I am surprised that Sandefur's work has garnered a MacArthur. Why? Because I am a lawyer who has recently approached several editors about a legal preventive care/self help book to help keep lawyers at bay. I have been told that I would have to self-publish the book. One editor directed me to the category of legal self help on Amazon, which is very small and which has a very small range of titles on things like estate planning and how a woman can handle her own divorce. Most of the titles have evidently been self published. How can someone be deemed a genius in a field that doesn't even get main stream publishing recognition?
I am a bit wary of Sandefur's assertion that more evidence based models or a more evidenced based model will help. After all, who is the arbiter of legal evidence but judges and lawyers. Evidence has to be authenticated as well. Who is going to serve as the adjudicator for non-lawyer authenticated and put for evidence? How will that sort of evidence really be standardized to not require legal acumen?
4
I'm a trial lawyer and most of us know that many civil disputes don't require lawyers. From experience I also know the whole grab-bag of tricks that unethical lawyers employ to rack up fees and unnecessarily drive cases to the verge of trial.
I've defended many evictions in CA, both under a non-profit as my full-time job, and on a case-by-case pro bono basis as a private attorney. I'm somewhat troubled by the author's assertion that 100% of NY housing court cases where a social worker "navigator" was involved ended with no eviction judgment against the tenant.
First, every state's laws are different. In fact, the procedural systems for eviction court often vary widely from county to county. We need studies comparing the findings in NY to results in other (perhaps more landlord-friendly) jurisdictions.
In CA, what I learned is that plaintiff-side lawyers don't take you seriously without a lawyer. The good will of an "advocate" to raise back rent (for example) is often irrelevant. If they don't believe that someone experienced will do the trial if necessary, they simply wait you out.
When "advocates" showed up for settlement conference, Plaintiff attorneys knew there was no credible trial threat. They would explicitly tell me so. They would offer little or nothing in such cases.
If the question is "are reforms needed," my answer is yes. But before we cut lawyers out of certain matters entirely, it's important to understand what a trial lawyer can do that others can't.
13
During my long career as a lawyer I worked with both social workers and paralegals. Most brought the benefits of training in their field and most were seriously overworked and invariably stated at more than one point in every proceeding something like
"Here is a solution to this issue that might work but I advise you to check this with a lawyer on whether it legal and the courts will uphold it." In every case I worked on there were tax implications, legal fine points and/or a loss of important rights that required crucial legal review.
Until AI or robots sign documents, sit on juries or act as judges and mediators, lawyers will have the lengthy, expensive education
and training to solve legal problems from the mundane to the complex using the right words in the right places to make sure a resolution holds up.
9
We need to expand Legal Services. There are many lawyers out there who could be part of Legal Services if its funding is increased. They can't get legal jobs and would be available and properly trained to represent people of low income who need to be represented. While I have great respect for non-lawyer navigators and people who try to represent themselves, other comments have noted that most of them are out-matched when they come up against a competent lawyer.
9
Lawyers always do what's best for themselves. And they will fight (their clients) vigorously for the right to do so.
3
@Miner49er As an attorney with almost 40 years of experience, I can say that is not true. Many lawyers settle cases they think will win after trial with larger settlements or take cases to trial because their client won't settle. I have done thousands of hours of pro bono works as have many lawyers I know. Don't exaggerate or overgeneralize.
5
@JaneF You're exactly right. Attorneys get painted as so self-serving, when most I know are not. I am an attorney. I'm a commercial litigator. Most of my clients are companies with the ability to take a case all the way to trial and appeal if necessary. I don't work on contingency, I work at an hourly rate. I don't know how many times I've told clients that it's against my own financial interest for them to settle; so they should listen to me when I tell them to settle.
5
I guess my comment did not meet the standards of the NYT because I commented that the law is unnecessarily complicated to serve as a barrier to protect practitioners of the law.
Lawerys complicate and draw things out to artificially inflate their incomes and prestige plus most lawmakers are lawyers and they protect their own.
4
I would be more compelled to read the second paragraph of this article if the person wondering if everyone needed a lawyer was a lawyer.
1
internet searches like for everything else has limits to what you can find out for yourself
1
Most Americans need a good Chevy; the legal system is a Cadillac for those who can buy one.
"Law reflects but in no sense determines the moral worth of a society. The values of a reasonably just society will reflect themselves in a reasonably just law. The better the society, the less law there will be. In heaven there will be no law, and the lion shall lie down with the lamb. The values of an unjust society will reflect themselves in an unjust law. The worse the society, the more law there will be. In hell there will be nothing but law, and due process will be meticulously observed.”
― Grant Gilmore, The Ages of American Law
For those who do not know his work, Grant Gilmour was one of the finest legal minds of the 20th century.
3
First, let's face the fact that "rule of law" is, for the most part a myth. We live in a society where power, money, and influence are what make all the difference. The civil legal system is far too complicated for ordinary humans. Most civil cases nowadays are resolved via paperwork on summary judgment. Decisions do not get to be made by juries made up of ordinary people. The complications, both procedurally and substantively usually mandate the assistance of a lawyer, if one is going to achieve any semblance of justice. The system is also far too expensive. It is way past time to reform the civil legal system from top to bottom.
9
Thank the universe for Professor Sandefur!
That she is not a lawyer makes her all the more qualified for her mission in my book. After all, she’s attempting to find ways for non-attorneys, laypeople, to handle commonplace legal issues without the assistance of a lawyer. I’d be hard pressed to come up with a more noble cause, a cause with not only legal but also important ethical, social and economic implications.
9
For decades, I've wished that a semester of law would have been a valuable addition to my HS curriculum. A High School permutation of the elementary school civics class.
5
At the Center for Mediation and Collaboration RI in Providence we have volunteers available in all four of our district courts on the civil calendars to assist all pro se (unrepresented) folks. All our volunteers have had a minimum of 40 hours mediation training. Some are lawyers, some are not. Also, the RI Bar Association has a Volunteer Lawyer Program (VLP) whose purpose it is to assist people with legal matters who have nowhere to turn and cannot afford to pay. My understanding is that other states have such good resources as well.
6
The entire legal system is in need of reform. Criminal and civil cases are usually decided for the side with the most expensive legal team. Bankruptcy, divorce, liability and other categories of claims often benefit attorneys more than the clients. Criminal defense bankrupts the defendant and their family while justice is a tertiary consideration. "Well it is flawed, but it is the best we have," is not a credible rationale for the status quo.
And the reactionary ABA will never allow a change.
4
@W. Ogilvie - And lobbyists for big business push for caps on compensation and other barriers to justice, claiming all our problems come from greedy lawyers. Most proposals for "tort reform" are just granting impunity to negligent property owners and businesses. Community law centers, restorative justice, self-help advice centers in family court - all of these offer better chances for reform than we get from the anti-lawyer PACs.
1
I worked for years as a non-lawyer representative in employee relations, having worked as a director of human resources previously. Then I worked in unemployment benefits as an appeals examiner. There's no reason why someone who is not a full lawyer shouldn't be as competent in their one area of expertise as a generalist but licensed professional. I won cases against the "other side" on a number of occasions where the "other side" was represented by a fully licensed lawyer!
6
I practiced law for 35+ years. I'm not going to denigrate Ms. Sandefur because she helps people; she tries. But the first thing that I notice is that she is not a lawyer and never practiced law. She should, it would help her work tremendously.
Lawyers exist because people don't do what they are supposed to do. The legal system is complicated because people, with the help of lawyers, are continuously trying to find loopholes in the "rules" that can be exploited.
People with means can hire lawyers to bully and exploit tenants, employees, consumers, poor people and generally anyone else who interferes with or impairs their ability to obtain money or power. Of course this empowered class has other methods such as making the "rules" favorable to them to assist them in their quest to become richer and stronger.
Landlord-tenant programs that exist to varying degrees in most metropolitan areas are basically good things but one of their results is to make affordable house more scarce as landlords find rental property to be less and less profitable.
People of every walk are exploiting, being exploited, doing good and doing not so good, each with their own perspective of what's best for them.
The point is, the legal system is complicated because our society is complicated with all the odd and diverse characters participating in predictable and the most unexpected ways imaginable.
It's like a symphony composed with a part for every imaginable noise maker there is. It's not easy.
28
Let me just say this: I'm an old trial lawyer. I'll be happy to contest any case against a non lawyer so called specialist. The gist of this article is that something is better than nothing. But something amounts to nothing against sophisticated professionals. What the author should have said is that social workers and paralegals can be critical to resolving issues. But what they do is not lawyering. I'm surprised the geniuses giving out the MacArthur prize can't figure that out.
21
@Rhporter
Your post is the point of the argument. The law is so unnecessarily complicated that having the best ( most expensive attorney)usually means you will win.
I work for a regulatory agency, and when people contest their matters, the first thing I do is google their representation, and based on where they graduated law school,I can predict if they will prevail about 90% of the time
2
Lawyers (or doctors or for that matter any profession) generally fall into the three part category.
1-Very good, can help you, must have.
2-Questionable whether they are needed, may or may not help you, more likely not to help you.
2-Incompetents, not help you or even harm you.
8
There are many areas where competent individuals could replace the professional licensed practitioner. In some cases there is a time to bring in the professional but it is not required for many of the routine preliminary cases. Examples include realtors, accountants, electricians, repair persons and many more. We do not need a licensed person to change a plug, change spark plugs, keep track of expenses and many more. There is a time to seek professional help but it does not start at the preliminary stage. A large part of the problem is that the "professionals" have deliberately made things too complex. Everyone understands "John agrees to sell this to Pete for $100" It does not require 40 pages or incomprehensible jargon.
4
There is one thing that lawyers and dentists have in common: they complain about that there are too many of them to go around, yet many who really needs their services are unable to afford financially their services!
6
@Louis A. Carliner Lawyers often do pro bono work in meritorious cases. Many litigants do not have meritorious cases.
5
The poorly written mortgage and loan notes I've seen tell me that half the lawyers could be replaced by machines or children.
4
@angbob Some of those notes and mortgages while initially written by a lawyer have been modified by others usually to save money. I suggest that before signing that poorly written legal document you read it and if it isn't up to snuff you have a lawyer read it. Many legal cases could be avoided if a lawyer read the poorly written document before the poorly read document was signed.
4
what a simple, but utterly compelling, thought. i've practiced thirty years and it never occurred to me that those non-lawyer aides to whose para-legal services we turned only in a staffing pinch really are an ideal intermediary. but only if they're salaried employees lacking any incentive to protract or delay resolution of a civil dispute.
10
The ABA has realized for 40 years that we are producing too many lawyers. People getting out of law school cant find jobs. Many lawyers do a lot of makework that can and is easily automated. Tax prep software is a good example. Simple estate planning is another. The future is not bright for the legal profession. The present is not bright for the legal profession. Finally, finally this is starting to be reflected in law school populations. Take the hint: become a welder. No wait, that's going away too!
5
Look at it this way, all the laws we follow are written and passed by politicians who are mostly lawyers. All the courts that are supposed to dole out justice are lawyers. Both sides of every case are represented by lawyers. Law schools are cranking out thousands each year. Do you think all these members of the same club are going to put themselves out of a job?
7
@Thomas Renner: I don't think politicians are mostly lawyers anymore. And I think that's part of the problem with our political systems right now.
8
In his discussion of the long term impact of AI Yuval Harari argues that lawyers along with many other "knowledge" professionals (e.g. physicians and accountants) will be replaced by alogritims. Look how many people now rely on computer programs to prepare their taxes. AI and robotics will not just transform our factories, it will change everything.
1
@Richard What do you do when the AI is wrong or just unfair? YOu I assume would say, Oh, well, I guess I do deserve that speeding ticket, even though it was't me driving, or No problem I'll just pay those taxes, even though I didn't earn that money.
3
Of course! The challenge is to get this idea accepted in courts, and get funding for the "navigators." And to weather opposition from lawyers.
Hiring attorneys is, frankly, too expensive for probably at least the half of the country living below the median income level.
And having had experience with a variety of attorneys: some actually work for you, some pretend, but never in fact prepare; others are hired mainly because -- talk about a warped system - they are treated with more respect by other lawyers.
There are many custody issues in families, not involving disputes, but say, the need for temporary guardianship, where a trained navigator could assist guardians to get into Family Court to be heard.
Dr. Sandefur is right - when so much of our lives is governed by civil law, but people are routinely deprived of simple justice in their everyday lives, they - we - begin to view society as being rigged.
22
About five years ago, Massachusetts (a notoriously tenant-friendly state) began putting all civil court matters, past and present, online for the world to see. Included in this were housing court matters. If you were being evicted for non- payment of rent, this information is a mouse-click away. Similarly, if you counter-sued your landlord for any reason, this information is spelled out by each filing you may have made and by date of court appearance.
The practical impact of this is quite obvious; landlords, myself included, avoid like the plague these particular tenants. Truthfully, this website is the first stop for the vast majority of us who would rent to others. Fair or not, nobody will take chances on these folks, and all the do-gooders and tenant "advocates" won't change this basic reality of life: stiff, sue or play games with your landlord and you will not be able to access housing. Not much different from someone who stiffs their creditors and can't get credit.
My advice? Get a $6.00 dollar bottle of mold spray from Home Depot and clean the bathroom mold you caused by not running your exhaust fan. Box and bag your food, clean your floors and you won't have mice. Don't chain smoke with the windows closed 24/7 and your child's breathing issues might improve. Get the picture?
12
@M So this transparency would also help renters to identify landlords who don't maintain their buildings or respond to reasonable complaints by tenants.
7
@Dennis Maher Yes, but it won't put the property owner out of business and it won't give the tenant a new place to rent. The solution lies in writing new laws that improve tenants' ability to rent. But with the property owners influencing state legislatures with money, how likely is this going to happen?
6
@M Yes, I believe you. And there should be a law against this. It sounds like you have a pretty low opinion of some renters. Unfortunately, everyone needs a roof over their heads.
In my experience mold doesn't happen when you don't run an exhaust fan except in neglected properties. Landlords unwilling to maintain their properties to prevent rodent invasions or install reasonable quality equipment (exhaust fans) and install it properly don't have complaints from tenants about such issues.
The flip side of course is all the slum lords. And the landlords that call normal wear on their properties damage and withhold your security deposit!
While there are people who do not take care of rental properties, the damage is part of your business costs. Landlords who do not factor this into the equation should probably get out of this line of money making.
The fact that people are allowed to smoke in rental units says a lot about the level of care those units receive!
2
Reading this, I couldn't help thinking about my kid, now an adult. You mention the case of school meetings. My kid has learning disabilities. As a result, he wouldn't do his homework. At his IEP meetings, to which I went alone, the school talked me into a plan whereby they'd put him in a special homework class, that gave him extra homework on top of the homework he already wasn't doing. What he really needed was expensive specialized schooling, which I didn't know how to insist on. It would have been a lot better for him if I'd had a lawyer, or some other third party advocate, at the meetings with me.
He also has gone through life having legal problems related to cars. One time someone hit the side of his car, coming out of a driveway. Somehow the two insurance companies decided it was my kid's fault. He needed, but didn't get, a lawyer. Another time he got a bill for 5,000 times crossing the Bay Bridge without paying the toll, all with the same license plate photo. I wish I could have had a lawyer on retainer for these cases.
Yeah, if he keeps having these troubles, maybe he's somehow at fault. But, even if so, whatever he's doing wrong is related to his psychological issues. So maybe it's a clinical social worker he needs, rather than a lawyer? But something.
9
Lawyers are expensive and not everyone can afford one unless you are criminally charged and can be represented by a public defender (a lawyer) for free. Perhaps qualified paralegals can represent clients in court especially under the general supervision of a lawyer which I don't think they can do now. Paralegals can currently represent clients in certain administrative hearings such as social security I believe. Physician's assistants and nurse-practitioners can do many of the things physicians can do including the writing of prescriptions. In similar fashion, perhaps the role of paralegals can be expanded at reduced cost to clients.
14
Everyone needs medical help, that doesn't mean everyone needs a doctor (?).
Does everyone facing medical issues need a doctor?
In everyday medical matters, can a non-doctor and lay person provide just resolution?
Maybe when it comes to benefits and the like, but when in doubt, I would say go with the professional, lawyer, doctor etc.
If I were being evicted from an apartment, I would probably want a lawyer and not a social worker to navigate me through the process.
10
@Joshua Schwartz, your :"everyday non-doctors" are called Nurse Practitioners, doulas, midwives, etc.
You do not really understand what Social Workers can do, and have to do...the leg-work, the every day management of peole's issues - who often work with lawyers, generally only when they need to step in to "finish".
Result? Better access to medical care and social/legal support.
3
I am an attorney who believes that our days -- those of attorneys like me -- are numbered. We should be replaced; step one is making the systems of justice more accessible and equitable as Sandefur describes.
37