On the American Legal System

[WSUCougar]

I’ve recently heard several radio commercials for legal services, and the basic spin of the ads is that “We can help you beat the system if you’ve been nailed for _____,” with the blank being a litany of traffic, DUI, and other offenses. Some of these offenses might be considered minor, some are definitely not so minor (hit-and-run, for example).

The point of my posting this thread is to get a read from some other American citizens on what this type of thing says about our legal system, and whether it is a necessary evil in our type of society. Frankly, I am very troubled by the notion that the point of legal representation is to beat the system, regardless of guilt, and I assume that most others would feel the same way to some degree. Yet from that point things start to spin into gray areas quite quickly. Is there any way to combat this type of approach to legal representation? Are we stuck with it since the innocent, falsely-accused folks would otherwise suffer?

Let’s all try and keep this discussion civil.

[John Galt]

This isn't quite an answer to your question, but it is related to your post. Normally, the type of ad you describe is in violation of the state bar's ethical guidelines concerning advertisements. However, those rules tend to be woefullly underenforced these days.

[I. J. Reilly]

Aren’t these ads more of a consumer fraud issue then a legal issue? It’s not like the screaming idiot advertising on UPN at 3:00am is actually going to keep you out of jail.

[sachmo71]

Because the law requires procedures to work correctly, a lawyer can help you defend youself by ensuring that the procedures have been followed correctly. If the people who are responsible for carrying out the procedures get lazy and do not perform them correctly, you can get out on a technicality.

The procedural arguments may seem silly, but they are designed to help ensure that trials are fair. I would support a review of the procedures to find out if some of them are too restrictive and if they are allowing guilty parties to avoid penalties, but overall, I think that they are a good thing.

[gstelmack]

Because the law requires procedures to work correctly, a lawyer can help you defend youself by ensuring that the procedures have been followed correctly.Not only that, but as a citizen you don't always know the rules or what your plea options are. I hired a lawyer for a recent speeding ticket because no amount of Internet research could tell me what the process was for requesting a "Prayer for Judgement Continued" here in North Carolina. I'm guilty of speeding and willing to pay the fine and court costs, but I'm not willing to pay the 25% increase in my auto insurance over the next 3 years. So I had to find a lawyer (whose cost is about 1/3 the insurance rate hike) to make sure I got all the i's dotted and t's crossed.

I'm more upset about a system that obfuscates the rules enough to REQUIRE me to get a lawyer for what should be a relatively simple and straightforward plea.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I Frankly, I am very troubled by the notion that the point of legal representation is to beat the system, regardless of guilt, and I assume that most others would feel the same way to some degree.

I'm 38 now, and that's been the point of defense attorneys for at least my entire lifetime. Point being, I'm not entirely sure that hasn't been the purpose for much longer than anyone posting here has even been alive.

You've got a good enough point in theory IMO & I don't see anything in your question that deserves a ball-busting or anything like that. What I do see though is maybe a fundamental flaw in how you're approaching the subject, a flaw that's the root of what's bothering you about this.

If "the will of the people" was to ensure "justice", then you wouldn't see these ads & you wouldn't see them be effective. But there really doesn't seem to be too many people interested in "justice" these days -- most people just want a couple of things: 1)Make sure I don't get punished for anything I do; and 2)Make sure everybody else gets nailed, fairly or not, especially if nailing them might somehow help me get a little more of something (money, power, glory, prestige, whatever).

What I'm getting at is that you seem to be working from the premise that the primary goal of the court system is "justice", sadly, that just isn't the case today & hasn't been in I-don't-know-how-long (if ever).

Hopefully that comes across as "civil" (albeit extremely cynical), because I'm genuinely trying to raise a point to ponder, although I never know how effectively I'm going to communicate serious points like that when trying to type them out. (Inflection is really helpful in figuring out stuff I'm trying to say)

[Ksyrup]

This isn't quite an answer to your question, but it is related to your post. Normally, the type of ad you describe is in violation of the state bar's ethical guidelines concerning advertisements. However, those rules tend to be woefullly underenforced these days.An ad like that wouldn't fly in Florida. Florida has some of the most restrictive lawyer advertising standards in the country. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court just upheld a disciplinary action against 2 lawyers who used 1-800-PIT-BULL as their phone number. In Florida, the people who speak in an advertisement must be attorneys with the firm, we are allowed only one piece of instrumental music in the background, we're not allowed to have testimonials or give examples of cases in the past, no celebrity endorsements, etc. They make good use of the US Supreme Court cases which have upheld certain lawyer advertising restrictions as not being a violation of freedom of speech.

I still remember being in NJ during the summer of 1999 and seeing OJ Simpson in an ad for a criminal defense firm (not sure if it was for NJ, PA, or both) and being absolutely flabbergasted.

So, to answer your question, some states will draw a line at hyperbole or promising to do things that go beyond simply identifying what you do and how to reach you.

[Surtt]

Frankly, I am very troubled by the notion that the point of legal representation is to beat the system, regardless of guilt, and I assume that most others would feel the same way to some degree.



And how do you determine these "guilty" people with out a trial?
They are innocent until proven guilty.
Would you rather go to "guilty until proven innocent?"

They are not beating the system.
The system is: the charges must be proven in a fair trial.
If the prosecutor can not prove his case, the system is working.

[WSUCougar]

And how do you determine these "guilty" people with out a trial?
They are innocent until proven guilty.
Would you rather go to "guilty until proven innocent?"

They are not beating the system.
The system is: the charges must be proven in a fair trial.
If the prosecutor can not prove his case, the system is working.
Understood. But I'm viewing this from a detached perspective, assessing the point of our legal system. Does it always necessarily follow that, because of the "innocent until proven guilty" standard, the notion of beating the system is inherent?

[Surtt]

It is it better to let 10 guilty people go free than to convict one innocent person,
and all that.

As someone above pointed out, our legal system is not about justice it is about enforcing the laws.