Posted on 10/27/2009 7:04:33 PM PDT by cold666pack
A new California law that gives poor residents the right to an attorney in civil matters such as child custody and foreclosure is being hailed as a model that could transform the nation's legal landscape. But critics argue that the law will result in a wave of case backlogs and could further burden court budgets.
The law, signed this month by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, assures the poor legal counsel in an array of civil cases. Advocates for the change say poor people often wind up in court facing life-changing consequences -- such as eviction -- but go through the process without adequate legal advice. That can lead to mistakes and delays.
View Full Image Night Michael Mullady
"This is a really big step forward," said Richard Alderman, associate dean and director of the Center for Consumer Law at the University of Houston. "Everyone will be watching it." (snip)California's law will be funded by a pre-approved $10 increase in some court fees. For now, those fees -- expected to generate about $11 million annually -- will go into the cash-strapped court system's general operating budget. California's budget crisis has forced its courts to close every third Wednesday of the month.
Starting in 2011, the fee will be funneled toward the new law, which calls for legal-aid groups to propose methods of delivering services to the indigent. Those living at 200% above the federal poverty guidelines or less will be eligible for free legal services. For a family of four, that means an annual income of $44,100.
(snip) Ted Frank, a Washington lawyer who has written about civil Gideon for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said he believes the new law will result in more waste in the court system.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
An example cited is evictions problems. The “poor” will have the right to an attorney if under threat of eviction.
Now, let me tell you friends, this is what they have in the Philippines under their compromise with the Marxist element in the country. Agrarian Reform and Land Reform, Marxist-Socialist style.
In the Philippines and in other countries heavily influenced by Marxist-Communist insurgencies, you can do almost nothing about squatters on your property without spending a lot of money, often having to pay off the squatters to leave.
Now, with the kind of “rights” being guaranteed in the USA, we are going to see much of the same thing, except . . . I think we are already seeing it in Texas and Arizona. Am I wrong?
Folks, America is being stripped away from us! Idiots like the Californai governor to not have the same perception of America as a nation that we have. Obama doesn’t either, obviously. Peopkle from other countries, trained under a socialist mind set, are going to continue to shred our Constitution and destroy our way of life.
I am getting more and more angry by the hour!
Remember, don’t get mad, get even!
Sorry, but this should be required in all courts cases! Otherwise, the wealthy will overwhelm the system sinning every time. I especially like the idea of equal representation in divorce/child custody case. Many of you are wrong if you’re against this... The law has become abusive and seems to be extending into areas other than law enforcement. Without protection, only the fools with money will have justice.
This man has it exactly right. Destroy America through the court system. Squatters rights will be a new “constitutional right” to come before the Supreme Court. This is one of the most dangerous concepts that will destroy our nation for sure.
The problem is that its not the governments job to fight for me, or you. Lawyering is a private business, just like a doctor, a CPA or a chef. To make taxpayers pay for your child custody battle may be nice, but its also thievery. In LA, there are already legal outlets for the poor, funded by private organizations, much like the ACLU but for family matters. But in a state with a 24 billion dollar deficit, this is just absurdly insane.
Sorry to disagree - but it has become a rich man’s game! Only those that can afford it get a lawyer! We desperately need changes in the laws like loser pays to allow it to become “equitable laws” for all people.... It has long been a game played by the wealthy since they can afford the best lawyers and they do play the game well... Just look at all the lawsuits - they only come after you if you have insurance or have money...please...
I think there is some confusion in your presentation? This is civil, not criminal law. This is about profit, not justice.
Child custody is already a free process in almost all states. Most consumer issues are handled in small claims with minimal costs and no attorneys.
Unfortunately, what you say is true, but it's not solely the fault of the lawyers or even "the rich"...the legal system itself is totally corrupt, to the extent that even "justice" has become a commodity, a prostitute for sale.
Well, maybe you’re from a different period... I know that it cost a fortune to attempt to get custody of my son in a divorce - simple divorce at that. Not only did it cost me a small fortune, but it was totally against what I would call standard law... Yes, it was about profit - my wife’s, and it cost a lot of money to just to prevent that...
My point exactly! The system is corrupt - favoring those with money, so what are those that have not to do?
One more step towards Judicare and Judicaid funded courts. If you think lawsuits take too long now, just wait until your lawyer has to bill the government to get paid.
Did ya even bother to read the story?
The money will go to Legal Services Corporation like organizations, who will spend most of it on overhead, keeping Marxists on the payroll, most of rest suing businesses and governments (looking for more money) and a tiny percentage on helping poor folks with real problems.
"Profit" is a dirty word to the lawyers who will get this money, and the will try to eradicate all profits will an Obama like fanaticism.
You’ll be able to call your free lawyer with your free Obamma phone.
They did it just the opposite of how they should have done it, which is by streamlining and simplifying the process, so legal assistance is not required.
Some years ago, the city of Phoenix did this by establishing “kiosk divorce” for uncontested divorces. This saved great sums of money and court time, and was expanded to several other routine and uncontested legal matters.
The next money and time saving alternative is to require some effort at arbitration. An arbitrator can quickly determine if a case can be settled with minimal argument or consideration, yet to mutual satisfaction. Why pay grand sums to attorneys in disputes of far less value?
Then, and only then, should an attorney be considered, but only if the fight is mismatched. If one side or the other insists that attorneys must be involved, so be it. But no unfair advantage to just one side.
In such a situation, the judge might be able to appoint counsel for the side without an advocate, *however*, he might also be able to compel the side with an attorney to dismiss them prior to the hearing. In either case, it returns the argument to a fair fight.
Streamlining the process is anathema to California roots, gotta be able to hire more state/county officials ya know, to administer this new program now. The goal in CA is never to be quicker, more nimble with a taller shadow, its always fat, dumb, lazy and we’ll see ya in 3 weeks to look at the next part of the process.
We have an organization in the Philippines, and we built a Christian camp. When we wanted to obey the law and register the deed with Agrarian Reform (Marxist), we discovered that it was going to cost us such exorbitent fees that we could not afford to do it. Where does the money go? To build squatters villages on the edges of big cities!
The advice of some government officials, then, was that we DON’T register it (as if we never purchased it), but just squat on it, and start building little houses or shacks for our workers. Why? Because squatters have rights that land owners don’t have. They advised that we do it as quickly as possible to ward off other squatters.
Get that, we OWN it, but we are SQUATTERS on it. We are in fact building houses on it for our folks, and dining halls, and shower-rooms, etc.
Agrarian Reform will then one day in the future see that it is in fact a “developing settlement without protest”, and remove it from Agrarian Reform restrictions.
In the mean-time we cannot sell it because legally we never regisered it.
Sit in jail, usually, or accept being coerced into copping a plea bargain for something you didn't do, but can't afford to argue your way out of, even if you are innocent. The System is not "innocent until proven guilty" anymore...anyone who still believes that has yet to be wrung through the judicial wringer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.