>Recently, I have been saying that poor civil clients get as much legal help
>as rich ones. Both get more than the "middle". Why ? In legal services,
>people get free legal services. So, they feel free to call me as much as
>they want, because they are not charged for everytime they contact me.
That's a valid point. Of course (present company excepted) it needs to be kept in mind that the quality of the legal advice one can expect from a free legal service may not always be quite up to the standard of that expected by the rich. Then again, sometimes, just occasionally, it can be better. Because the lawyer working for the free service is sometimes better motivated, whereas the lawyers working for the rich are always motivated by mere money. It is far far better to be represented by someone motivated by principle, by someone who believes in what they are doing.
Things are a little different here in some ways. For one thing its become almost impossible to get legal aid for civil matters (or even criminal matters that do not involve the risk of jail.) Used to be that the poor could get legal aid for civil matters, a few years ago I even got some myself. Though that was fairly limited (I was representing myself, but needed some funding to purchase a transcript for a Social Security appeal I was running in the Federal Court.) Still, it was handy.
A bit further back in time, there was even a case where the Legal Aid office funded a private prosecution being run by a bloke I know (green activist) against some bastard who had deliberately run his car off a logging road. This after the local cops refused to prosecute. But that was unusual obviously.
But one point of difference between civil law in the US and here is significant in this context, the fact that here the person who loses a civil action generally has to pay the legal costs of the person who wins. The significance is that this reinforces your point about the legal system being only available for the rich, or the very poor. The great majority of people simply can't afford to take the risk of losing a civil action and having to pay both their own legal costs and that of the other party.
But the poor can take that risk, they have nothing to lose. So whereas a normal working class person has to risk losing their house and everything they own, in order to get their case in to court, someone like me who is broke to start with is free as a breeze. Of course I rarely lose, but that isn't the point. The point is that there isn't that same pressure.
Last time I was in court I did lose, on a technicality. But it was a funny thing which illustrates my point. I was representing my housing co-op, trying to get the local council to grant a rates exemption (as required under the Local Government Act). The Council lawyer, who was extremely good and made no secret of being extremely good, managed to get the case thrown out of the State Supreme Court on the basis of some self-serving legal precedent that required that an incorporated organisation who was a party to a case in that Court must be represented by a person was licensed to practice. Nothing I could do, the judge was the one who had created the precedent.
Flush with victory, the Council lawyer tried to get costs awarded against my co-op. (Trust me, this bloke's costs would have been astronomical.) But I successfully argued that, since it wasn't possible for my co-operative to be party to a case without being represented by a legal practitioner, then technically the co-operative wasn't a party and the action had therefor been legally been brought by me personally.
The Judge awarded costs against me personally. The lawyer slumped into his seat dejectedly. The Council didn't bother to even try to collect their costs. You can't get blood out of a stone. Hoisted on their own petard. Very frustrating though, the co-op still has to pay those Rates, for now, but no question is ever settled until its settled RIGHT.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas