<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans Unicode" color=#000080 size=2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=andie_nachgeborenen@yahoo.com href="mailto:andie_nachgeborenen@yahoo.com">andie nachgeborenen</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org href="mailto:lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org">lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:38 AM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [lbo-talk] Give Up</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>I view the prohibition on unlicensed practice of law<BR>as a consumer protection statute. Abolishing it<BR>wouldn't affect me in the least. The kindof practice I<BR>have will feel no pressure whatsoever from nonlawyer<BR>practitioners.<BR><BR>Youa re arrogant, and foolsih, </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size=2>this language is just a sample of what's so endearing about this guy.   how dare anyone disagree with this self-serving, self-centered, pompous know-it-all?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans Unicode"><FONT size=2><FONT face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size=2>R</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>because you think that<BR>any literate person can do law, but it's not so. This<BR>has nothing to dow ith arcnae rituals or Latinm either<BR>of which have any relevance to US law, and I dount to<BR>the law of Australis. It's rather because legal<BR>analysis is quite difficult. It's not like mowing your<BR>own vs hiring someone to do it. it's more like<BR>building your own bridge or airplane vs using one<BR>designeda nd built by professionals.<BR><BR>There are one course simple legal activities that do<BR>not require an attorney's skills: most contracts are<BR>like this, simple license applications, drawing up<BR>form for your average business(I'd guess -- though I<BR>am not a transactional lawyer). An uncontested divorce<BR>with no property or kids involved. A property tax<BR>appeal.  For many of thesea ctivities you don't need a<BR>lawyer, and I'd agree for many of the other you<BR>shouldn't have to have one. For litigation, it's a<BR>different story.<BR><BR>Individuals can represent themselves in court in<BR>almost any sort of litigation in the US. Here too<BR>corporations cannot. That is a very old rule, goes<BR>back at least 200 years. One might debate its merits,<BR>but it's not going away. I have rarely, however, seen<BR>a  case where an individual acting pro se did anywhere<BR>near as well as even a bad lawyer, of which there are<BR>many. <BR><BR>jks<BR><BR>__________________________________<BR>Do you Yahoo!?<BR>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software<BR><A href="http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com">http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com</A><BR>___________________________________<BR><A href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>