(April 30, 2018 at 8:48 am)Khemikal Wrote: Alot of the stuff that goes to court already is decided by a judge with little to no input from lawyers, but that portion of cases aren't generally seen as examples of people being well represented and getting the best possible outcomes.

(ironically, the judge judy shit has a mess of lawyers, you just don't see them onscreen.  They're the ones that scout small claims and get them into an arbitration agreement before filming)

Um no, the cases from what I understand are decided by her, but it is not a real court. The "arbitration" is to  to agree to let her decide. WHAT most people don't know is the loser does not pay, the show pays. It is basically a game show. Lawyers are involved, but more like Hollywood contracts.

Arbitration is a legal contract. There's a huge amount of things that go to court that either end up in arbitration, elect to expedite, or are done pro se.

None of that matters. What does matter is, is without lawyers, average lay people, like you and I, would always get the short end of the stick where our rights are concerned. You can apply this to literally any aspect of your life. From consumer rights and products to medical malpractice or auto accidents and wrongful employee termination. The list is endless.

Bottom line: whether or not you like them, we need lawyers. Many members of Congress are lawyers. It only stands to make sense that those who uphold the laws should help write them.

OFC we would.  It's never a good idea to represent ourselves. I think the massive uptick in people attempting to do so (or worse, waiving a trial) is unfortunate. It's widely know to be A Bad Idea™... and yet..it's commonplace.

Hey, we all need to go. Remember that dribbling problem you brought up a while back? Just got to go more often.

My daughter-in-law is a Public Defender. Like she said: People don't appreciate lawyers until they need them. If you're really lucky in life you'll never need one. But in the event you do, you'll thank fuck they exist. Because defending yourself may look easy on tv, but real life isn't television.

(April 30, 2018 at 2:26 pm)Khemikal Wrote: It's never a good idea to represent ourselves.

Welll... I'm gonna have to take issue with your 'never' characterization. It's a cost-benefit or expected value analysis like any other. Attorney man tells me I have a coin flip's chance of winning a $50K case, and he's going to charge me $30K to do it, Mr. Attorney Man can go pound sand.

(April 30, 2018 at 3:49 pm)Cathooloo Wrote:

(April 30, 2018 at 2:26 pm)Khemikal Wrote: It's never a good idea to represent ourselves.

Welll... I'm gonna have to take issue with your 'never' characterization.  It's a cost-benefit or expected value analysis like any other.  Attorney man tells me I have a coin flip's chance of winning a $50K case, and he's going to charge me $30K to do it, Mr. Attorney Man can go pound sand.

Except, it hardly ever happens that way. Typically, a potential client will contact a lawyer. The lawyer will then decide if the potential client has a case worth pursuing. If so, then the lawyer will attempt to get the best settlement possible from the other party. Why? Because going to court is the last thing any competent lawyer wants to do. It's expensive for the client, and chances of success are far less likely because you're relying on the opinions of others. Sometimes it's a judge, other times it's a jury, but usually the result is less than what a settlement would garner.

No lawyer will tell you up front "It's going to cost you $X" simply because they don't know. They'll tell you their hourly rate, sure, but the final cost is dependent on what the other side is willing to do, and how far/stubborn the client is. And the lawyer will always give their client a choice when it gets to the tipping point - do you want to take the offered settlement? Do you want to proceed with court? Do you want to go it alone?

(May 1, 2018 at 12:58 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(April 30, 2018 at 3:49 pm)Cathooloo Wrote: Welll... I'm gonna have to take issue with your 'never' characterization.  It's a cost-benefit or expected value analysis like any other.  Attorney man tells me I have a coin flip's chance of winning a $50K case, and he's going to charge me $30K to do it, Mr. Attorney Man can go pound sand.

Except, it hardly ever happens that way.  Typically, a potential client will contact a lawyer.  The lawyer will then decide if the potential client has a case worth pursuing.  If so, then the lawyer will attempt to get the best settlement possible from the other party.  Why?  Because going to court is the last thing any competent lawyer wants to do.  It's expensive for the client, and chances of success are far less likely because you're relying on the opinions of others.  Sometimes it's a judge, other times it's a jury, but usually the result is less than what a settlement would garner.

No lawyer will tell you up front "It's going to cost you $X" simply because they don't know.  They'll tell you their hourly rate, sure, but the final cost is dependent on what the other side is willing to do, and how far/stubborn the client is.  And the lawyer will always give their client a choice when it gets to the tipping point - do you want to take the offered settlement?  Do you want to proceed with court?  Do you want to go it alone?

Actually, in cases like car accidents, a lawyer generally gets 1/3 of the settlement amount, regardless of the amount of time spent on actually doing any work pertaining to the case. That's the standard.

(May 1, 2018 at 12:58 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(April 30, 2018 at 3:49 pm)Cathooloo Wrote: Welll... I'm gonna have to take issue with your 'never' characterization.  It's a cost-benefit or expected value analysis like any other.  Attorney man tells me I have a coin flip's chance of winning a $50K case, and he's going to charge me $30K to do it, Mr. Attorney Man can go pound sand.

Except, it hardly ever happens that way.  [...]

I don't want to be excessively pedantic but I don't see any conflict between 'hardly ever' and 'not never'.