At the present time, though I am monitoring, despite the Edict from the Supreme Judicial Court allowing any trial court department to activate LAR, no trial court department has done so.
As a practical matter, an attorney can agree to appear for just one court event, such as to defend against a Motion to Increase or a Motion to Decrease Visitation, without being obligated to provide endless representation without payment.
I can see that this could be useful for legal services, in terms of leveraging how many family law litigants could be helped.
I am not sure how LAR would work in, say, housing court, or in a District Court civil matter. So, for now, stay tuned.
LAR may reduce the confusion caused by pro se litigants, if it is expanded, or allow a father’s rights group to have a father-friendly clinic. Only time and the evolution of LAR and access to justice will demonstrate whether LAR is a helpful change in the system – or a diminishment of the role of counsel.
<
p>I would say the dimishment of the role of counsel in of itself is a helpful change.
I think your comment is shortsighted. Attorneys are the reason you are free to post your ideas on this blog. You can worship your God, not worship your God, or maintain that there is no god; all due to the fact that our founding fathers (mostly lawyers) carved out these rights. Lawyers have made your cars safer, your air, water and earth cleaner, your foodstuffs and drugs purer etc.
<
p>While doctors were bleeding their patients to death, great lawyers were causing this wonderful constitutional democracy to be born.
Ghost-writing by attorneys can give pro-se litigants the support they need to get through relatively minor issues at the court, at a reduced cost. I think it improves access, and can limit confusion for the pro-se litigant. Some of these guys can really gum up the works. đŸ™‚ Nice work, Amber!!
Because it is up to THEM to get the ball rolling.
in Massachusetts. Chief Justice Paula Carey (of Probate and Family Court) is largely responsible moving this innovation forward.
I cannot find a standing order, or announcement to confirm this. Please provide a link! The Probate and Family Courts ARE, in my view, the court department that needs this most so I am hoping your comment is accurate. I have been watching for such an announcement, and there has not been one online or in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly that I have seen.
This seems to me as a way to get around adequately funding low cost or free legal services for low to moderate income persons.
<
p>Hiring an attorney for these types of cases is expensive for most people and on its face LAR would seem to help in more straight forward cases. But the legal system is extremely complex and I still think it is important for litigants to have legal representation.
<
p>Further, a court case can have a long lasting and powerful impact on the financial situation or well being of the parties and everyone should have a right to an affordable attorney similar to having a right to health care. European countries have caught on to this and in addition to universal health care they generally have robust affordable legal services programs. President Nixon actually started to build this in the US, but Reagan pretty much ended it and nothing much has been done since then outside of a few non-profits that cannot respond to the level of demand for their services.
The district courts are overflowing with hack attorneys who beat the system to it’s knees. They make it their career to represent the indigent with IQ’s of 80 and below.
Like everything else in this world—people take advantage. The “regular customers” at the district courts are well known to the jurist (in most cases). Justice is usually meted out even handedly. That said, sometimes you get defendants that are innocent or there is sufficient mitigation and they are going to get railroaded. Then—you want a COMPETENT attorney—-and they are becoming fewer and farther between.
MCRD, presuming you are correct that the courts are “overflowing with hack attorneys” then that doesn’t mean there is not a need for low-cost legal services. Perhaps it means that the standards for the bar exam should be increased (currently almost 90% pass on their first try) or admission standards to law schools should become more strict.
<
p>I would personally prefer a revamping of the way we train lawyers so that the first 2 years are spent in school but the third is more of an “apprentice” year where a student works with a senior attorney and learns how to apply the theory they learn in school for actual practice. Better yet would be to have these 3rd year students work for a legal services organization for one year and take on cases at a lower cost while learning how to become an excellent lawyer.
<
p>But to say that we shouldn’t provide legal services to those who need them because many attorneys are not competent does not offer a solution to the problem.
BUT—–I hope this does not find it’s way into district cort criminal proceedings where MANY defendants find themselves poorly represented by unqualified, uninterested, poorly prepared public defenders. Even some of the lawyers who are in fact compensated by defendants are all of aforementioned or worse. With LAR a defendant would be at the mercy of the jurist and the mood he/she is in that day. Could be a slippery slope. On the other hand, I’ve seen defendants who just wished to plead and the jurist refused to take the plea without representation, case continued for multiple dates, for multiple reasons and just a waste of everyone’s time for a foolish misdemeanor.
Most attorneys who are appointed on criminal or mental health matters before our courts are private attorneys. They have private clients and indigent ones. Most bar programs have relatively strict requirements for those who wish to become bar advocates.
<
p>You do a disservice to these attorneys by making blanket statements about their competence. Bar advocates are required to participate in annual training, maintain insurance etc. They are frequently the most competent and knowledgeable attorneys in the court due to their familiarity with the subject matter, judges, assistant district attorneys and probation officers. Attorneys who have been in the pits are the ones to go to.
<
p>Long ago Claus Von Bulow was charged with the attempted murder of his wife. His first attorney was Harold Price Fahringer, a commercial actor and attorney. Beautiful suit, wonderful hair and a voice fit for a Roman Senator. Despite his million dollar lawyer straight from central casting Von Bulow was convicted.
<
p>After the conviction was set aside due to the work of Alan Dershowitz, Von Bulow hired a new attorney, Thomas Puccio, a highly skilled and knowledgeable former prosecutor. Balding with rumpled suit, Puccio connected with the working class jury and won an acquittal. Puccio was not a bar advocate. He was a former Abscam prosecutor. Prior to Von Bulow few had heard of Puccio, two weeks after Von Bulow he became a partner in a Wall Street law firm. Puccio has a lot in common with the bar advocates you will encounter in the District Courts of our state. Given the choice between a Fahringer and a Puccio I would always take the Puccio. You seem to be a Fahringer guy to me.
If there is such a thing as a “blue collar lawyer” the court appointed bar IS it – standing up against the might of the state, fighting for the little guy, and paying 1005 of our own expenses. MCRD you sound totally ignorant.
<
p>I suppose in every profession there are those who do their best, and those who do the least possible.
<
p>The bar advocates, and court appointed child welfare bar, on the whole, are the best of the best despite, I suppose, a few who are not as zealous.
<
p>Thanks, Joe!