h a l f b a k e r yI didn't say you were on to something, I said you were on something.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Law as it is practiced today favors the wealthy, because the more money you have, the better legal representation you can afford. To remedy this, I suggest that, at the beginning of civil trials, the judge should toss a coin. If it comes up heads, the two sides must swap lawyers.
You might say
that this is wrong, because a person is entitled to the legal representation they choose for themselves. But I say no: a person is entitled to fair representation, and nothing else. With the coin toss, we eliminate the incentive to seek an unfair advantage in representation.
I'm not sure how you would work out payment. Would you continue to pay the lawyer who's representing your opponent? But I suspect that this would become academic after a while, as eceonomic pressures smooth out all trial lawyers' fees to a constant. (After all, who's going to pay more for a better lawyer who might end up arguing against you?)
[link]
|
| |
Would this be equivalent to simply assigning everyone a random court-appointed lawyer? |
|
| |
Perhaps not; under this scheme, I would aim for a lawyer who was known to be very sympathetic to my viewpoint. (To get work, lawyers would try to become known as sympathetic to a particular viewpoint.) If my opponent ends up with my lawyer, great; now her lawyer will be working at cross-purposes. |
|
| |
Hmmm. Using this scheme, if prosecuted I would choose to represent myself. If the coin comes up heads, then who cares if I lose the case? |
|
| |
Hmm. Perhaps in the case of self-representation, your counsel would be considered to be "self". So if you swap, you'd get the opponent's lawyer and the opponent would have to represent him/herself. But what if the opponent was a corporation? I guess they could use their in-house legal staff then. Well, anyone who goes up against a corporation without consel is asking for it anyway. |
|
| |
This isn't terribly kind to the lawyers... given that they may not necessarily have to take the case. (in U.S. lawyers choose their own clients, IIRC in England, they're obligated to take anyone who can pay) |
|
| |
There're some interesting consequences of the need for proper legal representation. For example, lawyers are prohibited from signing non-competition agreements, because this might infringe on their clients' rights. |
|
| |
Potential flaw: Big business is aware of this system. Hires useless lawyer. If they win the coin toss, they get your competent lawyer. If they lose, they can sack their lawyer and hire Raymond Burr. |
|
| |