This came out of a discussion I've been having with a friend on the Jackson trial. We strayed into talking about high-priced legal teams and how much justice one could afford, and I thought of my next problem-solving idea:
Legal counsel pools.
Defendant and accused contribute whatever money they're willign to spend on counsel into a pool. That money is then equally divided for them to use. So if you want to spend millions on the best lawyers you can get, go to it, but your opponent will get the exact same opportunity.
Or, conversely, if you're certain you'll win the day you can opt not to pitch in anything, in which case your opponent can get legal representation equal to half of what they want to pay (and, of course, so will you).
I don't know why they don't just let me take over the legislature, this stuff isn't so hard...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Lawyers would hate that arrangement!
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
:: waiting to see what Dag thinks of this ::
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Can I keep the money if I represent myself?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Uh, the defendant IS the accused, neh?
And the opposition is usually a government agency -- this would end up so politicized I shudder to imagine.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How will that work in criminal trials? Those are the ones I care about.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Obviously there would need to be a price set on what the government spends to press a case, said amount to be contributed to the defendant's account.
Hey, it's more fair than my previous "random representation" idea...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Mandating this in criminal cases would be an unconstitutional infringement on 6th amendment right, I'm pretty sure.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So you're suggesting a cap on what defendants are allowed to pay their lawyers? Uh . . .
And "it may be bad, but it's not nearly as bad as my OTHER idea!" isn't much of an argument. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'm trying to resist posting the dobie "Ok, new illegal idea"
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Annie Darlin', do you think you could come up with a new illegal idea?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Not a cap at all. Spend more money if you wish, it's just that half of that will go towards your opponent's fund.
Sigh. I know it's unworkable -- OK, it's ridiculous -- but I get frustrated at the concept that justice can be bought. There is no reason, objectively speaking, that a million dollar lawyer should get a different result than a public defender if the evidence is the same, but there it is.
There are no easy fixes, but it's tempting to try.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Uh, the defendant IS the accused, neh?![[Wink]](wink.gif)