Verdict's in on juries that run their own way
Juror actions, from reading the Bible to going online, can end in justice
unserved

By Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News
April 15, 2005

When prospective jurors for the trial of Timothy McVeigh were asked what
they were reading in April 1997, a noticeable number of them named John
Grisham's then-best seller, The Runaway Jury.

Mention of the title never failed to send smiles across the courtroom where
McVeigh's jury was being selected.

"We tease a little bit about the title," prosecutor Larry Mackey told one
prospective juror who said she had read the book. "But as you sit there now,
you know that if you were sworn as a juror, you have no freedom to run away;
you would be bound to follow the court's instructions?"
"Yes, definitely," the woman answered.

But the response is not always as definitive.

Eight years after the high-profile Oklahoma City bomber trial, some jurors
still disregard the court's rules. The dilemma has divided the legal
community, with some thinking jurors should get better explanations of the
rules to make it less likely they'll run amok and others arguing the system
should trust jurors to use good judgment.

When things go wrong, the effect can be substantial.

Runaway jurors in Colorado have read improperly to their fellow jurors from
the Bible during deliberations, resulting in a Colorado Supreme Court
announcement March 28 that convicted murderer Robert Harlan will serve life
in prison instead of being executed as the jury had intended.

Other runaways have done their own research into arcane legal subjects, as
one juror did at the Denver Public Library during a six-week federal civil
trial involving securities law. The result was a mistrial.

A runaway jury in Colorado Springs, specifically told by the judge that it
could not consult a copy of the Physicians Desk Reference about uses of the
drug Paxil, defiantly consulted the online version and agreed not to let
anyone know what it had done. But two of them had second thoughts and later
confessed to the judge, who questioned the juror who led the revolt. The man
was unrepentant.

"The letter of the law," he conceded to the judge, "but, geez."

The result: A new trial was ordered for a woman accused of killing her
4-month-old stepgrandson.

Working on reforms

Donna Wheeler, of Denver, who served nine weeks - two of them sequestered -
on the jury that convicted murderer Kevin Fears in 1993, advocates spelling
out the rules more clearly for jurors. She also thinks they should be warned
about the consequences of running off in their own directions.

Wheeler serves on a Colorado Supreme Court committee that has been working
for several years on jury reform.

Wheeler said nobody on her jury broke any rules, but the jurors never knew
what might have happened if they had.

"I found out after I was a juror that there were things I could have said or
done that could have jeopardized the verdict," Wheeler said. "I think people
should be aware of the damage they can do," she said.

Adams County District Judge Philip Roan, presiding over the Robert Harlan
trial in 1995, repeatedly warned jurors to avoid outside influences. They
were to base their decision on the evidence in the case and "nothing else
whatsoever," he said.

They were not to discuss the case with anyone; they were to avoid televised
reports by turning off the television or leaving the room; they were not to
follow the O.J. Simpson trial, then in progress in California; and they were
not to watch Court TV. They also were to have someone screen their
newspapers for reports on anything about the criminal justice system and
remove those sections.

"Even if you disagree with or don't understand the reasons for some of these
rules, you must follow them," Roan said.

But jurors consulted the Bible the night before they condemned Harlan to
die, and at least one Bible was in the deliberation room when they reached
that decision.

It's not clear if the jurors understood that consulting the Bible - just
like reading newspaper reports or following the O.J. Simpson trial on TV -
was against the rules.

"For some people, the Bible is such a part of their lives that they would
probably have to be specifically told that - and not only told that, but to
be told what the ramifications were," Wheeler said.

And who didn't have a teacher who insisted that students use the dictionary
to look up words they didn't understand?

"If the judge doesn't specifically say 'dictionary,' doesn't it sound like
the most obvious thing, if somebody uses a word and you're on this jury
where someone's life or money is at stake - how could anybody object to you
understanding the words that are being used?" Wheeler said.

A Colorado jury did exactly that in the 1980s, however. During a burglary
trial, it looked up the word "burglary" in a dictionary. The definition
jurors found there differed from the legal definition they were supposed to
consider.

Different from a TV show

Wheeler said the jury reform committee is designing notebooks to be given to
jurors and wants them to include glossaries, agreed upon by the judge and
lawyers in each case, of terms that will be used in the trial. That, she
said, would help jurors focus on doing their jobs better.

"Jurors have what I call courtroom-induced attention deficit disorder,"
Wheeler said. "Most jurors are not familiar with the court system, with who
the players are, with what's going to happen. It's a little different from
watching Law and Order.

"They hear someone say something they're unfamiliar with, and they start
thinking about that, and then realize they've missed the last 30 seconds of
testimony. And then they miss five minutes more while they worry about it,"
she said.

Colorado U.S. District Judge John Kane said he has never had a runaway jury,
and he believes that's because he spends time explaining to jurors what the
rules are, why they are that way and what the consequences for breaking them
can be.

"I explain to them what a mistrial is and how jury misconduct can cause a
mistrial," Kane said.

A mistrial is declared if jurors are hopelessly deadlocked or if something
goes so wrong during a trial that it wouldn't be fair to go on with it. A
new trial must be held, starting all over with different jurors.

Kane said mistrials are expensive, including lawyers' fees, witnesses' fees
and travel expenses, as well as the time spent by the judge and the court
staff.

"It's all for naught," he said.

He said he explains to jurors that independently consulting outside
materials or doing their own research isn't fair because, if the lawyers
don't know about it, they can't challenge it or argue about it.

"Fairness requires that we all play from the same page. So whatever they're
going to decide in there, it has to be done on the basis of what these
people on both sides prepared," Kane said.

"How can you have fairness when you're blindsiding people?" he asks jurors.

He said it's not enough for a judge to simply order jurors not to consult
outside materials.

"It requires something more on the part of a judge," he said.

Former Denver District Judge Connie Peterson, now in private law practice,
disagrees.

"I think the courts are doing fine the way it is," she said. "The courts are
making it very clear to jurors. This (the Harlan jury mistake in consulting
the Bible) was the responsibility of the jurors."

Keeping things fair for all parties

Jefferson County District Judge Leland Anderson said he spends extra time
explaining to jurors how to be fair.

"I don't say, 'No Bibles,' " Anderson said. "If I said 'No Bibles,' would I
have say 'No Torah'?

"But from the get-go one of the first things they're going to hear out of my
mouth is that, no matter what the results are in this trial, the thing that
should keep them awake at night 20 years from now if they're stewing about
any decision is whether they crossed the boundary and violated the rule of
law."

That means that the law - from the U.S. Constitution to statutes enacted by
elected officials to the rules that must be followed in court - should
prevail over personal feelings and all other considerations. It's meant to
keep things fair.

These days, Anderson uses the example of Iraq. "That is what a country looks
like that is devoid of rule of law," he tells jurors, "and that we have
young men and women who are risking their lives to establish rule of law in
a country on the far side of the world."

"The least that we can do in response to their sacrifices," Anderson says,
"is to apply the same significance and import to the rule of law in our
courts."

If they flout it, he tells jurors, he'll likely hear about it and have to
conduct an investigation - bringing them in one by one to be questioned
about what they did and what other jurors did.

Once, Anderson fired a jury for not following the rules. The jurors had
talked among themselves about a drug case before they were supposed to start
deliberating. Anderson declared a mistrial.

"It probably cost the state many, many thousands of dollars," he said.

He said he understands why people sitting as jurors in a difficult trial,
seeing depictions of horrible events, feel a need to talk about it. He said
he also understands why some people, in their enthusiasm for their jury
service, launch their own investigations.

Anderson also sits on the Colorado Supreme Court's jury reform committee,
where he and others successfully urged Colorado's courts to let jurors ask
questions during civil trials. Privately, Anderson believes they also should
be able to ask questions during criminal trials, but that isn't allowed yet.

When jurors want to ask questions during criminal trials where he is
presiding, Anderson doesn't let them.

"I follow the rule of law," he said. "I tell jurors I expect no less of
them."

Across the country

Jurors dismissed over the issue of having outside materials

.. A juror was dismissed during deliberations in November in the Scott
Peterson murder trial in Redwood City, Calif., reportedly for doing her own
research, which was in violation of trial rules. Judge Alfred Delucchi then
reminded remaining jurors to consider only the facts and law that had been
presented to them "and no other source." An alternate replaced the juror.
Peterson was convicted of his pregnant wife's murder.

.. Also in California, a juror studying to be a paralegal brought a textbook
into the jury room, where jurors used its definition of entrapment instead
of the legal definition given to them. Result: A new trial was ordered for
the convicted defendant.

.. Another California jury, deliberating in the courtroom because of a space
shortage, borrowed the judge's copy of the state penal code from the bench
and scoured it for answers to questions that arose during their
deliberations.

.. In Louisiana, a juror was dismissed during deliberations in the corruption
trial of former Gov. Edwin Edwards. Court records state that the juror
brought a dictionary, a thesaurus and other "outside materials" into the
deliberation room.

.. In New Hampshire, a man convicted of molesting a 7-year-old girl was set
free after serving little more than one year in prison because a juror
consulted her son, a lawyer, and reported the conversation to other jurors.
The defendant had been sentenced to as much as 20 years in prison.

.. In Connecticut, a juror was arrested and charged with criminal contempt
after an inquiry into allegations that she initiated premature conversations
about a murder case with fellow jurors and sought their help in doing
Internet research on the case. A mistrial was declared and the defendant
pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.

.. In Washington state, an exasperated judge dismissed all 63 prospective
jurors from deciding whether a confessed triple killer should be executed.
Some had looked up information about the defendant online and discussed the
findings among themselves. Others had discussed their intention - without
hearing any evidence - to vote for execution. The judge and lawyers in the
case had spent two months questioning more than 200 people for the final
panel of 12 jurors and six alternates. They had to start over.

The Oath of Jurors in Colorado

.. Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of law that you and each of
you will well and truly try the matter at issue between the People of the
State of Colorado and ____ , the defendant, and render a true verdict,
according to the evidence?


--
The cautious seldom err.
--Confucius

"~ Typhøid Mary ~" <typhoid@mary.va> wrote in message
news:1518e.32$AI4.2600@news.uswest.net... Verdict's in on juries that run their own way Juror actions, from reading the Bible to going online, can end in justice unserved By Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News April 15, 2005 When prospective jurors for the trial of Timothy McVeigh were asked what they were reading in April 1997, a noticeable number of them named John Grisham's then-best seller, The Runaway Jury. Mention of the title never failed to send smiles across the courtroom
where McVeigh's jury was being selected. "We tease a little bit about the title," prosecutor Larry Mackey told one prospective juror who said she had read the book. "But as you sit there
now, you know that if you were sworn as a juror, you have no freedom to run
away; you would be bound to follow the court's instructions?" "Yes, definitely," the woman answered. But the response is not always as definitive. Eight years after the high-profile Oklahoma City bomber trial, some jurors still disregard the court's rules. The dilemma has divided the legal community, with some thinking jurors should get better explanations of the rules to make it less likely they'll run amok and others arguing the
system should trust jurors to use good judgment. When things go wrong, the effect can be substantial. Runaway jurors in Colorado have read improperly to their fellow jurors
from the Bible during deliberations, resulting in a Colorado Supreme Court announcement March 28 that convicted murderer Robert Harlan will serve
life in prison instead of being executed as the jury had intended. Other runaways have done their own research into arcane legal subjects, as one juror did at the Denver Public Library during a six-week federal civil trial involving securities law. The result was a mistrial. A runaway jury in Colorado Springs, specifically told by the judge that it could not consult a copy of the Physicians Desk Reference about uses of
the drug Paxil, defiantly consulted the online version and agreed not to let anyone know what it had done. But two of them had second thoughts and
later confessed to the judge, who questioned the juror who led the revolt. The
man was unrepentant. "The letter of the law," he conceded to the judge, "but, geez." The result: A new trial was ordered for a woman accused of killing her 4-month-old stepgrandson. Working on reforms Donna Wheeler, of Denver, who served nine weeks - two of them
sequestered - on the jury that convicted murderer Kevin Fears in 1993, advocates
spelling out the rules more clearly for jurors. She also thinks they should be
warned about the consequences of running off in their own directions. Wheeler serves on a Colorado Supreme Court committee that has been working for several years on jury reform. Wheeler said nobody on her jury broke any rules, but the jurors never knew what might have happened if they had. "I found out after I was a juror that there were things I could have said
or done that could have jeopardized the verdict," Wheeler said. "I think
people should be aware of the damage they can do," she said. Adams County District Judge Philip Roan, presiding over the Robert Harlan trial in 1995, repeatedly warned jurors to avoid outside influences. They were to base their decision on the evidence in the case and "nothing else whatsoever," he said. They were not to discuss the case with anyone; they were to avoid
televised reports by turning off the television or leaving the room; they were not
to follow the O.J. Simpson trial, then in progress in California; and they
were not to watch Court TV. They also were to have someone screen their newspapers for reports on anything about the criminal justice system and remove those sections. "Even if you disagree with or don't understand the reasons for some of
these rules, you must follow them," Roan said. But jurors consulted the Bible the night before they condemned Harlan to die, and at least one Bible was in the deliberation room when they reached that decision. It's not clear if the jurors understood that consulting the Bible - just like reading newspaper reports or following the O.J. Simpson trial on TV - was against the rules. "For some people, the Bible is such a part of their lives that they would probably have to be specifically told that - and not only told that, but
to be told what the ramifications were," Wheeler said. And who didn't have a teacher who insisted that students use the
dictionary to look up words they didn't understand? "If the judge doesn't specifically say 'dictionary,' doesn't it sound like the most obvious thing, if somebody uses a word and you're on this jury where someone's life or money is at stake - how could anybody object to
you understanding the words that are being used?" Wheeler said. A Colorado jury did exactly that in the 1980s, however. During a burglary trial, it looked up the word "burglary" in a dictionary. The definition jurors found there differed from the legal definition they were supposed
to consider. Different from a TV show Wheeler said the jury reform committee is designing notebooks to be given
to jurors and wants them to include glossaries, agreed upon by the judge and lawyers in each case, of terms that will be used in the trial. That, she said, would help jurors focus on doing their jobs better. "Jurors have what I call courtroom-induced attention deficit disorder," Wheeler said. "Most jurors are not familiar with the court system, with
who the players are, with what's going to happen. It's a little different from watching Law and Order. "They hear someone say something they're unfamiliar with, and they start thinking about that, and then realize they've missed the last 30 seconds
of testimony. And then they miss five minutes more while they worry about
it," she said. Colorado U.S. District Judge John Kane said he has never had a runaway
jury, and he believes that's because he spends time explaining to jurors what
the rules are, why they are that way and what the consequences for breaking
them can be. "I explain to them what a mistrial is and how jury misconduct can cause a mistrial," Kane said. A mistrial is declared if jurors are hopelessly deadlocked or if something goes so wrong during a trial that it wouldn't be fair to go on with it. A new trial must be held, starting all over with different jurors. Kane said mistrials are expensive, including lawyers' fees, witnesses'
fees and travel expenses, as well as the time spent by the judge and the court staff. "It's all for naught," he said. He said he explains to jurors that independently consulting outside materials or doing their own research isn't fair because, if the lawyers don't know about it, they can't challenge it or argue about it. "Fairness requires that we all play from the same page. So whatever
they're going to decide in there, it has to be done on the basis of what these people on both sides prepared," Kane said. "How can you have fairness when you're blindsiding people?" he asks
jurors. He said it's not enough for a judge to simply order jurors not to consult outside materials. "It requires something more on the part of a judge," he said. Former Denver District Judge Connie Peterson, now in private law practice, disagrees. "I think the courts are doing fine the way it is," she said. "The courts
are making it very clear to jurors. This (the Harlan jury mistake in
consulting the Bible) was the responsibility of the jurors." Keeping things fair for all parties Jefferson County District Judge Leland Anderson said he spends extra time explaining to jurors how to be fair. "I don't say, 'No Bibles,' " Anderson said. "If I said 'No Bibles,' would
I have say 'No Torah'? "But from the get-go one of the first things they're going to hear out of
my mouth is that, no matter what the results are in this trial, the thing
that should keep them awake at night 20 years from now if they're stewing about any decision is whether they crossed the boundary and violated the rule of law." That means that the law - from the U.S. Constitution to statutes enacted
by elected officials to the rules that must be followed in court - should prevail over personal feelings and all other considerations. It's meant to keep things fair. These days, Anderson uses the example of Iraq. "That is what a country
looks like that is devoid of rule of law," he tells jurors, "and that we have young men and women who are risking their lives to establish rule of law
in a country on the far side of the world." "The least that we can do in response to their sacrifices," Anderson says, "is to apply the same significance and import to the rule of law in our courts." If they flout it, he tells jurors, he'll likely hear about it and have to conduct an investigation - bringing them in one by one to be questioned about what they did and what other jurors did. Once, Anderson fired a jury for not following the rules. The jurors had talked among themselves about a drug case before they were supposed to
start deliberating. Anderson declared a mistrial. "It probably cost the state many, many thousands of dollars," he said. He said he understands why people sitting as jurors in a difficult trial, seeing depictions of horrible events, feel a need to talk about it. He
said he also understands why some people, in their enthusiasm for their jury service, launch their own investigations. Anderson also sits on the Colorado Supreme Court's jury reform committee, where he and others successfully urged Colorado's courts to let jurors ask questions during civil trials. Privately, Anderson believes they also
should be able to ask questions during criminal trials, but that isn't allowed
yet. When jurors want to ask questions during criminal trials where he is presiding, Anderson doesn't let them. "I follow the rule of law," he said. "I tell jurors I expect no less of them." Across the country Jurors dismissed over the issue of having outside materials . A juror was dismissed during deliberations in November in the Scott Peterson murder trial in Redwood City, Calif., reportedly for doing her
own research, which was in violation of trial rules. Judge Alfred Delucchi
then reminded remaining jurors to consider only the facts and law that had been presented to them "and no other source." An alternate replaced the juror. Peterson was convicted of his pregnant wife's murder. . Also in California, a juror studying to be a paralegal brought a
textbook into the jury room, where jurors used its definition of entrapment instead of the legal definition given to them. Result: A new trial was ordered for the convicted defendant. . Another California jury, deliberating in the courtroom because of a
space shortage, borrowed the judge's copy of the state penal code from the bench and scoured it for answers to questions that arose during their deliberations. . In Louisiana, a juror was dismissed during deliberations in the
corruption trial of former Gov. Edwin Edwards. Court records state that the juror brought a dictionary, a thesaurus and other "outside materials" into the deliberation room. . In New Hampshire, a man convicted of molesting a 7-year-old girl was set free after serving little more than one year in prison because a juror consulted her son, a lawyer, and reported the conversation to other
jurors. The defendant had been sentenced to as much as 20 years in prison. . In Connecticut, a juror was arrested and charged with criminal contempt after an inquiry into allegations that she initiated premature
conversations about a murder case with fellow jurors and sought their help in doing Internet research on the case. A mistrial was declared and the defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. . In Washington state, an exasperated judge dismissed all 63 prospective jurors from deciding whether a confessed triple killer should be executed. Some had looked up information about the defendant online and discussed
the findings among themselves. Others had discussed their intention - without hearing any evidence - to vote for execution. The judge and lawyers in the case had spent two months questioning more than 200 people for the final panel of 12 jurors and six alternates. They had to start over. The Oath of Jurors in Colorado . Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of law that you and each
of you will well and truly try the matter at issue between the People of the State of Colorado and ____ , the defendant, and render a true verdict, according to the evidence?

Sounds like prosecutors whinging again because juries happen to acquit
sometimes.

Charles L

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 23:07:04 -0600, "~ Typhøid Mary ~"
<typhoid@mary.va> wrote:
In Connecticut, a juror was arrested and charged with criminal contemptafter an inquiry into allegations that she initiated premature conversationsabout a murder case with fellow jurors and sought their help in doingInternet research on the case. A mistrial was declared and the defendantpleaded guilty to a lesser charge.

The American system is set up to maximize the gain of the shysters who
make money or obtain political capital from legal proceedings. It
would be much fairer to let the jurors take an active part in the
trial by having as much ability to ask questions of the lawyers,
witnesses, the judge, and each other as students have to ask their
teachers, the Internet, and fellow students during and after a class.
That way, any misconceptions they have about the evidence could be
taken care of. The shysters, who dominate the legislatures who make
the rules, will not allow that since that would shift the emphasis to
the facts of the matter and diminish the huge windfalls that can be
obtained from the practice of pettifoggery.

RHR

Jon Beaver wrote:
it is "set up," for the most part, to discourage lawyers from representing the ordinary person.

That's utter CRAP!

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote.....The American legal system is NOT set up to maximize gain for lawyers.

I assume you mean that you could set it up to make even more money, further
maximizing the gains for lawyers.
On the contrary, it is "set up," for the most part, to discourage lawyers from representing the ordinary person. You're just wrong. Almost everywhere else, lawyers are paid by the losing side. Not in U. S. That's why they call it the "American Rule."

Both roads lead to the lawyer's pockets, so your point must simply be that
there are ways to maximize your take even more?

Chas

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:24:55 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote: it is "set up," for the most part, to discourage lawyers from representing the ordinary person.That's utter CRAP!

Very well reasoned. I suppose where perception is the issue, the
truth is irrelevant. However, may I invite you to cite a law or rule
that you think is "set up" to profit lawyers? I'd be surprised, since
the American system pretty much requires lawyers to look to their
clients for compensation. Because of that, I'm surprised that anyone
except that client would have standing, or feel the need, to complain.
Unless, of course, they are really complaining about something else.

- Jon Beaver

Jon Beaver wrote: On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:24:55 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:Jon Beaver wrote:it is "set up," for themost part, to discourage lawyers from representing the ordinaryperson.That's utter CRAP! Very well reasoned.

Yup.
I suppose where perception is the issue, the truth is irrelevant. However, may I invite you to cite a law or rule that you think is "set up" to profit lawyers?

Why?

You said lawyers are discouraged from representing "ordinary people" -
so PROVE it!

If not, STFU.

In article <56OdnfzcfqtqGvzfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote.....The American legal system is NOT set up to maximize gain for lawyers. I assume you mean that you could set it up to make even more money, further maximizing the gains for lawyers. On the contrary, it is "set up," for the most part, to discourage lawyers from representing the ordinary person. You're just wrong. Almost everywhere else, lawyers are paid by the losing side. Not in U. S. That's why they call it the "American Rule." Both roads lead to the lawyer's pockets, so your point must simply be that there are ways to maximize your take even more?

You sound like you're complaining that lawyers get paid for their work.

Though I must say, the settlement over the RNC case in NYC strikes me as
an example of lawyers run amuck.... $150.00 per person in the class, and
over $200,000 in lawyer's fees.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:47:40 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote.....The American legal system is NOT set up to maximize gain for lawyers.I assume you mean that you could set it up to make even more money, furthermaximizing the gains for lawyers. On the contrary, it is "set up," for the most part, to discourage lawyers from representing the ordinary person. You're just wrong. Almost everywhere else, lawyers are paid by the losing side. Not in U. S. That's why they call it the "American Rule."Both roads lead to the lawyer's pockets, so your point must simply be thatthere are ways to maximize your take even more?

Okay, assuming that is true, for argument's sake. So what? What
would you change? Got an idea? Regulate lawyers' fees? Eliminate
the right to counsel?

- Jon Beaver

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:04:14 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote: On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:24:55 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:Jon Beaver wrote:>it is "set up," for the>most part, to discourage lawyers from representing the ordinary>person.That's utter CRAP! Very well reasoned.Yup. I suppose where perception is the issue, the truth is irrelevant. However, may I invite you to cite a law or rule that you think is "set up" to profit lawyers?Why?You said lawyers are discouraged from representing "ordinary people" -so PROVE it!

Well, first, let me ask whether you actually think ordinary people can
afford to hire lawyers to protect their rights or that lawyers can
afford to charge a fee that ordinary people can afford? Let's get our
question straight between us and I don't think any "proof" will be
necessary.

- Jon Beaver

Jon Beaver wrote: On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:04:14 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:Jon Beaver wrote:On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:24:55 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:>Jon Beaver wrote:>>>>>it is "set up," for the>>most part, to discourage lawyers from representing the ordinary>>person.>>That's utter CRAP!Very well reasoned.Yup.I suppose where perception is the issue, thetruth is irrelevant. However, may I invite you to cite a law or rulethat you think is "set up" to profit lawyers?Why?You said lawyers are discouraged from representing "ordinary people" -so PROVE it! Well, first, let me ask whether you actually think ordinary people can afford to hire lawyers to protect their rights or that lawyers can afford to charge a fee that ordinary people can afford?

Ever hear of "contingency", and yes "ordinary" people, even poor people
can access lawyers through any number of means, including legal aid
and public defenders.

So don't answer, typical..

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 04:57:00 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote: On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:04:14 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:Jon Beaver wrote:>On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:24:55 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:>>>>>Jon Beaver wrote:>>>>>>>>>it is "set up," for the>>>most part, to discourage lawyers from representing the ordinary>>>person.>>>>That's utter CRAP!>>>Very well reasoned.Yup.>I suppose where perception is the issue, the>truth is irrelevant. However, may I invite you to cite a law or rule>that you think is "set up" to profit lawyers?Why?You said lawyers are discouraged from representing "ordinary people" -so PROVE it! Well, first, let me ask whether you actually think ordinary people can afford to hire lawyers to protect their rights or that lawyers can afford to charge a fee that ordinary people can afford?Ever hear of "contingency", and yes "ordinary" people, even poor people can access lawyers through any number of means, including legal aidand public defenders.

Ah, "poor people" don't count. How do ordinary people have access to
legal aid and "Legal aid" and "public defenders" is your idea of
lawyers who "profit" from the way the "legal system" is "set up?"
What part of the "legal system" is "set up" to make lawyers "profit"
from contingent fees? How do contingent fees help someone with a
legal problem where money damages isn't the issue. Tail, not
elephant.

- Jon Beaver

"Larry" <larry@x.com> wrote Both roads lead to the lawyer's pockets, so your point must simply be that there are ways to maximize your take even more? You sound like you're complaining that lawyers get paid for their work.

no, mostly it's about the 'closed shop' atmosphere- the widening of the
scope of work restricted to attorneys- the UPL and it's application.
I've been watching the expansion of paralegals and 'clericals' into the
practice of law- and it's pretty uniformly a good idea. It's amusing to see
attorneys get all bent out of shape over will preparation and that sort of
thing.
It's also pretty funny that they're losing so often. I think of the 'We the
People' suit here in Denver.

Chas

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote Okay, assuming that is true, for argument's sake. So what? What would you change? Got an idea? Regulate lawyers' fees? Eliminate the right to counsel?

Free market- like it was set up to be originally.

Chas

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:23:46 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
"Larry" <larry@x.com> wrote Both roads lead to the lawyer's pockets, so your point must simply be that there are ways to maximize your take even more? You sound like you're complaining that lawyers get paid for their work.no, mostly it's about the 'closed shop' atmosphere- the widening of thescope of work restricted to attorneys- the UPL and it's application.I've been watching the expansion of paralegals and 'clericals' into thepractice of law- and it's pretty uniformly a good idea. It's amusing to seeattorneys get all bent out of shape over will preparation and that sort ofthing.
It's also pretty funny that they're losing so often. I think of the 'We thePeople' suit here in Denver.

Widgets used to cost $1 but your great grandfather thought widget
quality was bad because everybody and his dog were making them. Your
great grandfather thought they ought to be regulated. So he got a law
passed that says you have to take a real hard widget test to make a
widget. Now widgets cost $10 and you're having self-esteem issues
because the licensed widget makers aren't treating you like an equal.
There is professional help for that.

- Jon Beaver

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:40:25 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote Okay, assuming that is true, for argument's sake. So what? What would you change? Got an idea? Regulate lawyers' fees? Eliminate the right to counsel?Free market

I'd vote for that. Where do I sign? What would that law say? Gimme
some words.
- like it was set up to be originally.

Passive voice. Hmnn, Nobody did it. It was just "was set up" that
way, huh? You are misinformed. But never mind. Tell me what law you
want.



- Jon Beaver

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wroteFree market I'd vote for that. Where do I sign? What would that law say? Gimme some words.

No law about it at all.
The first amendment freedom to petition the government for redress of
grievance and the subsequent guarantees of due process would seem
sufficient.
If you want to advertise as a specialist in something; feel free.

Chas

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:59:39 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wroteFree market I'd vote for that. Where do I sign? What would that law say? Gimme some words.No law about it at all.The first amendment freedom to petition the government for redress ofgrievance and the subsequent guarantees of due process would seemsufficient.If you want to advertise as a specialist in something; feel free.

But you've been complaining about the lack of effective disciplinary
action against attorneys. You said you "researched it." What gives?
Do you want regulation of the practice of law or not?

- Jon Beaver

In article <570561ljr1oklmsp37f8tt4cckvvmsfh5o@4ax.com>,
Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:40:25 -0600, "Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote Okay, assuming that is true, for argument's sake. So what? What would you change? Got an idea? Regulate lawyers' fees? Eliminate the right to counsel?Free market I'd vote for that. Where do I sign? What would that law say? Gimme some words.

Most people complain there are too many lawyers, and Chas complains
there isn't enough of market for them?

If somone in any major city, or even decent-sized suburban town needs a
lawyer, you can hardly walk down the street without tripping over a few.
I've never seen someone forced to retain one specific lawyer because
there just weren't any others around.

In article <apednTcJfJd4Gv_fRVn-gw@comcast.com>,
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wroteFree market I'd vote for that. Where do I sign? What would that law say? Gimme some words. No law about it at all. The first amendment freedom to petition the government for redress of grievance and the subsequent guarantees of due process would seem sufficient. If you want to advertise as a specialist in something; feel free.

You can petition the government for redress of any greivances YOU have.
YOU can always represent YOURSELF in a civil suit. But YOU can't
redress the government about someone else's greivances unless you're a
lawyer. It's called standing, and it actually exists to protect the
other guy.

Jon Beaver wrote:
Ever hear of "contingency", and yes "ordinary" people, even poor people can access lawyers through any number of means, including legal aidand public defenders. Ah, "poor people" don't count. How do ordinary people have access to legal aid and "Legal aid" and "public defenders" is your idea of lawyers who "profit" from the way the "legal system" is "set up?"


Your grammar is as convoluted and cracked as your reasoning.

Basta!

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote But you've been complaining about the lack of effective disciplinary action against attorneys.

yes.
You said you "researched it."

Yes.
What gives?

What gives what?
Do you want regulation of the practice of law or not?

Theoretically?
nah- let'em work for a living.

Chas

"Larry" <larry@x.com> wrote You can petition the government for redress of any greivances YOU have. YOU can always represent YOURSELF in a civil suit.

If you can pass the Literacy Test that qualifies you for exercising your
Constitutional Right.
The scariest thing in the world for the Courthouse Enterprise is the
internet solving many of the library science problems. I notice that they're
still trying to keep services like L/N closed from laymen's access.
But YOU can't redress the government about someone else's greivances unless you're a lawyer. It's called standing, and it actually exists to protect the other guy.

Yup- comparable to the Literacy Test for the exercise of other
Constitutional Rights. There is no reason whatsoever to restrict the
practice of law to attorneys. It isn't necessary for a judge/magistrate to
be a lawyer before sitting, no need for someone to have to pass some
scrutiny before being able to step up and make their play.

Chas

"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:L6ednfBD19NKKv_fRVn-vg@comcast.com... "Larry" <larry@x.com> wrote You can petition the government for redress of any greivances YOU have. YOU can always represent YOURSELF in a civil suit. If you can pass the Literacy Test that qualifies you for exercising your Constitutional Right. The scariest thing in the world for the Courthouse Enterprise is the internet solving many of the library science problems. I notice that they're still trying to keep services like L/N closed from laymen's access.

Lexis/Nexis, and Westlaw, are open to anyone. These are private, commercial
on-line services -- anyone, whether or not they are a lawyer, can pay the
access fee and research published cases to their heart's content.
But YOU can't redress the government about someone else's greivances unless you're a lawyer. It's called standing, and it actually exists to protect the other guy. Yup- comparable to the Literacy Test for the exercise of other Constitutional Rights. There is no reason whatsoever to restrict the practice of law to attorneys.

Really? Is there any reason to restrict the practice of medicine to
licensed physicians? How about restricting the practicy of pharmacology to
licensed druggists?

What do you tell the "client" of an unlicensed, non-lawyer, who loses his
case because of the non-lawyer's incompetence?
It isn't necessary for a judge/magistrate to be a lawyer before sitting,

Practically speaking, it is. In any event, judges and magistrates have
appellate courts looking over their shoulder.
no need for someone to have to pass some scrutiny before being able to step up and make their play.

Anyone can represent themselves, if they think that's a good idea -- they're
the only ones who will reap the consequences of their decision. The line is
drawn when it comes to representing someone else.
Chas

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:48:30 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:Ever hear of "contingency", and yes "ordinary" people, even poor people can access lawyers through any number of means, including legal aidand public defenders. Ah, "poor people" don't count. How do ordinary people have access to legal aid and "Legal aid" and "public defenders" is your idea of lawyers who "profit" from the way the "legal system" is "set up?"Your grammar is as convoluted and cracked as your reasoning.

Sorry you can't read.

- Jon Beaver

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:24:13 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
"Larry" <larry@x.com> wrote You can petition the government for redress of any greivances YOU have. YOU can always represent YOURSELF in a civil suit.If you can pass the Literacy Test that qualifies you for exercising yourConstitutional Right.The scariest thing in the world for the Courthouse Enterprise is theinternet solving many of the library science problems. I notice that they'restill trying to keep services like L/N closed from laymen's access.


What's this? "It ain't fair 'cause you're smart and I'm dumb."
Unbelievable.
But YOU can't redress the government about someone else's greivances unless you're a lawyer. It's called standing, and it actually exists to protect the other guy.Yup- comparable to the Literacy Test for the exercise of otherConstitutional Rights. There is no reason whatsoever to restrict thepractice of law to attorneys. It isn't necessary for a judge/magistrate tobe a lawyer before sitting, no need for someone to have to pass somescrutiny before being able to step up and make their play.

I'm sorry if life is too complicated for you. But I don't quite like
your solution of requiring everybody else to act stupid.

- Jon Beaver

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote Really? Is there any reason to restrict the practice of medicine to licensed physicians? How about restricting the practicy of pharmacology to licensed druggists?

You're comparing the practice of law with an actual science?
how droll.
What do you tell the "client" of an unlicensed, non-lawyer, who loses his case because of the non-lawyer's incompetence?

Same thing you tell them now- pound sand.
You get no guarantees from an attorney- including the strategy on your case.
Anyone can represent themselves, if they think that's a good idea -- they're the only ones who will reap the consequences of their decision. The line is drawn when it comes to representing someone else.

And there's no need- except to secure the sinecure for lawyers. You can
always hire a 'specialist' for any sort of work- the market should be open.
And it is opening- the 'We the People' decisions have shown that.

Chas

Jon Beaver wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:48:30 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:Jon Beaver wrote:>Ever hear of "contingency", and yes "ordinary" people, even poor people>can access lawyers through any number of means, including legal aid>and public defenders.Ah, "poor people" don't count. How do ordinary people have access tolegal aid and "Legal aid" and "public defenders" is your idea oflawyers who "profit" from the way the "legal system" is "set up?"Your grammar is as convoluted and cracked as your reasoning. Sorry you can't read. - Jon Beaver


Sorry you can't make a cogent point.

"chainsaw" and Jon Beaver wrote:
Your grammar is as convoluted and cracked as your reasoning. Sorry you can't read. Sorry you can't make a cogent point.

___________________

Sorry you felt the need to cross-post this puerile interchange around the
world.

David Nicholson ____

"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:z-udnQzlVuQuR__fRVn-qg@comcast.com... "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote Really? Is there any reason to restrict the practice of medicine to licensed physicians? How about restricting the practicy of pharmacology to licensed druggists? You're comparing the practice of law with an actual science? how droll.

I'm comparing the practice of law to any profession which involves a
considerable amount of specialized knowledge to understand.

What do you tell the "client" of an unlicensed, non-lawyer, who loses his case because of the non-lawyer's incompetence? Same thing you tell them now- pound sand.

First of all, the whole idea of licensing is to minimize the likelihood of
malpractice -- among other reasons, that's why even barbers are licensed.
However, under the current system, you don't tell them "pound sound." You
tell them, "sue for malpractice" and the attorney, by virtue of meeting
licensing requirements, will have malpractice insurance to cover the
judgment.
You get no guarantees from an attorney- including the strategy on your case.

I'm not sure what you mean by "strategy," in this context. However,
licensing, as well as Martindale ratings, firm membership, and vitae are all
indicia of competence to be considered when selecting counsel.
Anyone can represent themselves, if they think that's a good idea -- they're the only ones who will reap the consequences of their decision. The line is drawn when it comes to representing someone else. And there's no need- except to secure the sinecure for lawyers.

Completely incorrect. Licensing guarantees a threshhold level of
competence. If the intent of licensing was to thin out competition, the
number of lawyers licensed would be limited. As it is, there are many more
lawyers around than good positions for them.
You can always hire a 'specialist' for any sort of work- the market should be open. And it is opening- the 'We the People' decisions have shown that.

There are no decisions which permit the practice of law without a license.
Chas

PTRAVEL wrote: "Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message news:z-udnQzlVuQuR__fRVn-qg@comcast.com... "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote Really? Is there any reason to restrict the practice of medicine to licensed physicians? How about restricting the practicy of pharmacology to licensed druggists? You're comparing the practice of law with an actual science? how droll. I'm comparing the practice of law to any profession which involves a considerable amount of specialized knowledge to understand. What do you tell the "client" of an unlicensed, non-lawyer, who loses his case because of the non-lawyer's incompetence? Same thing you tell them now- pound sand. First of all, the whole idea of licensing is to minimize the likelihood of malpractice -- among other reasons, that's why even barbers are licensed. However, under the current system, you don't tell them "pound sound." You tell them, "sue for malpractice" and the attorney, by virtue of meeting licensing requirements, will have malpractice insurance to cover the judgment. You get no guarantees from an attorney- including the strategy on your case. I'm not sure what you mean by "strategy," in this context. However, licensing, as well as Martindale ratings, firm membership, and vitae are all indicia of competence to be considered when selecting counsel.

- The sole shareholder of the law firm was placed on disability-inactive
status. Respondent became the de facto manager for the firm in his absence.
Respondent allowed the disabled attorney's name to appear on the law firm's
letterhead without designation of disability-inactive status and with no
indication that he was not authorized to practice law. Respondent used such
letterhead for professional correspondence. Additionally, the disabled
attorney's business cards were displayed at the reception area of the law
office, his name continued to appear on office signs without designation or
indication that he was not authorized to practice law, the disabled attorney
's name and biography appeared in the law firm's listing in Martindale.com
without designation of his disability-inactive status, and with no
indication he was not authorized to practice law. Respondent participated in
the use of such false or misleading communication to the public. Finally,
the disabled attorney's name appeared in the Denver Metropolitan Qwest Dex
telephone directory and Yellow Pages without designation of
disability-inactive status, with no indication he was not authorized to
practice law. Again, respondent participated in the use of such false or
misleading communication to the public. The rules implicated are Colo. RPC
7.1(a) and Colo. RPC 7.5(a).
Anyone can represent themselves, if they think that's a good idea -- they're the only ones who will reap the consequences of their decision. The line is drawn when it comes to representing someone else. And there's no need- except to secure the sinecure for lawyers. Completely incorrect. Licensing guarantees a threshhold level of competence. If the intent of licensing was to thin out competition, the number of lawyers licensed would be limited. As it is, there are many more lawyers around than good positions for them. You can always hire a 'specialist' for any sort of work- the market should be open. And it is opening- the 'We the People' decisions have shown that. There are no decisions which permit the practice of law without a license.
In the State of Washington, Washington Admission to Practice Rule 12,
"Limited The Case for Repealing Unauthorized Practice of Law Statutes

by George C. Leef
Lawyers are not a popular group among the general public, and the high price
of legal services in part accounts for their poor reputation. A principal
reason for those high prices is the lawyer's monopoly on providing legal
services. Every state except Arizona has an "unauthorized practice of law"
(UPL) statute that makes it illegal for anyone who does not meet the
requirements set by state bars to render legal assistance. Lawyers
invariably argue that UPL statutes serve the public interest. Wrote F. M.
Apicella, J. A. Hallbauer, and R. H. Gillespy II in the American Bar
Association Journal (1995), repealing UPL statutes "would result in the most
unwary, guileless members of the public being incompetently represented and
advised, if not victimized and defrauded."

But the notion that the best or only way to protect consumers of legal
services is to prevent them from hiring people without bar membership is
based on fundamental fallacies. First, it assumes that only governments can
protect consumers. Second, it assumes that a government-sustained monopoly
has no adverse effects that might offset purported benefits. And third, it
ignores the mechanism that best protects the interests of all consumers-the
free market.

All UPL statutes prohibit individuals from legally practicing law without
bar membership. Bar membership, in turn, has four prerequisites for aspiring
legal practitioners: (1) they must earn a college degree; (2) they must
graduate from an approved law school; (3) they must pass the state's bar
exam; and (4) they must convince the bar that they are "of good moral
character." Such criteria, however, did not always hold. According to
Dietrich Rueschemeyer in Lawyers and Their Society, as late as 1951, 20
percent of American lawyers had not graduated from law school and 50 percent
had not graduated from college.



Consumer Welfare

Lawyers argue that licensure protects consumers from unqualified or
unscrupulous practitioners, but it is more likely that licensure protects
lawyers from competition. Many economists and even some lawyers have
assailed licensing laws as special interest legislation that is supported by
those who want to restrict competition, not protect the public interest. As
Professor Walter Gellhorn of Columbia Law School wrote in the University of
Chicago Law Review (1976):

Licensing has only infrequently been imposed upon an occupation against
its wishes. . . . Licensing has been eagerly sought-always on the purported
ground that licensure protects the uninformed public against incompetence or
dishonesty, but invariably with the consequence that members of the licensed
group become protected against competition from newcomers.

Gellhorn's comments apply to members of the legal profession who sought
licensing laws. While they argued that licensing was for the public's
benefit, no test of competence was imposed on those who were practicing law
when the UPL statutes were passed.

Judge Richard Posner likens the legal profession to a medieval guild with an
elaborate structure of internal and external controls designed to suppress
the kind of marketplace competition that it claims is "unbefitting." In the
Indiana Law Journal (1993) Posner wrote:

[The legal profession] was an intricately and ingeniously reticulated,
though imperfect, cartel. Governmental regulations designed to secure the
cartel against competition and new entry from without, and centrifugal,
disintegrative competitive pressures from within, held the cartel together
against the dangers that beset and ordinarily would destroy a cartel of so
many members.

Cartels hold together better when there are fewer members and the cost of
meeting membership requirements is high. Professor Roger Cramton of Cornell
Law School wrote in the Case Western Law Review (1994), "When the
opportunity costs of foregone income are taken into account, the investment
in human capital presently required to become a lawyer amounts to at least
$100,000." That cost prices many potential practitioners out of the field
and requires those who can afford a legal education to charge high fees.

Licensure is not the sole cartel-protecting device used by the bar. In the
past, the bar restricted competition by prohibiting advertising and
requiring adherence to bar-established fee schedules. Those restraints,
however, have been swept away. In Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975) the
Supreme Court struck down bar-imposed fee schedules, and in Bates v. State
Bar of Arizona (1977) the Court ruled against advertising restrictions; both
cases were argued on antitrust grounds. UPL statutes, however, are still a
major barrier to competition in legal services.



The English Example

The practical case for permitting a free market in legal services is
supported by several case studies. In England, for example, conveyancing
services-that is, the legal work associated with transferring real estate
titles-had been a legal monopoly for over a century. But in the 1970s, the
public complained about the high cost of those services. Like bar
associations in the United States, the English Law Society had restrained
competition with recommended fee scales and a prohibition against
advertising. As Avrom Sherr and Simon Domberger wrote in the International
Review of Law and Economics (1989), "The conveyancing monopoly came to be
viewed with increasing hostility by aspiring homeowners and by a government
committed to greater competition."

Consequently, in 1984 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's government
announced that, beginning in 1987, the market would be opened to "licensed
conveyancers" who were not members of the legal profession. That edict began
what Sherr and Domberger call "a unique, controlled experiment in the
liberalization of the supply of legal services." The result was that the
market for conveyancing services was transformed even before licensed
conveyancers entered the market. The authors wrote:

Fees started to fall in 1984 . . . a full three years before licensed
conveyancers entered the market. By 1986 the discriminatory element in the
combined fees charged for sales and purchases of property had fallen by
one-third. . . . The threat of competition has yielded significant welfare
benefits. Price discrimination has been reduced, conveyancing costs have
fallen in real terms, and there has been a measurable improvement in
consumer satisfaction.

The market for legal services clearly responds to economic laws. More
competition, brought about by eliminating artificial barriers to market
entry, lowers prices and increases the quality of available services.



The Arizona Example

Arizona has also opened up its market for legal services. In1986, Arizona's
UPL statute expired and the legislature declined to reenact it. Since that
time, many businesses offering legal assistance by nonlawyers have opened.
The benefit to consumers of having the option of contracting with unlicensed
practitioners is illustrated in Arizona Attorney (1994):

Bob Haves knew he needed help in filing for a divorce when a nine-year
search finally turned up his wife in Georgia. But when the air-conditioning
and heating mechanic was told by an attorney that he needed to pay an $800
retainer up front, Haves balked. Instead he turned to one of a growing
number of legal document services in Arizona that helped him prepare and
file his divorce and even sort through child support, child custody, and
spousal maintenance problems. Haves believes that the $175 he paid for the
service was a bargain.

Haves saved $625 because he was able to shop around for the help he needed.

In California there has been a de facto move away from the lawyer monopoly.
The California bar has stopped taking action under the state's UPL statutes
against unlicensed practitioners, for example, those offering divorce and
other services in low-income neighborhoods. So far there has been no
outbreak of customer complaints about unlicensed practitioners providing
low-quality service.

Repealing UPL statutes would be particularly beneficial for low-income
Americans. A study commissioned by the American Bar Association found that
in 1987, 40 percent of Americans near or below the poverty line experienced
civil legal problems for which they had no legal assistance. With a free
market in legal services, those individuals could patronize an affordable,
unlicensed legal practitioner. The success of such businesses in Arizona
indicates that many people regard that option as a good alternative to
lawyers.



The Bar's Defense

Bar supporters argue that without UPL statutes, incompetent or dishonest
practitioners would harm consumers. But that is a case of looking only at
the supposed hazards of a free market while ignoring the palpable benefits.
For example, the president of the Michigan bar, Thomas G. Kienbaum, wrote in
Michigan Lawyers Weekly (1995),

[George Leef] would no doubt not allow a member of his family to be
operated on by a nurse any more than he would have a will or estate plan
prepared by an insurance agent. Yet, he appears to advocate a legal system
that would leave the fates of children and families-particularly the poor-to
the whims of an unregulated, incompetent or even unscrupulous marketplace.

But most individuals, including those who are poor, are careful
decisionmakers. Few individuals would ask a nurse to perform a heart
operation, a bookkeeper to perform a difficult accounting analysis, or a
patent lawyer to defend against a murder charge even if doing so appeared
cheaper than the alternatives.

Moreover, the consumer's self-interest is not the only protection against
incompetent practitioners; the provider's self-interest is also important.
It is very much in the provider's interest to perform the tasks for which he
has contracted and not to leave dissatisfied clients in his wake. A bad
reputation will lose customers and money. Professionals who fail through
incompetence lose the investments they made in their enterprises and their
prospects for future success.

Nonlawyers routinely refer cases that are outside their competence to
lawyers, even though they are not bound by law to do so. In Arizona and
California referrals from paralegals to lawyers are common. That indicates
that nonlawyers tend not to take cases that they feel are beyond their level
of competence. In a leading Michigan unauthorized practice case, State Bar
v. Cramer (1976), the record disclosed that the defendant had referred over
six hundred cases to lawyers. Referrals, another filter against foolish
contracting, work to protect consumers from incompetent practitioners.

Experience shows that the vast majority of UPL cases are brought by bar
organizations, not injured consumers. Actual cases of harm to clients due to
incompetent or dishonest nonattorney assistance are rare. Professor Deborah
Rhode wrote in the Stanford Law Review (1981) that of all UPL inquiries,
investigations, and complaints in 1979, only 2 percent arose from consumer
complaints and involved injury.

The Canadian experience is similar. In particular, the province of Ontario
reserves most legal services for bar-approved attorneys. The Report of the
Task Force on Paralegals, prepared for Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney
General in 1990, analyzed the 155 cases of unauthorized practice brought
from 1986 to 1989. The task force found that 87 percent of the cases had
been brought by lawyers, governmental agencies, or the Law Society.
Moreover, the report stated, "Those few complaints of incompetence or fraud
related to one independent paralegal business [that is] no longer in
operation." The report concluded:

The great majority of clients of independent paralegals feel that they
have received satisfactory legal services. In fact, the information
assembled by the task force suggests that any intimation of large scale
incompetence or fraudulent activity by independent paralegals is incorrect
and misleading.



Consumers and Information

Supporters argue that UPL statutes help the public assess the competence of
service providers. Supposedly, in a free market consumers of legal services
generally would be unable to judge the quality of prospective unlicensed
practitioners.

There is an element of truth in that argument. It is difficult for consumers
to obtain information on the quality and reliability of one-time purchases
of certain goods and services. How does one know who is a good architect,
accountant, or lawyer?

But the market for legal services is no different from markets for other
services when it comes to the problem of uncertainty, and consumers would
approach the problem in the same way. Consumers would ask friends,
relatives, and associates to recommend a service provider. They might also
be aided by various indicators of success, such as business location.
Consumers might also contact agencies, governmental and nongovernmental,
that maintain records of complaints against businesses. Finally, consumers
might choose to use certification as a screening device if they have reason
to believe that possession of a certain certificate shows a level of
competence relevant to their needs. In a free market for legal services,
consumers would use the same information-gathering techniques to assess the
competence of unlicensed practitioners that they now use to assess the
competence of licensed ones. The only difference is that they would have a
wider field of choice than they do now.

Competence and Credentials

Supporters of UPL statutes contend that only practitioners who have the
right credentials can properly assist people with legal problems. "Members
of the bar are required to pass a state bar examination which insures a
minimum level of legal competency," contends Ryan Talamante in the Arizona
Law Review (1992). And the Michigan Supreme Court decision in State Bar v.
Cramer wrote:

Those persons offering advice on legal matters regarding child custody,
contract and property rights, inheritance, separate property, and support,
to name the more significant, must possess a measure of competency and
judgment to insure proper representation.

The implicit assumption behind those statements is that the only way a
person can demonstrate the degree of knowledge and judgment needed to render
legal assistance is by taking all of the steps required for bar membership.
That assumption does not withstand critical examination.

Law school provides a broad but shallow education. Would-be lawyers learn a
smattering of many subjects but none in depth. In-depth training usually
does not begin until graduates land a job and enter an area of
specialization. In the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics (1990) Rhode
notes:

An increasing specialization in legal work, coupled with a growing
reliance on paralegals and routinized case-processing systems, undercuts
some of the traditional competence-related justifications for banning lay
competitors. Law school and bar exam requirements provide no guarantee of
expertise in areas where the need for low-cost services is greatest:
divorce, landlord/tenant disputes, bankruptcy, immigration, welfare claims,
tax preparation, and real estate transactions. In many of these contexts,
secretaries or paralegals working for a lawyer already perform a large share
of routine services, and this experience has equipped a growing number of
employees to branch out on their own.

A law school education, while valuable, does not guarantee competence. For
example, a fresh-out-of-law-school attorney is incapable of handling many
complex legal matters. A newly admitted bar member is almost never equipped
to handle, for example, worker's compensation litigation, but there is no
law against "unauthorized worker's compensation practice." Such a law is
unnecessary. The legal profession and the public rely on market incentives
and disincentives to see that attorneys who claim to have worker's
compensation or any other type of expertise have acquired it.



The Federal Example

Another indication that individuals without bar approval can adequately
render legal services is that most federal administrative agencies permit
unlicensed practitioners to represent parties in cases before them, both
adversarial and nonadversarial. According to the Results of the 1984 Survey
of Non-Lawyer Practice Before Federal Administrative Agencies, published
jointly in 1985 by the ABA Standing Committee on Lawyers' Responsibility for
Client Protection and the Center for Professional Responsibility, there have
been few reports of problems with lay advocates.

The U.S. Patent Office administers a competency test that both attorneys and
nonattorneys must pass before they can bring cases before the office. There
is no evidence to suggest that the nonattorneys are any less capable than
the attorneys in dealing with the complexities of patent law and procedure.
And in the case of Sperry v. Florida Bar (1963), the Supreme Court rebuffed
an attempt by the Florida bar to prevent a non-bar member from representing
Florida clients in patent applications.

Accountants, who are usually not bar members, frequently advise their
clients on tax matters, and "enrolled agents" are permitted to appear before
the U.S. Tax Court on behalf of their clients in disputes with the Internal
Revenue Service. Accountants usually understand tax law as well as or better
than many lawyers. As Barlow Christensen argues in the American Bar
Foundation Research Journal (1980):

The accountant who lives every day in the field of tax law almost surely
has an understanding of that field comparable to a lawyer's understanding.
Indeed, a proficient accountant probably knows and understands the tax laws
far better than does the general practice lawyer.

In Michigan, nonlawyers are permitted to represent parties in proceedings
before the Michigan Employment Security Commission (MESC). That requires
considerable knowledge of the relevant law, but there is no evidence that
claimants or employers have been ill-served by nonlawyers. The Michigan bar
in 1985 fought to have a slight ambiguity in the wording of the Michigan
Employment Security Act interpreted in a way that would place MESC cases
under Michigan's UPL statute, but failed.

In many states, nonlawyer real estate agents have been successfully
preparing legal conveyancing documents for years. In Arizona, for example, a
state supreme court decision in 1961 ruled that such work constituted the
"practice of law" and was therefore illegal (State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona
Land Title & Trust Co.). The realtors mounted a campaign, vigorously opposed
by the state bar, to overturn that decision by amending Arizona's
constitution. The public voted in favor of the amendment by almost four to
one. Since the adoption of that amendment, no evidence of consumer harm from
incompetent document preparation has come to light.



The Discipline Argument

Defenders of UPL statutes make much of the fact that licensed attorneys are
subject to disciplinary actions, such as disbarment or sanctions. One
objection to this argument is that the bar's disciplinary system is an
inadequate consumer protection mechanism. In the Loyola Consumer Law
Reporter (1991) attorney Deborah Chalfie wrote:

Nationwide, more than 90 percent of all discipline complaints are
dismissed. The bulk of these complaints are dismissed at the screening stage
because they are considered outside the agency's jurisdiction, which is
confined to enforcing the ethical rules that govern lawyers. Thus, even if
all the complaints about over-charging, neglect, and incompetence are true,
they state no violation of the ethical rules and are therefore dismissed.

The bar's discipline system does little to deter poor service because
sanctions are almost never levied for anything less than criminal behavior,
gross and repeated negligence, or unconscionable overcharging.

Supporters of UPL statutes also argue that bar membership is a seal of
approval that guarantees quality for consumers. That argument is belied by
the fact that when the bar administers sanctions, it often does so secretly;
thus, the public gains no valuable information on the reliability of the
attorney who has been the subject of disciplinary action. Moreover, bar
sanctions seldom redress the financial loss to the client. The alleged
efficacy of the bar's disciplinary system to protect consumers is a very
slender reed upon which to base the prohibition of legal practice by non-bar
members.

Moreover, the absence of a formal system for disciplining unlicensed legal
practitioners does not mean they are not subject to disciplinary forces. The
competitive marketplace has powerful, built-in incentives for providers to
supply high-quality goods and services, which minimizes the need for a
formal disciplinary apparatus. As Professor Richard Epstein of the
University of Chicago Law School wrote in Simple Rules for a Complex World
(1995):

There's a regrettable tendency among lawyers to say that if there is no
legal remedy, there is no constraint on human behavior at all. Social
sanctions cannot be ignored in determining the institutional value of any
legal arrangement. No one is socially a free agent where others depend on
him, and customers should not be treated as strangers whose preferences are
to be disregarded simply because they are unable to win a lawsuit. . . .
Virtually everybody involved in business recognizes the enormous importance
in business affairs of preserving a reputation for fair and honest dealing.
.. . . Where the reputational bond is strong, the legal bonds may be weak,
because the incentives for good conduct can be secured without having to
incur the extensive administrative costs of any system of liability.

Finally, even if the bar's system of attorney discipline were effective, it
would not follow that people should be deprived of the option of contracting
for legal services with unlicensed practitioners. The bar's discipline
system is arguably one reason why consumers may prefer to deal with licensed
attorneys. But just because one product has a superior feature does not mean
that consumers should be prohibited from choosing other products.

Local bars presumably will attempt to convince consumers that they will be
served better by highly educated, licensed attorneys who are subject to
professional disciplinary action for malfeasance. In that way, bar
membership could serve as a seal of approval similar to the Underwriters
Laboratories label for electrical appliances. If consumers regard the
"protection" afforded by the bar's disciplinary system as worth the added
cost, they will act accordingly. They should not, however, be deprived of
freedom of choice merely because the bar has an established disciplinary
system.



An Alternative to UPL Statutes

Certification is a sound alternative to licensing that does not restrict
consumer choice. It is a means of informing consumers that a service
provider possesses one or more specific qualifications, and it need not
involve the government. For example, the Certified Public Accountant
designation is earned by those who can pass a rigorous accounting
examination, but the exam is voluntary. There is no "unauthorized practice
of accountancy" statute. Consumers of accounting services are free to hire
accountants who come with the private seal of approval and a higher price
tag, or they may use a non-CPA who they believe will meet their needs at a
lower cost. Certification provides information without restricting consumer
options. In Capitalism and Freedom (1962) Milton Friedman wrote:

The usual arguments for licensure, and in particular the paternalistic
arguments, are satisfied almost entirely by certification alone. If the
argument is that we are too ignorant to judge good practitioners, all that
is needed is to make the relevant information available. If, in full
knowledge, we still want to go to someone who is not certified, that is our
business; we cannot complain that we did not have the information. . . . I
personally find it difficult to see any case for which licensure rather than
certification can be justified.

Bar membership too is a form of certification. Without UPL statutes, bars
might make this informational device more useful to consumers by certifying
attorneys in various subfields of law.

The great advantage of certification is that it is subject to the test of
the market. Consumers decide whether the higher fees that typically
accompany contracts with certified practitioners are worth the service.
Without UPL statutes, the bar's steps to certification would be put to the
test of the market as well. Are three years of law school really necessary?
Are two years sufficient? If one can pass the bar exam, is graduation from
law school necessary? The need to serve consumers should force bars to
review and probably refine their requirements and rating systems.



Restoring Freedom

Whatever the purposes of UPL statutes, their principal effect is to limit
the freedom of individuals to engage in voluntary transactions. UPL statutes
restrict free exchange against the will of those who would sell legal
services without bar certification and the customers who would purchase
those services.

The nineteenth century French political and economic thinker Frederic
Bastiat proposed this test for bad laws: "See if the law benefits one
citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot
do without committing a crime." UPL statutes certainly fall into this
category.

Consumers are better-off if they can shop for the goods and services they
want in a free market. By imposing a very high and costly barrier to entry,
the state makes consumers worse off. The case for repealing UPL statutes was
summarized well by W. Clark Durant, former chairman of the Legal Services
Corporation, in a speech before the ABA in 1987:

We should encourage at every turn the ability of entrepreneurs,
para-professionals and lay people to be a part of the delivery of legal
services to the poor and for all people. I've met many eligible clients
around the country who can quite capably be advocates in resolving disputes
if barriers to practice did not exist. How can doors be opened to others to
participate in this profession? In serving others, a private sector
deregulated legal profession can deliver a good quality product in much the
same way that a good commercial enterprise does. . . . We let the free
competitive energies of creative and energetic people in the private sector
provide and deliver for us. . . . Such people exist for the delivery of
legal services but are blocked by UPL statutes and aggressive bar efforts to
halt them.

UPL statutes are inconsistent with the optimal price of legal services, and
they are inconsistent with the freedom of individuals to peacefully
interact. For those compelling reasons, all UPL statutes should be repealed.

George C. Leef is president of Patrick Henry Associates and an adjunct
scholar with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. He earned a J.D. from
Duke University in 1977.

Chas


--
The cautious seldom err.
--Confucius

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:42:34 -0600, "~ Typhøid Mary ~"
<typhoid@mary.va> wrote:
PTRAVEL wrote:
There are no decisions which permit the practice of law without a license.In the State of Washington, Washington Admission to Practice Rule 12,"Limited The Case for Repealing Unauthorized Practice of Law Statutes

[snip]

The worst misconception is that lawyers give a damn about UPL
statutes. I don't. They have nothing to do with lawyers. Again,
it's not about lawyers. In fact, it's none of our business. Lawyers,
as such, have no standing to even give an opinion on it. It's
strictly a matter between the public at large and their legislators.
I'm strongly in favor of doing whatever is in the public interest.

Anybody who thinks three's a conspiracy of lawyers to control the
judicial system is living in fantasy land. Lawyers are, by their
nature, adversarial, not collaborative. This paranoia is sad.


- Jon Beaver

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote I'm comparing the practice of law to any profession which involves a considerable amount of specialized knowledge to understand.

Then advertise that you practice a specialty- in competition with anyone
else who practices that specialty.
It's all in how deep a ditch you need dug.
However, under the current system, you don't tell them "pound sound." You tell them, "sue for malpractice" and the attorney, by virtue of meeting licensing requirements, will have malpractice insurance to cover the judgment.

You mean hire another lawyer to go after the lawyer you already hired?
good plan.
I'm not sure what you mean by "strategy," in this context. However, licensing, as well as Martindale ratings, firm membership, and vitae are all indicia of competence to be considered when selecting counsel.

Same thing you'd use for any other skill you want to hire- academia springs
to mind.
Regulate lawyers like we do Librarians, or Historians, or Statisticians.
Completely incorrect. Licensing guarantees a threshhold level of competence. If the intent of licensing was to thin out competition, the number of lawyers licensed would be limited. As it is, there are many more lawyers around than good positions for them.

That must be why they're so agitated at the idea of UPL, limiting paralegals
so tightly and whining about pro se litigants.
There are no decisions which permit the practice of law without a license.

But what 'practicing law without a license' means is changing all the time.

Chas

"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Ve6dnQastNMNI_7fRVn-ug@comcast.com... "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote I'm comparing the practice of law to any profession which involves a considerable amount of specialized knowledge to understand. Then advertise that you practice a specialty- in competition with anyone else who practices that specialty. It's all in how deep a ditch you need dug.

The problem is the consumer -- after-the-fact discovery that the "unlicensed
lawyer" was incompetent comes too late.

However, under the current system, you don't tell them "pound sound." You tell them, "sue for malpractice" and the attorney, by virtue of meeting licensing requirements, will have malpractice insurance to cover the judgment. You mean hire another lawyer to go after the lawyer you already hired? good plan.

What would you do if a lawyer commits malpractice? Tell the client, "sorry,
too bad"?
I'm not sure what you mean by "strategy," in this context. However, licensing, as well as Martindale ratings, firm membership, and vitae are all indicia of competence to be considered when selecting counsel. Same thing you'd use for any other skill you want to hire- academia springs to mind.

Academia issues licenses -- they're called "degrees."
Regulate lawyers like we do Librarians, or Historians, or Statisticians.

None of whom provide direct consumer services. I asked you before, do you
think doctors should be licensed? How about electricians?
Completely incorrect. Licensing guarantees a threshhold level of competence. If the intent of licensing was to thin out competition, the number of lawyers licensed would be limited. As it is, there are many more lawyers around than good positions for them. That must be why they're so agitated at the idea of UPL, limiting paralegals so tightly and whining about pro se litigants.

I don't know who you're thinking of, but I'm not "agitated" by the idea of
UPL; I just think it's a bad idea for the client of such a person. I don't
"limit" paralegals -- I employ them to do their job. And I certainly don't
"whine" about pro se litigants. The problem with pro se litigants is that,
every single time I've personally encountered one, their self-representation
has been incompetent, they've done more harm to themselves than if they had
simply not shown up at all, and they've not only lost, but been heavily
sanctioned by the court.

You're probably not aware of this, but most lawyers in practice are like
me -- we represent businesses. Pro se litigants aren't lost potential
clients -- they're nuisances who cost _our_ clients money. Similarly, the
kind of people who would hire a paralegal to do legal work are not people
who would ever use my services -- paralegals aren't potential competition,
they're merely a subset of people who lack the skills to practice law (note
that there are some things paralegals can do for individual unrepresented
litigants, and I think it's a fine idea to permit it).

You seem to think opposition to UPL is about limiting competition. I've
told you that it's not, and I've explained why. Simply reiterating that it
is isn't discussion -- it's a Monty Python routine.
There are no decisions which permit the practice of law without a license. But what 'practicing law without a license' means is changing all the time.

To some extent, that's true. So what?
Chas

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote The problem is the consumer -- after-the-fact discovery that the "unlicensed lawyer" was incompetent comes too late.

so does finding out the licensed practitioner was incompetant- licensure is
no guarantee of anything, including recourse.
And incompetant is not nearly as bad as 'collusive'.
You mean hire another lawyer to go after the lawyer you already hired? good plan. What would you do if a lawyer commits malpractice? Tell the client, "sorry, too bad"?

I've never heard them say 'sorry'.
Academia issues licenses -- they're called "degrees."

Then a law degree is sufficient to practice?
Regulate lawyers like we do Librarians, or Historians, or Statisticians. None of whom provide direct consumer services. I asked you before, do you think doctors should be licensed? How about electricians?

You mean actual sciences?
Law isn't a science, buddy.
.......The problem with pro se litigants is that, every single time I'vepersonally encountered one, their self-representation has been incompetent,they've done more harm to themselves than if they had simply not shown upat all, and they've not only lost, but been heavily sanctioned by thecourt.

Yeah; hell to be poor, but needs must.
You're probably not aware of this, but most lawyers in practice are like me -- we represent businesses.

Yes; lots of different venues for the practice of law.
Pro se litigants aren't lost potential clients -- they're nuisances who cost _our_ clients money.

Yeah; hell to have a Constitutional Right be an inconvenience to your
income.
Similarly, the kind of people who would hire a paralegal to do legal work are not people who would ever use my services -- paralegals aren't potential competition, they're merely a subset of people who lack the skills to practice law (note that there are some things paralegals can do for individual unrepresented litigants, and I think it's a fine idea to permit it).

Here in Colorado, the Bar Association was *incensed* at the 'clerical
services'- and it must have been worse when they lost.

Chas

"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tJadnbmQi-vBUP7fRVn-1g@comcast.com... "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote The problem is the consumer -- after-the-fact discovery that the "unlicensed lawyer" was incompetent comes too late. so does finding out the licensed practitioner was incompetant- licensure
is no guarantee of anything, including recourse.

Guarantee, no. Qualifying credential making incompetence less likely, yes.
And incompetant is not nearly as bad as 'collusive'.

I have no idea what you mean by that statement.
You mean hire another lawyer to go after the lawyer you already hired? good plan. What would you do if a lawyer commits malpractice? Tell the client, "sorry, too bad"? I've never heard them say 'sorry'.

Okay, so you have no answer.
Academia issues licenses -- they're called "degrees." Then a law degree is sufficient to practice?

It could be, if it was designed that way, and, in fact, I seem to recall a
couple of smaller states require nothing more than graduation from the state
law school in order to practice. I wouldn't have any problem with a system
like that, provided it was designed that way from the ground up, i.e. there
are too many law schools graduating too many would-be-lawyers who have no
business being in practice. As an example, in California, the first time
bar pass rate hovers around 55%. If academic credentialing were tightened
up, I'd have little problem with such a system.
Regulate lawyers like we do Librarians, or Historians, or
Statisticians. None of whom provide direct consumer services. I asked you before, do
you think doctors should be licensed? How about electricians? You mean actual sciences? Law isn't a science, buddy.

Is cutting hair? Barbers are licensed. So are plumbers.
.......The problem with pro se litigants is that, every single time I'vepersonally encountered one, their self-representation has been
incompetent,they've done more harm to themselves than if they had simply not shown upat all, and they've not only lost, but been heavily sanctioned by thecourt. Yeah; hell to be poor, but needs must.

Actually, it's hell to be middle class. The poor have Public Counsel and a
variety of similar organizations dedicated to providing legal support to the
poor. The wealthy can afford legal process. It's the middle class who get
hurt the most, as they can't afford representation but receive no support.
You're probably not aware of this, but most lawyers in practice are like me -- we represent businesses. Yes; lots of different venues for the practice of law. Pro se litigants aren't lost potential clients -- they're nuisances who cost _our_ clients money. Yeah; hell to have a Constitutional Right be an inconvenience to your income.

What in the world are you talking about? There's no constitutional right to
_civil_ representation, and there certainly isn't a constitutional right to
my services.
Similarly, the kind of people who would hire a paralegal to do legal
work are not people who would ever use my services -- paralegals aren't potential competition, they're merely a subset of people who lack the skills to practice law (note that there are some things paralegals can
do for individual unrepresented litigants, and I think it's a fine idea to permit it). Here in Colorado, the Bar Association was *incensed* at the 'clerical services'- and it must have been worse when they lost.

Oh, great. Another person talking about the Colorado bar.

I don't know Colorado, so I can't comment on its Bar Association, one way or
the other.
Chas

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote so does finding out the licensed practitioner was incompetant- licensure is no guarantee of anything, including recourse. Guarantee, no. Qualifying credential making incompetence less likely, yes.

The fights over contracts/wills/liability is already about 'competence'-
licensure gives one no more assurance than would it's lack.
And incompetant is not nearly as bad as 'collusive'. I have no idea what you mean by that statement.

I've caught several lawyers colluding with the opposition contrary to the
interests of their client- seems to be a real problem.
What would you do if a lawyer commits malpractice? Tell the client, "sorry, too bad"? I've never heard them say 'sorry'. Okay, so you have no answer.

It's an improbable scenario- full of assumptions and unrealistic
expectations-
'sorry'-
yeah; right.
You sue them- same as you would anyone else.
It could be, if it was designed that way, and, in fact, I seem to recall a couple of smaller states require nothing more than graduation from the state law school in order to practice.

I think Virginia used to allow a 'reading of the law' to be sufficient to
take the exam.
You mean actual sciences? Law isn't a science, buddy. Is cutting hair? Barbers are licensed. So are plumbers.

Health concerns for barbers, sanitation concerns for plumbers.
And yes, both of them are sciences- insofar as they impact regulation. You
don't have to give 'style' qualifications for barbering- it's all science.
Plumbing the same; **** floats, water runs downhill.
'The Law' has none of that.
Yeah; hell to be poor, but needs must. Actually, it's hell to be middle class. The poor have Public Counsel and a variety of similar organizations dedicated to providing legal support to the poor. The wealthy can afford legal process. It's the middle class who get hurt the most, as they can't afford representation but receive no support.

In this case, 'poor' means 'unable to pay $200 an hour'; rather a low
threshhold for the definition.
Here in Colorado, the Bar Association was *incensed* at the 'clerical services'- and it must have been worse when they lost. Oh, great. Another person talking about the Colorado bar.

It's the only one we've got, buddy.
I know it's hard to understand, but Colorado has set a standard for
government corruption for a hundred and fifty years. It's kinda concommitant
with the emergence of the internet and it's ease of communication and
archiving that such scandals become well known.
I don't know Colorado, so I can't comment on its Bar Association, one way or the other.

Perhaps things are different where you are; how refreshing it must be.

Chas

"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v_GdnX1iSdoLev7fRVn-3A@comcast.com... "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote so does finding out the licensed practitioner was incompetant-
licensure is no guarantee of anything, including recourse. Guarantee, no. Qualifying credential making incompetence less likely, yes. The fights over contracts/wills/liability is already about 'competence'- licensure gives one no more assurance than would it's lack.

Sorry, but simply saying so doesn't make it true. A license to practice law
requires completion of a minimum number of law school units, obtaining
passing grades therein, passing the state bar exam and demonstrating to the
bar sufficient moral charcter to be licensed. Once licensed, an attorney
must meet specific standards regarding law office administration, attend a
minmum number of continuing legal education units each year, and maintain
malpractice insurance (or disclose to clients that none is maintained).

All of this is an assuance of minimal competency which an unlicensed
"lawyer" is incapable of providing.

And incompetant is not nearly as bad as 'collusive'. I have no idea what you mean by that statement. I've caught several lawyers colluding with the opposition contrary to the interests of their client- seems to be a real problem.

Well, let's see -- I've never encountered this in 14 years of practice.
Seems like it isn't a real problem at all.
> What would you do if a lawyer commits malpractice? Tell the client, > "sorry, too bad"? I've never heard them say 'sorry'. Okay, so you have no answer. It's an improbable scenario- full of assumptions and unrealistic expectations- 'sorry'- yeah; right.

If a lawyer commits malpractice, he can be sued and the standard for
determining liability is that of the "reasonably prudent practioner." If an
unlicensed "lawyer" commits malpractice, what standard would you apply?
What sanction would you impose?
You sue them- same as you would anyone else.

See above.
It could be, if it was designed that way, and, in fact, I seem to recall
a couple of smaller states require nothing more than graduation from the state law school in order to practice. I think Virginia used to allow a 'reading of the law' to be sufficient to take the exam.

One of the Plains states did as well, though I don't recall which.
You mean actual sciences? Law isn't a science, buddy. Is cutting hair? Barbers are licensed. So are plumbers. Health concerns for barbers, sanitation concerns for plumbers.

No, legal compliance for both.
And yes, both of them are sciences- insofar as they impact regulation. You don't have to give 'style' qualifications for barbering- it's all science. Plumbing the same; **** floats, water runs downhill. 'The Law' has none of that.

The law is both art and science. It is, however, arcane, complicated and
something that requires specific training to understand and practice.
Yeah; hell to be poor, but needs must. Actually, it's hell to be middle class. The poor have Public Counsel
and a variety of similar organizations dedicated to providing legal support to the poor. The wealthy can afford legal process. It's the middle class who get hurt the most, as they can't afford representation but receive no
support. In this case, 'poor' means 'unable to pay $200 an hour'; rather a low threshhold for the definition.

Again, that's not accurate. Someone who is below the povery line can get
free legal help. Someone who earns $40,000/year can't.
Here in Colorado, the Bar Association was *incensed* at the 'clerical services'- and it must have been worse when they lost. Oh, great. Another person talking about the Colorado bar. It's the only one we've got, buddy.

It's the only one you've got.
I know it's hard to understand, but Colorado has set a standard for government corruption for a hundred and fifty years. It's kinda
concommitant with the emergence of the internet and it's ease of communication and archiving that such scandals become well known.

Sorry, but the only people I've heard that from are those with an obvious
and peculiar agenda.
I don't know Colorado, so I can't comment on its Bar Association, one
way or the other. Perhaps things are different where you are; how refreshing it must be.

Things are different everywhere that I practice, which includes states other
than California.
Chas

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote All of this is an assuance of minimal competency which an unlicensed "lawyer" is incapable of providing.

Depends on the question- as was exemplified by the example of 'tax law' and
the scope of knowledge possessed by some preparers.
I've caught several lawyers colluding with the opposition contrary to the interests of their client- seems to be a real problem. Well, let's see -- I've never encountered this in 14 years of practice. Seems like it isn't a real problem at all.

Must depend on your specialty.
If a lawyer commits malpractice, he can be sued and the standard for determining liability is that of the "reasonably prudent practioner." If an unlicensed "lawyer" commits malpractice, what standard would you apply? What sanction would you impose?

What has he contracted to do?
The law is both art and science.

.....a floorwax and a dessert topping; all in one.
It is, however, arcane, complicated and something that requires specific training to understand and practice.

Depends on the result one seeks.
In this case, 'poor' means 'unable to pay $200 an hour'; rather a low threshhold for the definition. Again, that's not accurate. Someone who is below the povery line can get free legal help. Someone who earns $40,000/year can't.

Neither can they support a $200 an hour lawyer, so 'poor' starts there, at
least.
I know it's hard to understand, but Colorado has set a standard for government corruption for a hundred and fifty years. It's kinda concommitant with the emergence of the internet and it's ease of communication and archiving that such scandals become well known. Sorry, but the only people I've heard that from are those with an obvious and peculiar agenda.

and I often wonder what you guys think it is.
Simple indignation seems to survive Occam's Razor- what's your thought on
the subject?

Chas

In article <ttP8e.282$zX7.242@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
PTRAVEL <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote:
Academia issues licenses -- they're called "degrees."

And when MIT wants to hire a professor who doesn't have a degree,
guess what happens? They hire him.

When Yale specifically declines to state in its catalog which of its
faculty hold degrees (with the attitude that "We have decided he
should teach this course, and our opinion is infinitely more important
than any degree he might have earned"), it just does so.

So degrees aren't licenses. They merely provide information, which
can be used by the recipient as it desires.

Seth

"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d40v8r$69q$1@reader1.panix.com... In article <ttP8e.282$zX7.242@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, PTRAVEL <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote:Academia issues licenses -- they're called "degrees." And when MIT wants to hire a professor who doesn't have a degree, guess what happens? They hire him. When Yale specifically declines to state in its catalog which of its faculty hold degrees (with the attitude that "We have decided he should teach this course, and our opinion is infinitely more important than any degree he might have earned"), it just does so. So degrees aren't licenses. They merely provide information, which can be used by the recipient as it desires.

Degrees aren't licenses to teach, they are licenses to think -- they
indicate that the degree holder possesses minimum thinking, reading and
writing skills.

Seth

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:00:04 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
I've caught several lawyers colluding with the opposition contrary to theinterests of their client- seems to be a real problem.

Your ignorance is astounding!

- Jon Beaver

"chainsaw" <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote in message
news:U0B8e.4676694$Zm5.730550@news.easynews.com... Jon Beaver wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:48:30 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote:Jon Beaver wrote:>>Ever hear of "contingency", and yes "ordinary" people, even poor
people>>can access lawyers through any number of means, including legal aid>>and public defenders.>>>Ah, "poor people" don't count. How do ordinary people have access to>legal aid and "Legal aid" and "public defenders" is your idea of>lawyers who "profit" from the way the "legal system" is "set up?"Your grammar is as convoluted and cracked as your reasoning. Sorry you can't read. - Jon Beaver Sorry you can't make a cogent point.

As an observer of this exchange, I will say that you are the one not
making a point. Seriously. Your one word summations
and your unsubstantiated generalizations are not
helping to make any sort of point at all.

Paul

In article <3cidliF6mdg5mU1@individual.net>,
PTravel <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote:"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:d40v8r$69q$1@reader1.panix.com... In article <ttP8e.282$zX7.242@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, PTRAVEL <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote:Academia issues licenses -- they're called "degrees." And when MIT wants to hire a professor who doesn't have a degree, guess what happens? They hire him. When Yale specifically declines to state in its catalog which of its faculty hold degrees (with the attitude that "We have decided he should teach this course, and our opinion is infinitely more important than any degree he might have earned"), it just does so. So degrees aren't licenses. They merely provide information, which can be used by the recipient as it desires.Degrees aren't licenses to teach, they are licenses to think

I was able to think long before I earned my degrees.

I've never heard of a crime "thinking without a license"; at least,
not any place I've ever been. Have you?
-- they indicate that the degree holder possesses minimum thinking,reading and writing skills.

Or something. But that makes them qualifications, not licenses.

Seth

Seth Breidbart wrote: In article <3cidliF6mdg5mU1@individual.net>, PTravel <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote: "Seth Breadboard" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message news:d40v8r$69q$1@reader1.panix.com... In article <ttP8e.282$zX7.242@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, PTRAVEL <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote:> Academia issues licenses -- they're called "degrees." And when MIT wants to hire a professor who doesn't have a degree, guess what happens? They hire him. When Yale specifically declines to state in its catalog which of its faculty hold degrees (with the attitude that "We have decided he should teach this course, and our opinion is infinitely more important than any degree he might have earned"), it just does so. So degrees aren't licenses. They merely provide information, which can be used by the recipient as it desires. Degrees aren't licenses to teach, they are licenses to think I was able to think long before I earned my degrees. I've never heard of a crime "thinking without a license"; at least, not any place I've ever been. Have you?

The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave ...
-- they indicate that the degree holder possesses minimum thinking, reading and writing skills. Or something.

Ibid.
But that makes them qualifications, not licenses. Seth


--
The cautious seldom err.
--Confucius

"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d421vk$17r$1@reader1.panix.com... In article <3cidliF6mdg5mU1@individual.net>, PTravel <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote:"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in messagenews:d40v8r$69q$1@reader1.panix.com... In article <ttP8e.282$zX7.242@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, PTRAVEL <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote: >Academia issues licenses -- they're called "degrees." And when MIT wants to hire a professor who doesn't have a degree, guess what happens? They hire him. When Yale specifically declines to state in its catalog which of its faculty hold degrees (with the attitude that "We have decided he should teach this course, and our opinion is infinitely more important than any degree he might have earned"), it just does so. So degrees aren't licenses. They merely provide information, which can be used by the recipient as it desires.Degrees aren't licenses to teach, they are licenses to think I was able to think long before I earned my degrees. I've never heard of a crime "thinking without a license"; at least, not any place I've ever been. Have you?

Oh, come on, you know what I mean.

A university degree should be evidence that the bearer has achieved a
certain level of reading comprehension, verbal ability and analytic skill --
at least that was the case when I was teaching university.

-- they indicate that the degree holder possesses minimum thinking,reading and writing skills. Or something. But that makes them qualifications, not licenses.

If you prefer. The idea remains the same, however.
Seth

PTravel wrote: "Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message news:tJadnbmQi-vBUP7fRVn-1g@comcast.com...

[snip]
Here in Colorado, the Bar Association was *incensed* at the 'clericalservices'- and it must have been worse when they lost. Oh, great. Another person talking about the Colorado bar. I don't know Colorado, so I can't comment on its Bar Association, one way or the other.

We live here. We've seen it. We can comment at first hand, whereas
you are completely clueless.

dopey wrote: "chainsaw" <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote in message news:U0B8e.4676694$Zm5.730550@news.easynews.com... Jon Beaver wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:48:30 GMT, chainsaw <zzp@wwd.buz> wrote: > Jon Beaver wrote: > > > > > Ever hear of "contingency", and yes "ordinary" people, even > > > poor people can access lawyers through any number of means, > > > including legal aid and public defenders. > > > > > > Ah, "poor people" don't count. How do ordinary people have > > access to legal aid and "Legal aid" and "public defenders" is > > your idea of lawyers who "profit" from the way the "legal > > system" is "set up?" > > > Your grammar is as convoluted and cracked as your reasoning. Sorry you can't read. - Jon Beaver Sorry you can't make a cogent point. As an observer of this exchange, I will say that you are the one not making a point. Seriously. Your one word summations and your unsubstantiated generalizations are not helping to make any sort of point at all.

I concur.

PTRAVEL wrote: "Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message news:d421vk$17r$1@reader1.panix.com... In article <3cidliF6mdg5mU1@individual.net>, PTravel <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote: "Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message news:d40v8r$69q$1@reader1.panix.com... > In article <ttP8e.282$zX7.242@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, > PTRAVEL <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote: > > > Academia issues licenses -- they're called "degrees." > &g