And there is something else. As a former judicial law clerk, I have had the perspective from the other side, as a consumer rather than just a purveyor of legal (mal)practice,a nd someone you don't appreciate, perhaps, is how long it takes to even understand a pro se pleading -- and pro se or autodidact pleadings would be unleashed in torrents under this idea. Chuck wouldn't mind, he wants the law courts to grind to a halt, but persons who are owed money or have been injured or are awaiting criminal trial, etc. might not see it that way. the courts would respond by increasing the rate of summary, off the cuff dispositions, increased high-handedness and short-temperedness, and this would not enhance justice for those unable to afford a competent attorney.
The fact of the matter is, even the worst lawyer picks up something about what the courts require, and you cannot do this without at least one year of very intensive legal training. A lot of legal work is routine. A fair amount of high end legal work is routine. If there are no problems, a paralegal could probably handle it. The premium you pay is to avoid the problems. I
It's not always successful even with a trained lawyer, most of whom are idiots like everyone else -- my sister asked me to read her new will, I told her I'm not a wills trusts & estates lawyer, but I'd look, and her WTE lawyer had a perpetuities problem in the will; lawyers will know what I mean, and the rest of you jsut need to know that if uncorrected, it would make the will invalid. Her WTE didn't catch it, but it took a lawyer to catch it. If you don't care whether you will won't give the devsie you want, whether your contarcts will be enforceable, whether your house deed is valid, whether you get the recovery that is coming from you when someone hits your car, feel free to represent yourself or use a paralegal. Probably 7 times out of ten everything will be OK.
jks
"a nd Assuming legal malpractice
> remained a viable punishment for those giving
> inexpert advice,"
--- Nathan Newman <nathanne at nathannewman.org> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "andie nachgeborenen"
> <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com>
> >Anyone can do better what lawyers do.
> >all they do is monopolize and complicate things
> that
> >are really very simple. Lawyers are shits.
> >OK, now that we are clear on that, we can move on.
> >Luckily, anti-globos don't need lawyers, and if
> they
> >do, hell, why have the bar? Let anyone hang out his
> >shingle. It's all voodoo anyway, right?
>
> The question is not the skill involved but the
> artificial cost of entry
> imposed by three years of law school, bar exams,
> continued need to pay fees,
> exclusion of ability to practice in states even if
> you are qualified in
> another state, and a range of other guild-like rules
> used to raise the
> market cost of legal advice above what the market
> would bear. While some
> parts of legal work clearly need the full expertise,
> large chunks of it
> require and are done by paralegals and legal
> secretaries-- but where you
> need a lawyer signing off to raise the cost.
> Assuming legal malpractice
> remained a viable punishment for those giving
> inexpert advice, there would
> be pressure for decent expertise even without the
> formal credentially guild.
>
> It is true that many professionals are largely
> insulated from the global
> market forces that ordinary manufacturing workers
> are buffetted by under
> NAFTA et al. The proposed GATT could change that in
> some rather dangerous
> ways, but it's probably accurate that one reason why
> there is such a large
> "free trade" consensus among liberal professionals
> at odds with working
> class folks within the progressive movement is that
> different vulnerability
> to global competition in many professional skills.
>
> -- Nathan Newman
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com