One of the things I have heard loud and clear in my years here is how much people hate lawyers, judges and courts, and how poorly they serve people’s needs. I am in the process of putting together a new venture that creates a private system designed to serve the needs of real people and provide an alternative to resolve disputes that is fast, inexpensive, assures payment of any award and involves NO LAWYERS.
But there’s a problem. Under NY law, it is unlawful to require people to waive their right to be represented by a lawyer. This is what I call the “Full Employment for Lawyers Act.” So while my first choice would simply be to require all participants to appear without lawyers, the law says I can’t. So I need to come up with another way to discourage participants from showing up with lawyer in tow. While the cost of a lawyer would be an inherent disincentive, too many people have uncles, parents, children, siblings who are lawyers who will appear for free. And once one side has a lawyer, the other feels like he needs a lawyer too and the whole concepts collapses.
Why is this so important? Because lawyers will gum up the works. The entire concept depends on people being able to present their positions quickly, simply and on the merits, not on technicalities, or argumentative, or long-winded. A trial should take no more than an hour tops, except that lawyers can’t say hello in less than an hour. The whole system will grind to a halt.
So anybody have any ideas? Just to get the ball rolling, some ideas are to impose an additional fee for people who bring lawyers or prolong the time frame for cases with lawyers. But since this concept is meant for real people, I need to know what real people think. How do I deal with this?
SHG
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
Replies
I'm laughing too hard. I'm no lawyer, but here on BT, about half the threads involve some sort of "if you don't know what you're doing, call a pro" comment, and some warnings about how dangerous it is to do stuff you don't understand; check the codes; etc etc.
And here we go with a "chuck the lawyers, who needs them" thread. After all, anyone can build a house, anyone can be a lawyer. What possible problems could you get into without consulting a lawyer?
Here's a curve ball...
I think SHG is a lawyer. :-)
Personally, I think it's a good idea. I have no earthly idea of how it would be implemented - due to my ignorance of such things.
Scott,
What?! You got no Small Claims Court in NY?
Unless mutually agreed, blah, blah, any party wishing to be represented, blah, blah, shall pay other parties atty's fees.
Then make sure that the offensive party has no choice in the other parties attys' fees
Second idea;
You get a mouth, I'm gonna call my cousin Vinnie, the shoemaker.
Shylock had it right 400 years ago.
" The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers"
edit: Had to go back and look it up-- Dick the Butcher said it not Shylock.
Edited 3/21/2006 8:24 am ET by Boats234
If you read the rest of the play, it will become apparent that Shakespeare was making a pro-lawyer comment.
There are lots of private mediation and arbitration services available to people who don't want to use the court system. One thing to keep in mind is that there is a constitutional right to a jury trial for virtually all contract disputes. As a result, all parties to a dispute need to make knowing and voluntary waivers of their right to seek redress in courts. I suspect a waiver of right to seek counsel in the event of a dispute would be unlikely to be enforced, given the liklihood of one side gaining an unfair advantage.
English law generally provides that the loser to a dispute pays the other side's legal fees. It discourages litigation for sure, but I wouldn't want to be the little guy with a legitimate dispute against Microsoft who is afraid to pursue a claim.
Seriously, most disputes are resolved by people being reasonable. People hire lawyers because they can't resolve a problem by informal negotiations. In my experience, just about every party to a dispute that ends up in the hands of lawyers is convinced he/she is 100% correct and the other side is an idiot/crook. THat sort of position doesn'tl end itself to informal resolution.
i'm all for people attempting to handle their own legal affairs. i am ####lawyer. i just spend two years and earned a nice fee working out a settlement of a succession for a family member who attempted to do donations of property while her spouse was dying. the donations were done improperly and were therefore ineffective. she wrote a check for $150,000 to her spouse's kids, and it could have easily been $300,000.
if she had called me to do the donations, i would have done them for less than $500, and she would not have had to write that big check.
today i'm meeting with an old couple who were selling their printing business for $500,000. no need for lawyers, just let the guy run the company until he raises the money. he drove it into the ground and walked away. the resulting bankruptcy cases were real money makers for lawyers. this is a tough one because i have to tell them i cant do a thing for them.
some professions involve a certain amount of voodoo (auto transmission repair, a/c repair, most law) and if you ain't got the gris-gris, it's better to leave it to someone who does.
why are there mediation and arbitration clauses on comtracts?These are things that theoreticly do not require lawyars.There is a time and a place for using a "pro", but everything shouldn't require one.
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
that's exactly the point, bobl. there are definitely things that require legal expertise, but there are other things that can be better addressed without one, except that lawyers have a culture that believes that you can't do anything without paying them a retainer first. But we need to get past this. The issue is not whether lawyers are good or bad.
Why not small claims court? first, it can take numerous trips, and many hours, to get before a judge or arbitrator. second, people can still use lawyers. third, people are treated like cattle. fourth, even if you get an award, you still have to collect it. If you can't collect, then the whole thing was a complete waste of time.
Arbitration clauses in contracts don't preclude lawyers per se, and most arbitration, while faster and less expensive then regular litigation, is still expensive, lengthy.
So no novel idea here?
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
I am both a lawyer - former prosecutor for the State of Michigan - and now a Judge for the same governmental system. While most of my time is spent dealing with criminal cases we do litigate the ocassional civil case. First, the quote from Shylock is taken out of context. The actual quote is: "If you want total colapse of society you must first kill all the lawyers."
I would suspect that if a client refused to pay you for construction of a home, or a faulty tool removed one of your hands or even if an engineer improperly calculated stress/load and the second story of a building fell on you causing you permanent bodily disfiguremnet you would see a lawyer. Imagine your dismay if the tool company says sure we knew the tool was faulty but so what - here is a small amount of money and too bad you cannot sue us because the manual says NO LAWYERS. Its the way it should be?Any idea why lawnmowers have panic bars on them or why Ford must put ABS systmes in cars - lawyers.I finally thought I found a site on the internet dedicated to building and the crafts associated with that prefession. I am tired of lawyer bashing from the folks who least understand THEIR legal syatem. Sick and tired of large judgements? Its the juries who hand them out - the plumbers and carpenters who represent the people as members of the jury who make the decisions - not the lawyers or the judge.Enough from me - I will find another site somewhere on the net that really does talk about building things. I enjoyed learning what I could here at Taunton (SP?) Maybe the 'Family Handiman" has a site? Wish me luck - I am starting a bathroom job for relaxation and personal acomplishment - could have used the help.Mike C.
und76xx
Member Since: Feb-9
Posts: 13you haven't been on this site long enough to know what it is about.Frankly, you don't understand this site and the COMMUNITY that "lives" here.
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
Apparently not. As my kids say, "My bad." My ex is a Doctor - talk about a dislike of lawyers. And not just me.Mike C.
well judge mike, you've probably done a whole lot more to harm the perception of judges and courts in one post than you could have possibly imagined. Since we're off the record here, a few things you should know. There are quite a few lawyers here (and even some docs), many still practicing. And many who didn't enjoy the benefit of a government pay check their whole careers, and had to deal with the misery inflicted on real people by the system. There are also quite a few carps here who are shockingly pretty sharp. Go figure, all the geniuses in the world didn't become lawyers.
Apparently, you needed a chance to rant (temperament, temperament). Now that you got that out, take a look back and you'll see rampant assumption, bias and arrogance. Ironic that you assume that the people here are too stupid to be capable of resolving their own disputes, but you're smart enough to renovate your own bathroom.
If you didn't like this thread, then don't read it. If you don't like breaktime, then don't come here. But if you feel like hanging around, take the robes off and learn what real people think without the attitude.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
C'mon SHG make up your mind.....Do you want to get rid of lawyers or not?
1 silly lawyer joke got und76xx doing his wounded bird, woe is me, attitude packing his bags and holding his breath.
1 joke = 1 lawyer out the door--- dam efficient if ya ask me.
But don't go inviting him back if you really don't want him;)
aw, if it was always that easy.
all my friends love lawyer jokes. And once they come you can never get rid of them.
we need a plan B
Alternative Dispute Resolution is already a multimillion dollar industry. The parties to a dispute will engage the servcies of a mediator to assist them in resolving their dispute. However, any party is free to end the process and engage an attorney. This is as far as you can go. It is impossible to require people not to use an attorney to resolve a dispute. No court would ever enforce an agreement to that effect. If people are willing to attempt to resolve a legal dispute without the benefit of counsel, that is fine. However, there is no legal inspector who is going to come around and say that you did something wrong and you must correct it. A party might be entitled to double or triple damages but agree to accept much less due to ignorance of the law. Lawyers exist for the same reasons that electricians, plumbers and other tradesmen exist-they are necessary. Some people are capable of educating themselves and doing things on their own. However, some people do not have the desire or ability to figure things out on their own. SHG, I suggest you consult an attorney regarding the legality of your proposed venture.
"SHG, I suggest you consult an attorney regarding the legality of your proposed venture."Scott,
think AndyC knows a good attorney in your neck of the woods.;)
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
lol. yeah. he meant well.
My ex is a Doctor - talk about a dislike of lawyers. And not just me
Your Honor, that is among the funniest things I have read in a long while--not just for its basic humanity, but also a certain amount of self-depricating humility.
It can be hard for the humble to trumpet their own success--by definition. For judges in elected office, humilty almost seems to be contra-indicated (and we just went through a primary season with "open season" on the foilbles & lacks of some folks in desparate need . . . )
Now, back to our topic, though. I'm more than pretty sure SHG's intent was not that we should abolish lawyers. We will always need professionals in any practice as complicated as law. What thoughts do you have on some of the less-ideal ways that this is accomplished in civil (I'm presuming civil was SHG's intent) cases?
You do raise a good point about DIY "lawyering" being no better in many ways than DIY GC-ing. But there are 'opposite' parallels, too, are there not?Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
>>"Wish me luck - I am starting a bathroom job for relaxation and personal acomplishment - could have used the help."
I have two things to say and I am sincere:
1. I wish you the best of luck with your project.
2. b' by.
Oh, and I am a lawyer (no longer practice), so I have to add one last thing:
http://www.diynetwork.com/
(C'mon man. Don't take yourself so seriously. If we lawyers had more fun and a better sense of humor, who knows . . . .) ;-)
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
Edited 3/21/2006 9:35 am ET by philarenewal
(C'mon man. Don't take yourself so seriously. If we lawyers had more fun and a better sense of humor, who knows . . . .) ;Thanks for the advice. The only things I take seriously are my golf game - love to someday learn how to play better - my criminal cases - no humor in a child's homicide - and of course I take seriously advice from former lawyers. Oh! - and Michigan beating ND in the NIT last night. That was serious.I did not know that if I respond to an e-mail that I had to follow certain rules or a specific style. How about I read and ask questions in the future? That may be the way to go.Thanks for the words of encouragement and the alternate site. GO BLUE
I had to follow certain rules or a specific style
You don't. But look at the facts your honor. You're dealing with people where you can't see their facila expressions or body language, can't hear the inflections in their voices. It's all in black and white.
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
>>"Thanks for the words of encouragement and the alternate site."
Uh . . . you don't know this yet but referring you to the DIY site was actually kind of an insult.
I think you'll do fine around here. Nobody gives a crap that you are a judge. Keep that in mind and you'll do fine.
And we like to poke fun at people, including ourselves; keep that in mind too and you'll do fine.
pax vobiscum (or as the judge I clerked for first year out used to quip, pox vobiscum -- now he was a character . . . . ;-)
Oh, and before I forget, I and some of the other "former lawyers" aren't "former" lawyers any more than you are. Some of us don't practice law anymore. What a coincidence, neither do you. ;-)
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
Edited 3/21/2006 11:53 am ET by philarenewal
Your Honor,
Good to see you here and welcome. Perhaps you can contribute from time to time. Somebody might have a question on construction litigation or such. Diversity of expertise never hurts a forum.
I am in the minority, but I do not resent lawyers one bit. I actually enjoy a little DIY lawyering for fun and relaxation. Years ago I defeated an Oakland County (MI) Asst. Prosecutor in a jury trial. Represented myself. That AP is now a District Court Judge. It was a lot of fun and as satisfying as a flawless bathroom floor will be for you.
Just curious, are there any forums of a legal nature where non-pros are allowed (similar to this one for construction)? We give a lot of free advice to HOs here, just wondering if other professions do also.
And in case you can't tell, no, there is no sarcasm in any of the above, guys.
DG/Builder
Now I am humbled. Thanks for the responses and here on this site I am not 'Your Honor' or anything even close to that. Its just - Mike. I have many ideas on how to change our overly litigious society but not at the expense of the less fortunate. The maxum that the litigant that is not successful must pay often hurts the poor or less lucrative businesses. Our Small Claims Division was intended to offer a resolution for cases where the monetary stakes were minimal and the legal issues straight forward. It has been mis-used by many. Collection agents, family disputes and friends seeking revenge is on ocassion how the theory is given a bad name. With some thought I am sure a method can be authored where fairness prevails and attorneys are absent. I would be in favor of any such system that takes pressure off the already overwhelmed court docket.I am neither an attorney advocate or basher. After being yelled at all day by 'professionals' who feel each word earns them another dollar - or worse - he who talks last wins I love to work on my house. But I also have to be careful there because I could eaisly reduce its resale value because of poor workmanship. I have blown things up - I got a sawsall (sp?) and cut things that should never be messed with and I have removed most of one finger. So I am a hack at wood related things. But this site helps - alot.That all said, please, I am not political or argumentative - just a guy trying to figure out what yellow and orage means in an e-mail. (I think it Dewalt and ???)Mike C
>>"just a guy trying to figure out what yellow and orage means in an e-mail. (I think it Dewalt and ???)"
Okay Mike, let me be another to welcome you to our sandbox. I think you got one of the best initiations I've seen. I bet you'll have a lot of fun here, learn a lot, make some friends and find yourself addicted to it.
To retain the ability to count to ten on your fingers if you haven't used a lot of power tools before, maybe wouldn't hurt to invest in some tool use videos or books. Taunton press has plenty as does any good bookstore.
Same with any project. You mentioned tile. Good example. Get a video that actually shows you someone who knows what they're doing actually doing it. It ain't rocket science, but there are a lot of tricks and things you need to think about to obtain a good result. Most important thing in most things is simply experience. Knowing what effect doing "this" has on the end result is what gets good results. Again, it ain't rocket science, but you won't know what all the "this's" are until you actually make the mistakes and learn the hard way, or carefully observe someone do it and ask yourself why it's done that way.
Another helpful technique -- buy extra materials (over and above the recommended extra for any job) the first couple of times you try something new. If you mess something up, it's a lot easier to throw away a couple of pieces of whatever and try again if you have extra materials on hand. If you don't there's more of a tendency to make due.
Be patient and pay attention to detail. You're a judge -- you're already all over that.
Last but not least, yes, yellow is Dewalt and for you orange is Harbor Freight. For us orange is Ridgid. I couldn't resist. ;-)
Be well.
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
just a guy trying to figure out what yellow and orage means in an e-mail. (I think it Dewalt and ???)
Probably; 'orange' equals the B&D firewhootzit brand--I'm guessing.
Green would likely be Ryobi; blue Makita, red or big red is Milwaukee. PC is Porter Cable.
Every trade, profession, or skill develops its own specific patois, its own terms-of-art. It is alleged (with some equal validity) that this is to either impart precise and exact meanings; or to just obsfucate it for e'erybody else.
Then we pile all that here, up 'over' a certain amount of technological barrier, and that precision gets redefined by a number of underappreciated wits <g>. You ever feel like the fog has cleared, and it all makes sense, just ask this crowd about "black diamonds" . . . [wicked, evil, naughty, grail-shaped-beacon lighting, Zoot!]Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Green would likely be Ryobi; blue Makita, red or big red is Milwaukee. PC is Porter Cable.
Have you noticed Bosch is always "Bosch"
Phat
Never underestimate your ability to overestimate your ability
Have you noticed Bosch is always "Bosch"
Same as Panasonic is always Panasonic.
And PC is not "grey."
Logic--who dat?Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Mike - A week or so ago, you questioned what "Orange" means in a thread. Probably a reference to Home Depot, but I would need to see the context. "Blue" could mean either the tool co, or Lowes, or one of our own -"Blue Eyed Devil". Again, need context.
Since you've been officially initiated, have you considered coming to Tipifest? Meet SHG in person and lots of others too...
Don K.
EJG Homes Renovations - New Construction - Rentals
hey Don, if Mike comes we can hold tipi court.
maybe we can try Buck for crimes against humanity...
of piffin for screw abuse...
or depot for unnatural acts with a hammer...
the possibilities are endless.
Easy - its Monday morning and the 1st day of Spring Break and to make everyone happy this government type is hard at work for the people - not somewhere warm and sunny. Most civil disputes in my mind fall into two catagories - One, the true 'victim' who has a right to $$$ because of some unfair action. ie - the lumber delivered looks more like a bow than a 2x4 and the lumber yard refuses to cooperate. Both will bring experts, both will claim the other is a deadbeat and never tells the truth and both will cliam truth and the American way are on their side. I have actually heard University type scientists tell juries that DNA evidence is nothing more than smoke and mirrors - and have excellent credentials to say just that - what a travesity. Two, the other cases are prinicple cases. I am right because I go to church evey Sunday and you do not. Therefore the heavens are on my side and who then could be against me. These are a mess because unless 'you' win the world is an unfair place.The color stuff was about tools. Yellow I found out was DeWalt and orange/red Mikwakee. Maybe I'm right now? Anyway I think I know which tools to look at and those to ignore but before I buy I will ask this thread - strange name - thread.And one last thing - what is a TIPI? Never heard of it so I am reluctant to attend since I have a feeling I might not leave alive.By the way - I have UCLA tonight against two teenage boys and bragging rights. I may not know yellow and red but I do know blue and yellow.Mike
And one last thing - what is a TIPI? Never heard of it so I am reluctant to attend since I have a feeling I might not leave alive.
fear of the unknown? tsk, tsk, tsk. Into the valley of death rode the 600...
and you're right about experts, not to mention the impact experts have on juries no matter what kind of junk science they're trying to pass off.
That's why AIA, who tend to view themselves on a higher plane than the guys with hammers, see themselves as the "experts" and they're decisions are endorsed by god. I'm sure you know the debate better than I do. But it's like arguing religion. If someone's a true believer, that's the end of the story.
Tipi is the image for this year's breaktime fest because Andy, our host this year, has an actual teepee on his property. Nothing too scary...unless you go inside...which is where we can hold our trial...
Yellow I found out was DeWalt and orange/red Mikwakee.
Mike:
Red is Milwakee.
Orange is Ridgid. To each his own but I've started buying some Ridgid tools and I like 'em. Many of 'em have gotten very good reviews in the comparos. Great guarantee too.
http://www.ridgid.com/Tools/Power-Tools/index.htm
"Let's get crack-a-lackin" --- Adam Carolla
Edited 4/3/2006 10:20 am ET by philarenewal
"what is a TIPI?"as SHG said it is this years main breaktime fest.philisopicly it is like the original olympics, everyonr puts aside (kinda) their diferences and gets together for a fun time.often includs shop talk (building) and demos etcif you go to the fest folder you can see threads on what happened (at least what the public is allowed to see)at former fests.the first fest was held by someone who was candidate for governor of Ohio.
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
yur honer, has anyone invited you into the tavern yet? -
if not, click here 62823.74 and request access -
"there's enough for everyone"
The possibilities ARE endless, but I'll warn you in advance I am not going into that tipi with Gunner (unless he's the bailiff). That guy scares me. :-)
I'll reserve my right to object to anybody else until I meet them.
Don K.
EJG Homes Renovations - New Construction - Rentals
better sense of humor? do you mean like lawyer jokes? there's actually only two lawyer jokes. the rest of those stories are true.
the truth of the matter is a certain percentage of clients think they are entitled to have whatever it is that they want (right or wrong). they also think that hiring a lawyer guarantees the result they want, regardless of law, facts or just common sense. i usually weed those out by telling them "if you want to go to war, i'm your guy. but when the smoke clears, two people will win really big and two will lose. i'm going to make a fat fee for going to war for you, and his lawyer will too. neither of the parties will likely recover enough to even pay his lawyer."
the ones with common sense will see how much "the principle" will cost them and they get smart and work to resolve the case.
Okay - this is my last post on this issue! I know, I know - GOOD. I am not in any regard trying to imply that all smart people are lawyers or that all lawyers are smart - or ethical. Its simply not that way. I do know one thing in life - the world's conflicts are better resolved on a handshake than litigation. But alas that method is not followed in real life.By NO means did I intend to offend anyone - either my radial arm saw or you folks here in this forum. (I am afraid of the saw after all) But I do take exception to not visit the tavern - where am I to go for my libation after my tile floor looks crooked? I have learned a lot here, from stuffing white bread in a copper pipe to sweat solder a leaky pipe to now when to keep my thoughts to myself. I will use both to my advantage.I am not sure I am coddled by the government, however. Even though I have always been on 'public pay' I do take seriously my profession and try to do my best day-to-day.Now for a question on how to repair a bathroom - just kidding.
now that's better. Go over to the tavern. First one's on me.
>>"I have learned a lot here, from stuffing white bread in a copper pipe to sweat solder a leaky pipe to now when to keep my thoughts to myself"
Don't keep your thoughts to yourself. You took your lumps here like a trooper.
It's all in good fun. Let us dole you out a few more lumps.
Before you know it, you'll be doling out lumps too.
As you know too well, to get anywhere in this world you do have to take your lumps and pay some dues. I had so much fun with that, you've got some pretty good "dues"credit on my ledger at least.
pax vobiscum
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
>>"the truth of the matter is a certain percentage of clients think they are entitled to have whatever it is that they want (right or wrong)."
Too true, and it's true in every business. The secret trick is the same in every business too. RUN, do not walk away from clients like that. The advantage we have in the construction field is that we can often afford to do that (actually can't afford not to do that). Most of the time legal profession is stuck with difficult clients for a number of reasons. When I was a young lawyer, an associate in a big firm, a client asked for something especially, shall we say, nasty. One of the partners told me to tell the client that if the client wanted him as nothing more than a tool (in a vigorously contested litigation), then the client could look elsewhere for representation. I always had a lot of respect for that guy. And the client did back down.
Very much the same in your story. Sure, lawyers are lawyers and our oath to the profession and to the clients is often misunderstood (especially the obligation of zealous representation), but the blood's still red and are actually pretty decent people (for the most part). Anyone who thinks they want a souless automaton deserves what they get (in fees up the wazoo a well).
Anyway, had a lot of fun with that judge. Now back to serious business -- help make SHG rich so he can take us all for a ride on that yacht. ;-)
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
Now back to serious business -- help make SHG rich so he can take us all for a ride on that yacht. ;-)
YES! YES! YES!
wipe yer feet before getting on the yacht.
Like your ex, I am also a doctor. But unlike your ex, I don't hate lawyers. I think they, just like doctors, provide an invaluable service. But I think we rely on them too much. I don't want to take care of every cold, those are things that can be handled by patients themselves. And I think that there are many things that could be handled by alternative means in a way that could be more fair."Sick and tired of large judgements? Its the juries who hand them out - the plumbers and carpenters who represent the people as members of the jury who make the decisions - not the lawyers or the judge."Yes, but anytime the suggestion is made to alter the system to prevent these, it is the lawyers at the forefront of the opposition. As a group, they are happy with these types of judgements. Just as I think the medical profession should (and does) reassess how we do things, I think that the legal system should look at alternative ways to manage conflicts in a fair, cost effective way. Just because something has always been done one way (jury trials) doesn't mean that it is the most effective way possible.
John
PS Welcome to breaktime. If you spend some time here, you will get all the advice you want (and some you don't want). And if you don't want to discuss these types of issues, stay out of the Tavern and the Business section.
I am starting a bathroom job for relaxation
It probably won't be relaxing
and personal acomplishment
It can be very rewarding
- could have used the help
We'll be here. It's your choice to leave, not ours.
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
Mike, don't be too quick to judge this site.
LOL.
blue
it already feels better in here... i couldn't put my finger on it but now that he fessed up....
mike let me know if you find a site that likes lawyers... it'd be a good place to avoid....
I think if you read all the post here there are far more that say "get a lawyer or consult a lawyer" than ones that bash lawyers...
most civil cases usually come down to a few basic things
someone place'n trust where they shouldn't have...
Greed
and the unexpected....
people want the courts to work for them and make them whole... as we all know one persons truth needs to be more compelling than another person truth...
I know it's harder now but chapter 7 , 11, & 13 are all pretty much jokes... I have yet to ever hear a judge ask "so what did you do with the money"
p
people want the courts to work for them and make them whole... as we all know one persons truth needs to be more compelling than another person truth...
true dat.
well, guess i have to ask some gusetions.
what is this to cover?
i assume civil matters, but what kind? Isn't there a diiference between various types of civil matters? contracts, estates, trusts, etc.
Would this involve gov'ts as parties?
It would be nice to do a lot without going to court, things like landlord-tenant disputes, wills, estatews, etc, contract disputes.
Someone mentioned small claims court. would this system be able to have teeth, small claims in my experience (30 yrs ago) has none. (judgement in my favor, kinda, but lots of trouble to collect and got less than my judgement because I decided not to take the constable to court too.
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
very good questions, but this isn't the place for details. The question isn't about the underlying idea, but about how to deal with the lawyer issue.
"but about how to deal with the lawyer issue."my impression is that there are times when the lawyers make the disagreemnet into a problem.Maybe a place that is a mediation/arbitration/legal advice to both parties place.the last part being someplace that explains to both parties what the law means to the situation without trying to advocate one sides stance and what they "can get", explaining the complexity or noncomplexity of the situation so they can decide what to pursue. and offering a mediation/arbitration place, or even a small claims situation.what concerns me though is sometimes these things try to satisfy both sides somewhat and one side maybe totally in the wrong.
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
I have relatives who are lawyers, and relatives who are doctors. I personally was saved a huge amount of headaches by making sure our house contract was reviewed by our lawyer....because our contract declared bankruptcy, and handed us 12 liens.
If you need a lawyer, you need a good one. The trick is knowing when you need one.
>>"provide an alternative to resolve disputes that is fast, inexpensive, assures payment of any award and involves NO LAWYERS."
Hey SHG, I practiced law for a dozen years before getting into construction, and I got to tell you, if you can do what you have set out here, the world will beat a path to your door. I started in litigation where we would have to fight tooth and nail on issues as certain as the color of the sky, for weeks on end. It was incredibly boring and pointless. Quickly moved to corporate law where the focus was getting the deal done.
If you can get people in who want to get the deal done, get the dispute resolved, and move on, you've got it made. My experience, that's the challenge, which I bet you can overcome.
I regularly hear astounding things about what non-lawyers think the law provides on a given point. Most lawyers and judges can't agree on the finer points of applicable law but at least they're playing the same game in the same ballpark for the easy stuff. Get a bunch of non-lawyers fighting over a contract or payment issue and most of the time, they're not playing on the same planet. It can be very tough to get people to come to resolution when that's the starting point.
To add to that, when personalities are involved (HO vs. GC, GC vs. sub), the lawyer becomes just another tool to act out their personal aggressions. Not having the lawyer won't dissolve the aggression.
So I think your idea will work whether you can keep lawyers out or not. If the parties want to resolve their differences in an expeditious, cost efficient way, they come to your service. If they want to waste a fortune pizzing on each other, the courtroom doors are always open.
What I've seen done in my town is a firm somewhat similar to what you describe has retired judges as decision makers. Makes the service more marketable, and appears to satisfy the parties that they're getting a fair shake from someone who knows the ropes. Keeping the lawyers out -- I don't see a way to do it reliably if the dispute gets into numbers big enough that the parties want to pay for your service. But I don't think you necessarily need to do that to make your idea work.
Anyway, when you get the business up and running and make $$$ bazillions, will you invite all of us for a ride on your yacht? ;-)
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
Well, I can see a bunch of problems in trying to compel people to act without legal counsel--at, at least the intellectual level.
But, your point is still valid, lawyers can "gum up the works."
The resons for that are complex. One is that the world of the courts operates in its own, "insulated" if you will, world--which it rather "has to" to be part of our style of jurisprudence. Another is that the "adversarial" nature of our legal system means attorneys are pretty much required to shoot every arrow in their quivvers--even the picayune, lame, delaying, frustrating ones.
We will leave entirely aside the whole "industry" of ticket dissmissal through artifice & delay--a pratice that, while legal, certainly seems to stretch morality. That's a topic worth it's own thread.
The "rise" of arbitration was supposed to be a way to get around what was seen as a certain amount of barratry (and that, two and more decades ago). Sadly, one needs an "arbitration lawyer" anymore to ensure one does not "give away the store" (or leave yourself open to lawsuits even after successful arbitration).
I can't endorse "loser pays" as that unfairly heaps financial burdens on those least able to pay (right or wrong).
It's my thinking that what we likely need are two things we are not likely to get. One would be to have a "truth in advertising" rule on fees and costs for trial lawyers. That's tricky, as lawyers do have legitimate business costs to recoup--but taking on "no retainer/no fee unless you win" cases for 2/3 the awarded judgement does start to "push the envelope" a bit.
The second thing would be to get the "average citizen" better educated on what the law is. To better teach the hard, often cruel, difference between "right" and "just."
Note that I see no hope in what might be the best answer of all--simplifying the various Codes. First off there's a group with more power than even the slimiest portions of TLA--the endless array of bureaucrats who have to generate some reason for their own existence. (Insisting on competence in public employees would create an unemployment crisis of epidemic proportions.)
Ok, so it's easy for me to be flippant. But, I need only browse through the summary versions of the various Texas Codes to find contradictory complusions in almost any business venture. Which do I comply with? When almost any activity might be illegal, how does one evade scofflawry?
(The rise of clearly premeditated and willfull scofflawry is yet another that needs its own thread.)
Perhaps what we need is a bigger (for want of a better term) JP-style court. You and the "other guy" show up and make your case. The judge gets to do the Solomon thing. One side or the other don't like it, you take it up to a higher court--but, you (the offended party) have to do the leg work to get someone to put the case on the docket. That kind of stands civil practice on its ear--so that may not be the most elegant answer. Hmm. This is tough.
I no little about the legal system, but is what you're proposing something like arbitration?
it's funny, cause I was hoping that everybody would help me with one little aspect of this and instead everybody is focusing on the big picture, which I really can't address here.
When this happens, you guys will be the first to know all about it. It's legal, it's functional, almost all the issues/questions/problems that people have raised here are fully addressed, and it's something that will fill a huge void. We've put a lot of time and thought into this to make it really serve its purpose well.
Just this one little problem with lawyers...
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
Anything that might contribute to a reduction in litigation without impinging on the rights of those truly wronged is a step in the right direction. Good luck and keep us posted.
will do. thanks.
"Just this one little problem with lawyers..."Ok, so what do lawyers bring to the table?
ability to write or speak persuasivly?
knowledge of all the various laws and decsisions that apply to a specific situation?
paint a word picture based on facts (truth?), the words used to describe something can paint different pictures while all being "true".so when are these things a significant factor, and when are they not?
when is a principle more important than the money?-+
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
<<Just this one little problem with lawyers...>>
Pistols at 10 paces?
>>"Just this one little problem with lawyers..."
Can we go at this another way?
The problem with lawyers is they will advise their clients to avoid a forum without lawyers.
So, is there a way to deal with that?
(1) focus on a market where people would not consult with lawyers anyway (sounds kinda low end -- don't think that's what you're looking for)
or
(2) Motivate the lawyers to advise their clients otherwise. (possible for the "midrange" stuff where the best advice to the client is to work it out without wracking up a huge legal bill -- I think this could actually work. The client could choose to either spend on the lawyer, or use your service to work it out. The client's waiver of the lawyer would be (a) after the dispute arose; and (b) after consultation with legal counsel; and (c) voluntary; thus knowing and voluntary).
or
(3) Motivate the clients to ignore their lawyer's advice. (bad idea -- you'd have the bar lobbing grenades at you all day long).
Looks like all I can come up with is go after the "midrange" type disputes where a lawyer's best advice to the client is to work it out without wracking up a huge legal bill. You would likely also need to have prior agreement on an ad hoc limits to any award (or low/high type agreement) so the lawyer could fulfill his/her obligations to the client in giving that advice (like, "if the award were limited to $50k at a maximum, it will cost you more than that to even get to trial, so here's an option you might want to consider, etc."). This would work for big firm big clients where keeping the client's total legal needs in house is more important than making the next buck off one case. They could send some of the smaller disputes to you, keep their client's legal budget down, and everyone is happy.
Now about that yacht ride.
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
Let's assume that people with lawyers at the outset aren't the intended universe. Problem is that they can still show up with a lawyer at trial, and they can't legally (or more to the point, effectively) waive counsel after the dispute arises but before the trial. That's NY law.
One of the basic premises was "no lawyers allowed." Do we change that to "no lawyers needed?" Or is there another solution? Again, assume arguendo that lawyers will gum up a variety of other aspects of the process.
So we exclude the lawyer crowd from the outset by definition: How do we keep people from showing up with little cousin Johnny, the new freebie lawyer?
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
Well, you've provided a difficult problem so I'm going to have to examine your initial premise.
I think it's a difficult problem because even saying "no lawyers needed" will have the bar all over you like ants on honey. It might work for a while, but long term, I don't see it flying. It works for doc. prep. services (low cost divorce, bankruptcy type stuff) because it's sold as just doc. prep. and there's no conflict of interest issues between anyone.
Maybe something will come to me but getting at your initial premise, I understand you saying you can't waive having a lawyer before trial even after a dispute has arisen (consumer protection at it finest, I'm sure). Is there any wiggle room in there. You're not providing a trial and presumably no suit has yet been filed. Is it that you can't waive having a lawyer for anything (even signing a contract?)? I could see where it would make sense to apply it across the board. You can't waive having a lawyer, OK.
The best I can do is to try a finesse approach and say that a prerequisite to using the service is you show up without a lawyer. You're not waiving your right to a lawyer, but by choosing the service you are choosing to resolve your dispute without one. If you choose to use your lawyer, you have that right, but get lost and go somewhere else. The purpose of the service is to level the playing field for those who can't afford or do not wish to pay for a lawyer, so you choose not to bring one. It might work, I don't know NY law. It starts to sound a lot like a waiver.
It's a tough needle to thread 'cause I think if you promote "you don't need a lawyer" the bar is all over you. If you promote "if you don't want a lawyer, choose us," then the bar has less of an argument, but then it starts looking like a waiver.
So far, that's the best I can do.
Good luck.
We all still want that yacht ride.
"A job well done is its own reward. Now would you prefer to make the final payment by cash, check or Master Card?"
that's pretty much where I've been struggling. I'm not too worried about pissing off the bar, but there's no wiggle room on the waiver and if I condition use on proceeding pro se, I fear it will be deemed coercive and a de facto waiver. Either way, I'm screwed.
It will be promoted for pro se litigants, but I'm still left with the problem. Thanks for your help. You musta been a he11 of a lawyer. Which explains why you got out.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
To resolve problems without lawyers is a noble dream. That said remember the pro-se client is often the most difficult to deal with. Example: You slide on some black ice in your 1992 very beat-up Jeep Cherokee and wipe out the CEO of a large financial institutions' 2006 Lexus. He is upset - of course - and wants your hide as his seat cover. You as a young man take things in stride and worry only about getting to swim practice so you do not have to do extra laps. So you joke with your buddies and the CEO blows a gasket - the one that has fallen to the street as a result of the once beautiful Lexus engine spewing out its guts. The Jeep driver? - my 19 yr old son. I have spent more time than I care to admit trying to apologize for the nasty looking Lexus and trying to explain how a Jeep can survive and drive away without a problem. Unfair? Yes. But it is just very difficult to expalin some that some things in the cosmos just happen and that is that. He wants lawyers involved. His choice. My point is simply often the self-rep wants what is fair and what is just may be in direct conflict. A difficult emotional concept when it comes to a man's horse. (It was a BEAUTIFUL auto)So when I buy a tool do I go yellow, Big Red or Ryobi? I need a mitre box and a portable drill.Thanks, Mike C
"So when I buy a tool do I go yellow, Big Red or Ryobi? "point of orderyellow and Ryobi are not used in the same sentence with "tool".
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
I think we need to keep lawyers around for a while. They, along with mother in-laws are one of the few groups where we are still allowed to make jokes about !!!
SHG,
I think this is an interesting concept, but let me suggest something that I would see as being quite useful, and would avoid lawyers, courts, arbitration, etc. -- at least, initially -- and still be very powerful.
It seems to me that most disputes usually can be decided by having an accurate, clear-headed view of the situation, judged by someone who actually understands construction, reasonable trade standards, etc. I imagine that for most arbitrators or judges, the issue is trying to determine which expert witness is most credible.
Imagine an INDEPENDENT expert analysis, paid for equally by both parties, created before attorneys even get involved (even if they were, it wouldn't matter, since the impartial analysis is only an investigation into FACTS, not law), which produced a very powerful and persuasive report, similar to a court ruling, perhaps with recommendations for settlement. This would not be a court alternative, but rather a first step before any other legal proceedings occurred.
I believe that such a report/ruling would be VERY effective as future evidence should the participants decide to take the dispute further, which would likely be unnecessary since the parties would have a pretty good indication of where they each stand. It would encourage quick settlement, be unthreatening, and could be incorporated contractually as part of the required dispute resolution process.
I imagine that if such a service had a good reputation, it would carry a lot of weight with judges, and head off much potential litigation.
Edited 4/2/2006 2:12 pm ET by RichardAIA
there are experts involved in every phase of disputes, and they always carry the same two problems.
First, people who hold themselves out to be experts often aren't.
Second, experts disagree. All the time. And each one is absolutely certain that he's right and the other one is wrong. All the time.
For many disputes, the issue has nothing to do with "expertise", whatever that may be. It has to do with reaching a fair conclusion between two reasonable yet contradictory positions.
But I digress, since this "expert" thing has nothing whatsoever to do with the thread.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
Well, my point was that using a single NEUTRAL source for fact-finding and judgment (which would hopefully include construction "expertise" as well), rather than competing "experts", each hired by adversaries, would be a way around dealing with lawyers, and perhaps provide a valuable alternative to the court system. I thought that was the point of this whole thread.
Sorry. I was under the impression that you were looking for creative solutions.
So in NY a contract signed by two parties that specifies arbitration is not valid? The limit for small claims (no lawyers) in Colorado in $5,000 and it has to be a "money claim". If one party hires an attorney it goes to county court (because lawyers cannot appear in Small Claims) but the rules of small claims court prevail in the higher court. I am aware of an arbitration firm in Denver that engages former judges (mostly appeals court judges) but it is the delay in the public courts that generally pushes people to the arbitration firm even when not specified in their contract. What is the statute or rule requiring lawyers? I'd like to look it up. PS. I'm not a lawyer but have spent many years in criminal courts when I was a cop (nobody likes them either). Tyr
Someone very kindly got me in the 'Tavern' for discussion and before I could have my first beer the room disappeared from my screen. Is this a hint or am I doing something wrong in this vast electron environment that Al Gore invented?TYR - Do not know much about CO courts but here in MI Small Claims is limited to damages under $3000.00. Attorneys cannot appear unless it is their own case. Corporations can appear but usually choose the regular court docket. Besides no attorneys the SC decision is final - that is you give up your constitutional right to appeal. That scares some folks. On the face of it SC looks like an excellent idea. However, as we discussed before it is 'small claims' and full of 'large expectations'. Lots of never married 'spouses' use SC to get divorces - divide up the property and credit card bills. Its the only avenue available. Lots of Docs use it to collect bills. Credit Unions to collect for unpaid car loans.I like cops just fine. Its the speeding tickets I hate.Mike
Someone very kindly got me in the 'Tavern' for discussion and before I could have my first beer the room disappeared from my screen. Is this a hint or am I doing something wrong in this vast electron environment that Al Gore invented?
the tavern remains anchored at the very bottom of the folders at the left - scroll down and see if it's not there -
"there's enough for everyone"
I did scroll down - yesterday it was there. Today - poof its gone. Why? Have I been bounced for bad behavior?Mike
hmmm...guess this place must have standards...
who woulda ever guessed?
just a joke - yurhonorsir -
prospero (this forum software) has its glitches -
let's go back to the 'tavern' thread and have SYSOP figure it out -
"there's enough for everyone"
Start a thread in General titled
What judges wear under their robe.
that will get you access to the Tavern when they move it
or will get you a "time out"
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
All set with Tavern access.
So, you don't want to know what they wear under their robes?
bobl Volo, non valeo
Baloney detecter
I for a fact know - they wear a 'tool' belt. One big enough for a power drill - cordless of course. I have not miz-behaved since my word lashing when I first arrived on this site. I have thought about it though - just read a thread about the Canadian health care system as compared to the US - and how muich better it is in Canada. I kept quiet so I can be trained even though I am an old dog.So what does a carpenter wear under his hammer?Mike
"I have thought about it though - just read a thread about the Canadian health care system as compared to the US - and how muich better it is in Canada. I kept quiet so I can be trained even though I am an old dog."Jump in, the water's fine. All viewpoints are welcome, even when they're wrong or from a lawyer (or is that the same)? :)
John
Okay - so here goes:
1. The health care system in America does need some type of Federal regulation. Its costs to consumers far exceeds the rate of inflation. Availability to some is subpar and often too expensive and therefore unavailable. That said:2. It is expensive, in part, because of the quality of the product. May of the procedures and treatments are the result of years and years of research and development. That comes at a certain expense. There is no Mayo Clinic or Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Canada. There will not be one in the near future. It is left to those countires with deep pockets and the University structure to supply the expertise.3. To fund and manage a health care system to cover 100 people requires a certain orginization. Increase the client load to say 1 million and it is staggering what changes need to be made. Compare that to the population of Canada vs US.4. We have very different population demographics here that do not exist in Canada. I have read what the statistics say but then there of course are "lies, great big lies and staistics".5. Perhaps this is the most important point - when I went to U of Michigan many very sick folks would appear for treatment - sent by hospitals not capable of treatment. Some were from Canada. I never knew of any patient sent to a hospital in Canada from U of M hospital becuase of better equipement or better docs.That said - I am not critical of Canada. I am not saying they are medically stupid. State-of-the-art is expensive - in tools and in medical care. BUT we do need to do something - just not model it after other countries with vastly different problems and citizens.Be careful what you wish for - any Federal response will be liking shooting a rabit with a cannon.Mike
I understand what you're saying. It's too bad those Canadians can't have real health care. I know you're not critical of them, but your " There is no Mayo Clinic or Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Canada. There will not be one in the near future. It is left to those countires with deep pockets and the University structure to supply the expertise" comment shows just how little you know about the system.
Enjoy the Tavern; when I used to hang out there, it was full of ill informed but strident opinions that showed tremendous ignorance and a total inability to understand other viewpoints. I'm sure it hasn't changed any. You'll fit right in, with statements like yours above. Some of the comments to rjw in the Tools thread proved to me that it's still the same.
To heck with thoughts and learning, we're off to the Tavern, where ignorance rules supreme!
Sorry, I meant for you to post your reply in the appropriate thread in the Tavern. As you will find, we are asked to keep this type of discussion out of the regular folders and restrict them to the Tavern. Having said that, I will be home later today and will respond to some of your comments. Needless to say, I will be disagreeing with most of them.
John
ROAR!
I'm very familiar with small claims in CO. Sounds similar. I usually gave verbal warnings but if I HAD to write a ticket I gave a short course ("carside") on how to handle it within the court system. Only complaints were from supervisors who found it easier to count citations than consider "justice" and corrective action. Tyr
So in NY a contract signed by two parties that specifies arbitration is not valid?
I get this flashback about Rosanne Rosannadanna asking, "What's wrong with violins on TV?"
Noooooo, in NY parties cannot waive their right to counsel in arbitration. Next question.
SHGFor every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H.L. Mencken
There ARE other states. Is UHaul available or has the so called people's representatives prevented that too?
SHG
I'd like a differant appraoch, one whereby lawyers are present but only charge on a per hour basis for their efforts.. Hopefully things could be covered in a 30 minute pretrial consult. then go right into court, make your case and have the results in say a half hour more..
An efficent lawyer would tell the people to weed out the BS because the clock is ticking.. He'd be paid on a flat fee basis and an hour of his time would earn him $200.00 with the opposing side being paid the same amount..