taking away the freedoms of others. I don't understand why so many of us are eager to repeat their mistakes.