Lawyers

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Figured I'd start a thread since I'm so vocal about it and don't want to derail another thread.


It's sort of funny that people who hate lawyers likely haven't dealt with any professionally except the shitty one their ex-wife hired who demanded everything including the kitchen sink.

That's not directed at SHM as I have no idea of his personal life (except that he posts pictures of himself at the zoo), but your average layperson deals with the riff-raff of the lawyer world.

My disdain for lawyers and our system of law stems from my perception that common sense was thrown out the window. People sue McDonald's for hot coffee, getting to fat, I fall down in front of Walmart I'm suing, etc etc etc. I will give you that lawyers do great work - tons of examples the polar opposite of the well publicized ones I just listed.

My rant is that shit like the McD's hot coffee shouldn't even be considered. People who continually "fall down" outside of an establishment to sue, people who somehow can over and over again settle out of court by threatening to sue a business - just because they know most businesses will bend over and take it for fear of being roasted in the public eye. That shit kills me. Someone breaks into my house and I kill them, *I* could get sued by their parents or even the other burglar? What a crock of shit.

I'm certain that the vast majority of folks associated with our system are good people, but it's those bad seeds that somehow get a retarded law passed that'll stick and impact future laws. Start policing the shitheads. Start locking up the people who defraud a system designed with good intentions. Have courts start assessing fines to idiotic and frivolous lawsuits. Start holding lawyers, judges and jurors to SOME standard. Common sense is all I'm asking, not perfection.

It'll never happen and I bet you guys who are lawyers or studying to be one are all doing so with good intentions. No one plans on being a sleaze right? I guess I'm just disgusted and that's blowing out my reasoning.

And I've had to deal with a lawyer once over a motorcycle accident I had in college. Long story short, all I wanted from the insurance company was for them to pay my medical bills and fix my bike. It was documented by the police officer and witnesses as "100% the other drivers fault". Probably not legalese but that's the essential piece. After nearly two years of fighting with their insurance I caved and got a lawyer because it was ruining my credit. My lawyer advised I threaten to sue the 18 year old kid who hit me, which would invoke some protection clause the other insurance company had to hire HIM a lawyer, would cause them to ultimately settle before going to court. I insisted with my lawyer I didn't want the kid or his family penalized at all from the accident, I just wanted my medical and bike covered. Anyway, within a week it was settled by doing just that, threaten to sue the kid, he lawyers up, his lawyer says this is retarded, just pay out the bills, and their insurance does just that. It was a small settlement, but because I had to get a lawyer, to cover the lawyer fee I had to ask for more, to cover the bike/hospital bills. That doesn't make sense. I needed I think it was 18k to do that, ended up having to threaten for like 28k, so that they'd pay 28k, and then give 1/3rd to the lawyers. I know this is peanuts in terms of money, but it was just a ridiculous process.

Anyway, I'll tone down my rant, I know it's unfair.

[Keller]

Nice post.

I agree that in our confrontational legal system we're often forced to sue for what common sense demands. The problem is that I don't see any other way.

A large portion of an insurers margin comes from avoiding paying out claims, be it through neglect, intimidation, fraud, etc. If it weren't for lawyers, that company would have continued to string you along until you gave up. I guess just be grateful that you found competent counsel who got you to the right answer.

I'm not going to defend the "waste" that lawyers bring to the system. But given that otherwise it's you, the layperson, against the multi-national corporation -- I'm not sure how else it should have turned out.

[Keller]

As to the hot cofffe lawsuits -- it's a product of the law. If the law demands that dangerous products warn of their danger -- you can't ignore that law in the case of some dumb cunt who spills it all over her who-ha. Sure, we should all know coffee is hot. But the law exists for products the danger of which we do not know. That's the end-game of the rule of law. It is the rule.

[AnticorRifling]

As to the hot cofffe lawsuits -- it's a product of the law. If the law demands that dangerous products warn of their danger -- you can't ignore that law in the case of some dumb cunt who spills it all over her who-ha. Sure, we should all know coffee is hot. But the law exists for products the danger of which we do not know. That's the end-game of the rule of law. It is the rule. Protecting people from themselves is still bullshit.

[Danical]

There was this wheel chair ridden guy a while back who would go into restaurants in my town and sue immediately because it wasn't up to "cripple code." He'd force the businesses to collapse will all the fees. 5 or so eateries went down because of this cockmongering dickmitten until the last case went to a judge that said walk or GTFO.

[Kranar]

I agree completely with what you're saying... however I do not blame lawyers for it.

I put the fault squarely on judges.

[Atlanteax]

As to the hot cofffe lawsuits -- it's a product of the law. If the law demands that dangerous products warn of their danger -- you can't ignore that law in the case of some dumb cunt who spills it all over her who-ha. Sure, we should all know coffee is hot. But the law exists for products the danger of which we do not know. That's the end-game of the rule of law. It is the rule.

But it shouldn't be invoked as "the rule" to be an excuse to bring forth such a lawsuit.

The "dumb cunt" should had been just simply told "you're an idiot, the coffee was hot, and you spilled it on yourself. TOUGH LUCK"

[thefarmer]

There was this wheel chair ridden guy

I so read this the wrong way the first time...

[Danical]

I so read this the wrong way the first time...

It was a purposeful choice of words. :)

[Keller]

But it shouldn't be invoked as "the rule" to be an excuse to bring forth such a lawsuit.

The "dumb cunt" should had been just simply told "you're an idiot, the coffee was hot, and you spilled it on yourself. TOUGH LUCK"

Then we'd be ruled by judges and not the law.

It's called the RULE of law because we're ruled by it, not because it's instructive.

Note: I recognize that judges (their clerks, actually) interpret the law. But if judges had discretion to ignore the law (de jure discretion; recognizing they already have de facto discretion) then we'd be in a MUCH worse place. Talk about a pay to play system. We used to have that -- it was called feudalism.

[Keller]

Protecting people from themselves is still bullshit.

To what point?

Say I build a bridge and it's used for hundreds of years. One day I realize that the bridge is rotting and will collapse the next time someone passes over it.

Do I have a duty to protect the next passenger? Or does the next passenger have a duty to inspect that bridge?

[Atlanteax]

Then we'd be ruled by judges and not the law.

It's called the RULE of law because we're ruled by it, not because it's instructive.

Note: I recognize that judges (their clerks, actually) interpret the law. But if judges had discretion to ignore the law (de jure discretion; recognizing they already have de facto discretion) then we'd be in a MUCH worse place. Talk about a pay to play system. We used to have that -- it was called feudalism.

We elect our judges.

If we want them to ignore specific law(s), and they *do*... then *GREAT*.

If a judge doesn't perform as we want him to, and continuously caves to greedy lawyers... then we vote in a different judge.

That's the "check" in our legal system.

It's *not* the lawyers "helping the little guy".

[Trouble]

Here in the DC area we have stupid judge who sued the dry cleaners for millions because they misplaced his pants. It's definitely a prime example of frivolous litigation. He's actually appealing the initial GTFO ruling:


WASHINGTON (AP) - A former administrative law judge with the D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings who unsuccessfully sued his dry cleaners for $54 million over a lost pair of pants isn't giving up.

Roy Pearson has filed a petition with the D.C. Court of Appeals, requesting the case be reheard _ this time by a nine-judge panel.

Pearson claimed Custom Cleaners failed to live up to its promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed."

Three appellate judges agreed last month that Pearson failed to show the store's advertising amounted to fraud and said his argument defied logic.

In asking for a hearing before the entire court, Pearson argues the three-judge panel failed to address all the issues in his appeal.

Pearson did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment Tuesday. Phone calls to his home went unanswered.

[Keller]

We elect our judges.

If we want them to ignore specific law(s), and they *do*... then *GREAT*.

If a judge doesn't perform as we want him to, and continuously caves to greedy lawyers... then we vote in a different judge.

That's the "check" in our legal system.

It's *not* the lawyers "helping the little guy".

Did you really go to UofM?

Are you sure it wasn't Michigan Tech?

First: we elect some judges. The judges that make insignificant decisions.

Second: Would you prefer to do away with the legislative branch?

Third: The "check" in our judicial branch? When is the last time you made an even somewhat informed decision when voting for your insignificant judges?

[Tisket]

Do I have a duty to protect the next passenger? Or does the next passenger have a duty to inspect that bridge?

There'd be someone willing to sue both the nonexistent inspector and the passenger, if a collapsed bridge inconvenienced them even slightly.

[Atlanteax]

Here in the DC area we have stupid judge who sued the dry cleaners for millions because they misplaced his pants. It's definitely a prime example of frivolous litigation. He's actually appealing the initial GTFO ruling:

A good example of judges stepping up and tossing out frivilous lawsuits (referring to the decision that's being appealed).

We need more judges doing that, is my point Keller.

Lawyers contribute to the problem, and to cite "rule of law" as justification for bringing such suits to court, is asinine.

[Tolwynn]

Put a three-strikes law on frivolous lawsuits, not just on the complainants, but on their lawyers as well. It'd go a long way towards stopping garbage like that from clogging the legal system.

Put a special clause in for douches like the lawyer who sued Apple for $1 million because he couldn't change the battery in his iPhone, or the superstar of them all, that $54m dry cleaning lawsuit judge. If a legal practitioner is so inept/ignorant of basic law/devoid of common sense as to file such frivolous suits themselves, it should be worth an automatic disbarring.

[Keller]

A good example of judges stepping up and tossing out frivilous lawsuits (referring to the decision that's being appealed).

We need more judges doing that, is my point Keller.

Lawyers contribute to the problem, and to cite "rule of law" as justification for bringing such suits to court, is asinine.

Ask ANY judge in America. ANY judge, and the FIRST thing they when they receive a complaint is find ANY way they can, under the law, to dismiss it.

Judges are horribly overburdened and understaffed (and underpaid).

If you want to live under tribal rule where people just make decisions by their gut reaction instead of the rule of law -- maybe Somalia would be a better home for you?

[CrystalTears]

I wish you people would read about the hot coffee suit before you continue this line of reasoning.

The suit asked for one amount, and it was reduced considerably because she was negligent. However, it doesn't change the fact that coffee was too hot for consumption. You shouldn't get third degree burns from hot coffee. What if she had spilled that on herself while in the restaurant?

I just think there are TOO many lawyers, and too many bad ones at that, that cloud the perception of the profession.

[Keller]

Put a three-strikes law on frivolous lawsuits, not just on the complainants, but on their lawyers as well. It'd go a long way towards stopping garbage like that from clogging the legal system.

Put a special clause in for douches like the lawyer who sued Apple for $1 million because he couldn't change the battery in his iPhone, or the superstar of them all, that $54m dry cleaning lawsuit judge. If a legal practitioner is so inept/ignorant of basic law/devoid of common sense as to file such frivolous suits themselves, it should be worth an automatic disbarring.

Judges (and opposing counsil) can, and do, place sanctions on counsil who bring frivolous suits.

[thefarmer]

If the average person was more intelligent there would be less stupid lawsuits. It wouldn't matter if they "could", under the law, or not.

[CrystalTears]

If the average person was more intelligent there would be less stupid lawsuits. It wouldn't matter if they "could", under the law, or not.
The stupid lawsuits shouldn't go as far as they do, regardless of how intelligent the average person is.

[Valthissa]

I don't like the legal profession because most of the behavior amounts to rent seeking and I like building things.

C/Valth

[Keller]

I don't like the legal profession because most of the behavior amounts to rent seeking and I like building things.

C/Valth

What do you mean by rent seeking?

[Valthissa]

What do you mean by rent seeking?

For a better answer google "rent seeking"

Making money by imposing burdens on others . Lobbying is generally considered to be rent seeking. It implies a net loss to the overall economy. Rent in this case refers to Adam Smith's definitions of profit, wage, and rent.


Another type of rent seeking is a situation where collectively the parties spend far more than the value of the prize, but the winner makes a large profit. An example is buried treasure worth say $10,000,000. 4 companies each spend $5,000,000 to find the treasure. Overall 20M is spent for 10M.

C/Valth

[TheEschaton]

Put a three-strikes law on frivolous lawsuits, not just on the complainants, but on their lawyers as well. It'd go a long way towards stopping garbage like that from clogging the legal system.

Put a special clause in for douches like the lawyer who sued Apple for $1 million because he couldn't change the battery in his iPhone, or the superstar of them all, that $54m dry cleaning lawsuit judge. If a legal practitioner is so inept/ignorant of basic law/devoid of common sense as to file such frivolous suits themselves, it should be worth an automatic disbarring.

In our system of individual rights, the right to file a lawsuit, and in many cases, have it heard by a jury of your peers being relatively sacrosanct, essentially makes NO lawsuit frivolous, if you can convince a jury otherwise. The judge cannot determine the fact of the matter, (s)he can only determine whether it's legal to file it, and Rule 8 makes it practically impossible for something to be frivoulous filing.

Personally, I like to blame dumbass juries.

I'll give you an example from my first year Torts class (Torts = personal injury, a require class for all first year law students). A company makes an industrial machine. The machine is essentially a press of some sort, you press a button, it compacts the product into proper form, or something like that. However, before they ever sold this product, the designers were like, hold on - this is dangerous. Someone might accidently press the button while their hand is in there, and sever their hand. So they redesign the machine to be only operable by two people. Or so they think. The redesign calls for two buttons, one on either side of the press, both which need to be pressed at the same time to make the press come down.

Dumbass employee A, for some reason, decides to operate this machine on his own, even though normally it's done by two guys. Because there's a delay between the pressing of the two buttons and the press coming down (about 5 seconds), he decides, I'll just REACH THROUGH THE PRESS, and press that button and my button at the same time. God knows how long he does this for successfully, but at some point, his concentration lapses, he doesn't withdraw his arm in time, and it gets severed.

He sues the company who made the machine, saying they were negligent in their design, and that they should have foreseen someone reaching through to press both buttons at the same time, and designed against it, even though they'd already made a good faith effort to design safely. Who wins this lawsuit?

Well, the employee does - not for his original amount, for a lesser amount because he was contributorily negligent, but he still wins.

That'll blow your mind - employee A, knowing how the machine operates, and that he was doing it wrongly, still wins a suit against the company because they failed to anticipate his dumbassery, and were thus "negligent." But it's happened.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Personally, I like to blame dumbass juries.

Something I agree with you on. I still think it's only 1/3rd the problem, but anyway... jury duty shouldn't be something everyone thinks is akin to punishment. Share some of the $$$ lawyers get and put it in a pool for the juries, so that it's not a reward, but it's also not monetary punishment. I'd argue that today the vast majority of jurors are people who don't want to be there.

I do like the juror selection process, so don't be telling me all the bad shit I don't know about it! I like it if it's like what I see on TV anyway, each "side" gets a pick and can dump out a certain #? Educate me ;p

[diethx]

When I got picked for jury duty in the summer of '07, after questioning everyone the lawyers passed back and forth a list with our names on it, and they each crossed one out on each turn, until they had their jury.

[Stanley Burrell]

Common sense is all I'm asking, not perfection.

Common sense...

Is not that common.

If you open the law umbrella over the murder, rape and child molestation cases, chances are that it's going to inadvertently cover obese people who are suing McDonalds. Because they take up a lot of room: And the mighty law umbrella is statistically more likely to cover fat people when it rains legal documents.

Yeah, my analogies are pretty bitchin'.

[diethx]

Common sense...

Is not that common.

If you open the law umbrella over the murder, rape and child molestation cases, chances are that it's going to inadvertently cover obese people who are suing McDonalds. Because they take up a lot of room: And the mighty law umbrella is statistically more likely to cover fat people when it rains legal documents.

Yeah, my analogies are pretty bitchin'.

lol. must.. spread.. moar.. aids.

[Tea & Strumpets]

When I got picked for jury duty in the summer of '07, after questioning everyone the lawyers passed back and forth a list with our names on it, and they each crossed one out on each turn, until they had their jury.

Did they flip a coin to see who goes first? Hehe. I think the whole judge/jury system is pretty much a "good faith" method of applying the law. Even though I think our judicial system is pretty fucked at this point, I don't see any easy fixes. At least we still have checks and balances in the judicial system (elected/appointed judges and wild card juries...who knows what they'll do!).

[diethx]

Actually I don't know how they chose who went first, wasn't a coin that I saw though, hehe.

[Keller]

each "side" gets a pick and can dump out a certain #? Educate me ;p

It's called voir dire.

Going from memory -- you get two types of challenges. For cause (infinite) and peremptory (limited). Your peremptory challenges can be for whatever reason you so choose (except for racial/sexual/other protected classes reasons) while for cause is much more limited in scope (ie, the juror in question will not be capable of judging the facts impartially).

[Methais]

They really need to implement a "loser pays" system (i.e. you sue someone and lose, you pay for their lawyer and court costs) for lawsuits. That would probably dramatically reduce the amount of bullshit frivolous cases.

[Paradii]

They really need to implement a "loser pays" system (i.e. you sue someone and lose, you pay for their lawyer and court costs) for lawsuits. That would probably dramatically reduce the amount of bullshit frivolous cases.

Or fuck over the lower class, yet again.

[TheEschaton]

They really need to implement a "loser pays" system (i.e. you sue someone and lose, you pay for their lawyer and court costs) for lawsuits. That would probably dramatically reduce the amount of bullshit frivolous cases.

The losing side often has to pay the costs of the other side, unless you're poor and you're suing some corporation.

[Keller]

They really need to implement a "loser pays" system (i.e. you sue someone and lose, you pay for their lawyer and court costs) for lawsuits. That would probably dramatically reduce the amount of bullshit frivolous cases.

And increase the inefficency caused by the billable hour.

I can't imagine that stupid meaningless tasks and rewrites people would have to do if they knew that their client wouldn't be picking up the tab. Or rather, had a 70% chance of not picking up the tab.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

70% of court cases are "losers"?

[Keller]

70% of court cases are "losers"?

No.

I am saying this is the scenario:

BIGLAW firm vs. BIGLAW firm. Both with hundreds of junior associates dying for document review assignments because if they hit that 2200 hr mark they get the special bonus in addition to the annual bonus.

If I am the lead partner on that case, and I've done my research to determine that 70% of the time the jury will believe my side of the facts and therefore I will win the judgment and force the other side to pay costs, I am going to unleash those junior associates at $275-350/hr to do meaningless and inefficient tasks to ratchet up the bill.

I will make three review the latest motion instead of just one. I will make them all rewrite it if it's not perfect the first time I get it. It will cause even more rampant abuse of the billable hour.

[TheEschaton]

Fuck the billable hour - worst thing to hit the legal profession ever.

[Keller]

Fuck the billable hour - worst thing to hit the legal profession ever.

I agree entirely.

I think it will be ending in the next couple of years.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

To be replaced how? I don't see it going away, not if it brings in more money for firms...

[Bobmuhthol]

<<To be replaced how? I don't see it going away, not if it brings in more money for firms...>>

http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1132653918886

Competition, simply.

[Tolwynn]

Heh, and if you read the article from three years ago, it cites they realized this was a problem three years prior to that, but pretty much nothing had happened anyway. Apparently the legal profession shares Simu's outlook on RSN, heh.

[TheEschaton]

God, the legal profession changes faster than only one organization, and that's the Catholic Church.

[Methais]

Or fuck over the lower class, yet again.


No.

I am saying this is the scenario:

BIGLAW firm vs. BIGLAW firm....

I wasn't referring to big corporate duels, but more to ridiculous shit like some fatass suing McDonald's because they can't control their eating and want to have someone to blame so they can cash in on it, or a burgular suing the owner of the house he robbed because he slipped and fell.

I should have originally worded it as "If the plaintiff loses, they pay for the defendant's lawyer fees."

You don't think something like this would drastically reduce the amount of frivolous lawsuits that not only waste everyone's time, but cause the defendant who didn't do anything wrong to have to fork out $42387403 to defend themselves for something they didn't do? Not that it really matters to corporations, but to normal people it'd really fuck them over.


The losing side often has to pay the costs of the other side, unless you're poor and you're suing some corporation.

I never heard of that, but I don't exactly know much of anything about law either. But aren't most frivolous suits some poor asshole suing some corporation though?

Like if I stand outside those swinging doors in Walmart's meat department, waiting for someone to come through so I can smash my face into it and be like OMG I GOT INJURED @ WALMART I'M SUING FOR $90228527!!!!!!!11

The point of "loser pays" is to make people like that think twice about abusing the system. Anyone remember that deal last year where some judge tried to sue a dry cleaner for like $40 million or some insane amount because his pants got messed up or something, and he came up with all this ridiculous shit to jack it up to $40m? I think there's a thread somewhere on here about that. I think he ended up getting disbarred over it, but still, people try to pull stupid shit like that all the time, usually with no fear of consequences.

And while we're on the subject, I think the same should apply for criminal cases too where the defendant's found not guilty. Why shouldn't the county/state/whatever have to pay for the defendant's lawyer and all that if they're found not guilty?

Or even the Michael Jackson case, where not only was he found not guilty on everything, but the chick that started the whole thing had a history of pulling shit like this on celebrities to try and cash in on nothing. I don't remember the details, I just remember someone on the news mentioning that just before the jury read off the verdicts. Freak factor aside, how many millions did MJ have to piss away defending himself over something he was found not guilty of?

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Why shouldn't the county/state/whatever have to pay for the defendant's lawyer and all that if they're found not guilty?>>

Because they get a lawyer for free if they want it.

[Methais]

Fair enough, even though public defenders are pretty useless most of the time. Like the one in My Cousin Vinny.

So what about other repercussions that resulted from it then, such as lost job/wages, destroyed reputation, your life in general being fucked forever, etc.?

[Bobmuhthol]

Being acquitted of a criminal charge does not destroy your life. Lost wages is approaching a valid argument, however, but it's not going to happen.

[Methais]

Being acquitted of a criminal charge does not destroy your life.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/facepalm_macro.jpg

No fucking shit being acquitted doesn't destroy your life. It's having the charge slapped on you to begin with that does that. The arrest, public humiliation, and it still showing up on your record (just having the arrest on your record even if you were acquitted can fuck you over when trying to get a job that does background checks) are just a few of the things that can destroy your life.

For example, there was a story on the radio a few weeks ago about how this guy's girlfriend's kid got pissed off at him cause she couldn't get her way, so she accused him of molesting her. They arrest the guy and smear his name all over the place, everyone hates him now, etc. The kid has a history of making shit up all the time, even the kid's mom sided with the guy because she didn't believe it either, the kid eventually admits she was lying, the guy ends up being found not guilty, yet his life is still fucked because of it all. Lost his job, couldn't get a new (decent) job because of background checks, people still hate him, etc. I don't remember if he still had to register as a sex offender or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if so.

Being acquitted didn't destroy his life, it just salvaged what was left of it.

[Bobmuhthol]

How do you propose the justice system deals with consequences it is not responsible for? False accusations are illegal for a reason; the court system doesn't owe the man anything because he had a bad experience with a shitty kid.

[Warriorbird]

People love to harp on the supposed massive quantity of frivolous lawsuits because certain interests like the idea of people not being able to sue them. Judges actually just say GTFO to most of the worst suits.

[Methais]

How do you propose the justice system deals with consequences it is not responsible for? False accusations are illegal for a reason; the court system doesn't owe the man anything because he had a bad experience with a shitty kid.

The example I gave was to show that even if you're acquitted of criminal charges, just it can still fuck your life up, which was in response to the super smart statement of:


Being acquitted of a criminal charge does not destroy your life.

I never said the court should owe him anything in that case. But there are thousands of cases each year where someone gets arrested for something they didn't do due to incompetent investigations or whatever, they're found not guilty, the court says, "Oops, sorry. You can go now." and sends him walking home to nothing because they spent everything they own to hire a good lawyer because public defenders are worthless. That's assuming he still has a home left to go to, since he probably lost his job due to all this and couldn't pay his mortgage and/or had to sell it to pay for said lawyer. And probably won't be getting any jobs in the future that do background checks.

Not saying that's how it always happens, but it does happen, and that's just gay. Like Elton John.

[Methais]

Wasn't the whole point of your post blah blah about people getting compensated by the courts when they're acquitted?

I SAW TAHT!!!!!!!!11

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/GoatseBunny.gifhttp://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/GoatseBunny.gifhttp://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/GoatseBunny.gifhttp://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/GoatseBunny.gif

[Bobmuhthol]

rofl, yeah, my post made no sense when I looked back at it. But I still don't see the connection between justice system reform and the impact of false arrests.

[Methais]

rofl, yeah, my post made no sense when I looked back at it. But I still don't see the connection between justice system reform and the impact of false arrests.

If you were arrested for something you didn't do due to a shitty investigation or whatever the reason (false accusations from stupid kids or whoever aside, since I'm pretty sure you can just sue them after) had to give up everything you own in order to pay for a lawyer to prove your innocence, and then the court was like "Oops, sorry.", wouldn't you think compensation is due? Or would you be ok with the fact that you had to sell everything to pay for a lawyer to defend you for a crime you didn't commit? Or would you just escape to the Los Angeles underground as a soldier of fortune?

I don't know if you can actually sue a city or county or whatever in cases like this. If you can, then my last batch of posts were basically a waste of time. Then again it might just be a huge catch 22, since you're too broke now to hire a lawyer to sue the county with, so you still get fucked. :banghead:

[TheRunt]

<<Why shouldn't the county/state/whatever have to pay for the defendant's lawyer and all that if they're found not guilty?>>

Because they get a lawyer for free if they want it.

Not sure about everywhere but where I live you can only get a PD if you can't afford to hire one yourself.

[Furrowfoot]

Actually I don't know how they chose who went first, wasn't a coin that I saw though, hehe.

Rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock!

[Keller]

Not sure about everywhere but where I live you can only get a PD if you can't afford to hire one yourself.

You need to sign an affidavit to that effect. Not sure how much checking they do, though.

[Hulkein]

They do a legit check to make sure you can't afford it in my area.