Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Tuesday, May 1. 2012

What if We Regulated Legal Services Like Health Care?

Since it's a topic I have posted about a couple of times in the past, I'd like to highlight it. A quote:



It makes one think: If the lawyers are designing the health-care system, shouldn’t they be forced to operate under regulations similar to those they’re imposing? How, for example, do lawyers get paid? Today, they negotiate fees with clients. That hardly seems fair. In health care, doctors don’t negotiate fees with patients, they get paid according to an opaque schedule determined by health plans. Lawyers should do the same. The solution is “legal insurance”. After all, who amongst us knows when we’ll need a lawyer? It is often an unpredictable expense, and yet the “market” seems to have failed to provide such insurance. Government must intervene.



I have been an American all of my life, and I still cannot figure out whether Americans want freedom or freebies. Probably both, but that does not work.

Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays at 13:42 | Comments (5) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Doctors should design the legal system.
Quid pro quo. Stat.
#1 PacRim Jim (Link) on 2012-05-01 17:38 (Reply)
Well, of course, it would get screwed up worse than it is already.

I've been moving into doing a lot of appellate work. I bet such legal regulation would cause my appellate practice to explode. 'Less they regulated appellate rights away. Which they would probably try to do for the sake of cost reduction.
#2 T.K. Tortch on 2012-05-01 17:46 (Reply)
I have argued this same thing. It actually makes more sense in the legal system. The way things are now a rich man has a huge advantage over a poor person in every case, due process and equal protection be damned.

What if in every criminal or civil case the lawyers for both sides were drawn from a pool, paid a set scale, and given the same resources with which to build a case?

That would be justice.

Surprisingly, it is not popular with any of the lawyers I have discussed it with.
#3 B. Moe on 2012-05-02 07:26 (Reply)
What if in every criminal or civil case the lawyers for both sides were drawn from a pool, paid a set scale, and given the same resources with which to build a case?

Same thing as when Gov't subsidized anything: you get more demand. Then you get worse quality. Then the Gov't tries to fix that. And screws up. Rinse, repeat.

The "more demand" would be the fun part. You think we're a litigious society now. . . .

However, In terms of criminal death penalty prosecutions, I've suggested something along those lines. Most of the defendants in such cases are indigent & represented by a PD office operating on a shoestrings, compared to the prosecutor's office. Rule would be along the lines of this: if a prosecutor's office wants the death penalty, there has to be some sort of fund matching -- the local jurisdiction - city, county whatever - has to fund the defense at parity with the prosecution. That way the prosecutor's office will be discouraged from going for the death penalty unless they're damn well sure, and the defendant is more likely to get a decent defense.
#4 T.K. Tortch on 2012-05-02 10:14 (Reply)
While we're at it, why not socialize the profession of law the way prosecutors' offices already are? Then if the government likes you, you get a good attorney. If they don't, you lose.

Sometimes I think we'd be better off bringing back gladiator fights and trial by combat.
#5 John David Galt on 2012-05-20 00:17 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.