Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I made the mistake of looking at "Your Views". And it was a mistake.
It always is. You should know better. But I know what it's like. You tell yourself: "I'll just take a wee peek... just one little peek.... NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!"
-
ScottY: just teasing.
So does that mean I should call off my team of colleagues who are at the High Court at the moment with an application for an injuction gagging further criticism?
I have as much scope to cause serious financial (and other) loss as the average lawyer through incompetence or malfeasance, and yet the market for programmers is practically Hobbesian by comparison.
Except that in extreme cases a dodgy or incompetent lawyer might leave you in prison when a competent one would have got you off.
And the other thing to consider is that people often need lawyers when they're in trouble - whether the trouble is financial or personal. One of the rationales for regulating the legal profession is protecting the vulnerable.
-
I forgot to add that the regulation I refer to is not self-imposed. It is imposed by legislation.
-
Really? I thought it was because like all rent-seeking "professionals" they have formed a cartel to create legislative barriers to entry and hence artifically limit the supply of services.
Ah, that old myth. Most of the legislative barriers you refer to either restrict what lawyers can do, or hold lawyers to higher standards of care than other professions. These regulations increase the costs of doing business (e.g. practising fees, insurance obligations etc).
As one of my colleagues posted earlier, we're one of the most regulated professions in the country.
-
Q for the lawyers out there - are jurors supposed to dob in fellow jurors who are clearly not up to the task? Or is it just a given that the "peers" potentially sitting in judgement on you will have "life experiences" that cover the full spectrum from fact to fantasy?
No. Not for simple routine incompetence. You're stuck with the nutters.
-
The discussion shouldn't be "lawyers are paid too much" - it should be "teachers, nurses and [insert worthy profession] are not paid what they're worth".
Lawyers are paid what they're paid because that's the value the market puts on their work. All praise the market.
-
I really wish they'd stop.
They won't. It's too easy to generate these "outrage" stories. The news media are often accused of runnng only bad news stories. But I call this latest trend "mad news" - stories calculated to provoke outrage and controversy.
I've blogged about this if anyone wants to look... and apologies for the clunky look - I'm new to these interwebs.
-
I levied this in anticipation of how to deal with the corruption that would surely result in total deprivatization (not sure if this is the right word) of the system.
But wouldn't there be even more corruption if the state controlled everything? The NZ system is largely free from corruption - it works, so why change it? The thought of the state having control over how you defend yourself and who defends you leaves me with a chill. It sounds a bit Big Brother to me. Political systems where the state is all-powerful lend themselves to endemic corruption and bloated bureaucracies.
While not wanting to trouble you too much ScottY I hope you can give me a better one. I am all too well aware that the prospect would seem nightmarish to one already established within the current system, however I am still curious to understand the pitfalls in a democratic society.
I agree my answer was a bit glib, but this really relates to my previous point - state control leads to corruption and bureaucracy. This can be seen in China, North Korea, and any other one-party regime you can name.
I am aware that in court work represents a tiny part of the system. But I am curious as to the numbers and the hours.
Most lawyers don't do court work. They're mostly property lawyers, or commercial lawyers, or patent attorneys etc. Even litigators don't spend that much time in the courtroom.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. You clearly have a view that the state can be trusted and can be relied on to get it right. I have the view that if you concentrate too much power in the state that power is likely to be abused.
-
What was he supposed to have done again?
Got caught?
-
Obviously you'll find some glaring holes in that ScottY, but I'd be interested to see what kind of thoughts and ideas other people have
I'm afraid there are some holes. Please take the following as constructive cirticism though.
0. An oath should be taken requiring a higher standard of ethics.
Higher than what? Whose standard? Who decides who's fit to practise?
1. Private legal practice is outmoded. All legal representation is provided by the state. (a significant pay cut for some)
This is how the system works in places like North Korea.
2. All jurors are trained ethically bound lawyers (for Mark)
As opposed to non-ethically bound lawyers? What is the difference? More importantly, that seems to miss the point of a jury trial - having the right to be tried by your peers.
3.Name suppression is done away with, the notion of innocence until proven guilty is reemphasized.
I'll agree name suppression isn't consistently applied, but it exists for a reason. Surely if someone is considered innocent until guilty name suppression should always be applied.
4. Defendant's jobs are protected by law until proven guilty.
Too simplistic. Take the Rickards case as an example. He was acquitted, but during the course of the trial things came to light that might have suggested to some he wasn't fit to remain in the police force. Should the police have to ignore that evidence?
5. Lawyers are more or less randomly allocated case by case.
Might work, if you take into account things like specialisations, workloads, geographic locations, conflicts of interest etc.