Are Lawyers Becoming ‘Luxury Goods’?

Legal Profession

Posted Jul 7, 2008, 02:42 pm CST
By Martha Neil

Lawyers increasingly are becoming like luxury goods to many would-be clients, an expensive article that they can't afford or don't want to make a priority.

And that is bad news for the profession as well as for the public, says a recent article in the National (PDF), a magazine published by the Canadian Bar Association.

Lawyers, for instance, "could soon be in a minority among advocates in family courts nationwide," the magazine writes. While that means less business for attorneys who would gladly represent those in need of counsel in Canadian family court matters, it also represents an additional cost for those who do represent such clients, the article says. For example, attorneys waiting their turn behind unrepresented litigants attempting for the first time to navigate through the complexities of the court system are likely to be waiting longer than attorneys standing behind other legal counsel.

Some potential family law clients could afford to hire an attorney, but just don't see the benefit of doing so, the magazine notes. Empowered by the ease of researching the law on the Internet and a modern-day sense that experts may not be necessary, they prefer to go it alone rather than bring in a lawyer. In some areas there is also a shortage of available counsel to take on new cases.

In an accompanying editorial, the magazine's editor, attorney Jordan Furlong, says two trends are working against increased representation of litigants in family court, reports Canwest News Service.

First, unaffordable legal fees won't drop in a self-regulated marketplace for attorneys, he says. Second, regardless of whether lawyers are involved, family court is still resolving cases.

Related coverage:

ABAJournal.com: "Legal Assistance Lawyer Calls for ‘Civil Gideon’ in N.H."

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by kay sieverding - 4 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 28 minutes ago

I was incarcerated for 5 months by chief CO federal judge Edward Nottingham for attempting to represent myself in federal court. I wasn’t accused of a crime, fraud, or contempt in the presence of the court just not doing what the judge ordered after he dismissed my case, 02-cv-1950, on the basis that I am a bad writer. The prosecutor, Faegre & Benson, representing Mutual Insurance Limited of Bermuda, said that I wasn’t entitled to a lawyer, a jury trial, or an evidentiary hearing before going to jail. So that makes self-representation pretty scary. it should be safer for me than for most people because I live in Wisconsin where self -representation is supposed to be an absolute right but even so the Minnesota federal district court ruled that I have to prove my right to self representation beyond attaching the annotated Wisconsin constitution and Rule 17 b (1).

Plumbers and electricians don’t put you in jail if you work on your own house without a license. Even if you can’t afford a plumber, you can still try to fix your own plumbing. My family owns a small business and unless we are swamped we never turn down anyone’s order no matter who they are. People can even provide emergency medical care without a license if no doctor is available.

I think they should have halls where lawyers sit at desks in windows with their background, price, and qualifications posted out front. Sort of like the brothels in Amsterdam are described as. They could be working while they are waiting to be hired. I think you should be able to put in a debit card and buy their services in 15 minute increments and the only way the lawyers sitting there should deny you is if they are actually representing the opposing party.

I met someone who said her divorce lawyer tried to seduce her and lied about his marital status. She said he came to her house late at night and tried to get her drunk and later she found out that he was married but he told her he was single and wanted to have a relationship with her. She said that her ex husband tried to blackmail her about the attempted seduction, which he heard about from their child, and that when she complained to the Colorado attorney regulation counsel and the judge they both blew her off. She said she tried to hire another lawyer telling them about the fraudulent attempted seduction but no one would represent her. She said she had already paid the first lawyer $28,000, which he did not return. So, she said she ended up representing herself but that it wasn’t that hard. She was an a public school art teacher with one child.
Posted by Steve Perkins - 4 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 6 hours, 52 minutes ago

The real “story” in this piece is that experimental family courts are proving successful at better handling parties’ needs in the specific niche of family law.

This is casually tossed out there in one sentence… buried within what is otherwise the 1,204,575th ABA Journal article that exploits students and new associates’ fears of never finding a job, and/or that someone is making more money than them.
Posted by S. A. - 4 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 6 hours, 12 minutes ago

Lay people who don’t pay for a lawyer get exactly what they deserve. If it works out, great. If it doesn’t, it is solely their responsibility and this carping and whining about how lawyers charge too much is just another way of being a perpetual victim.

Take this example: Three brothers, thinking they ‘can do it themselves’ negotiate and draft a written loan agreement (using ready made internet forms) to fund a new business started by the brothers’ long time friend, investing $250,000 taken out of their retirement plans. Said business fails and the “friend” goes bankrupt. Brothers then go to a lawyer who reviews the document and sees that it has none of the standard provisions which would have protected them if they would have bothered to consult a lawyer in the first place. Lawyer offers to do what she can to get some of their money back, but the brothers STILL, after losing $250,000 don’t want to pay a lawyer. Brothers, then, lose everything they ‘invested’ ... because they didn’t want to spend $5 or $10,000 for attorney’s fees at the start.

Yep. Lawyer’s charge too much. You bet they do.
Posted by Ronnie - 4 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 4 hours, 51 minutes ago

I am a family law attorney, and I see all too often those who represent themselves in our court systems—and if it’s divorce it’s in circuit court, not the juvenile/domestic relations court system here—and people often do get what they pay for. There’s only so much that people KNOW to look up. I had a client representing himself prior to retaining my firm; the family lived in one county but the divorce had been filed in another county. He wanted venue moved. No problem, EXCEPT that the address of record that he consistently used in all prior proceedings was the county the divorce was filed in, so the court wouldn’t move it. We eventually had to fire him because he wasn’t worth the trouble he caused, but he got stuck in a county he hated because he didn’t know the rules prior to getting served. (I’m just glad he’s not my problem anymore…)
Posted by NCLawyer - 4 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 3 hours, 3 minutes ago

One think Ms. Sieverding said that particularly stood out:
“I think they should have halls where lawyers sit at desks in windows with their background, price, and qualifications posted out front. Sort of like the brothels in Amsterdam are described as.“

Ms. Sieverding, when you spend 3 years of your life in law school, and another 3+ years becoming proficient in your specialty, then I will consider you qualified to propose ‘reforms’ to the practice of law. I’m sorry that you had an unfortunate experience representing yourself, and I agree that SOME lawyers charge too much, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the real reason you wound up in jail is that you did not follow the court’s orders and you mouthed off to the judge one too many times.

I remember talking to my father about my parents divorce ... 7 years after the fact, and he was still unhappy that the lawyer had asked him how much money he had in his retirement fund, because quote, “it’s none of her damn business.“ Nevermind that dividing the assets was very much the business of the lawyer, his main criticism of her was, “I got a form from my employer to divide the retirement ... all she did was change a few numbers.“ As it turns out, the “numbers” she changed were the applicable statutes, and the form came from CA, which is (I as I understand it) a community property state, and his divorce was taking place in VA, whichi is an equitable distribution state. Are you with me so far, Ms. Sieverding? Once I explained to my father that the lawyer could not just “change the numbers,“ that she probably spent a several hours trying to figure out what he was trying to accomplish with this CA form he’d provided her so that she could translate it into something that would accomplish the same goals under VA law, he just shook his head dismissively and changed the subject.

People have bad experiences, and there are bad lawyers ... just like doctors, plumbers etc. As for the plumbing example, people don’t get sent to jail for doing their own plumbing because it is presumed that someone would want to do a safe and competent job on the house they live in. Pro se litigants who go into the courtroom ill-prepared, with a bad attitude, without justiciable claims, after their claim has already been dismissed twice, etc. waste not only their own time, but the time (and money) of the other litigants waiting for their cases to be heard, and most of all, they waste court time, which means they waste tax-payer money. Of course folks have the right to represent themselves, but they’re also taking a risk by doing so. I have seen several pro se litigants in NC, and I can say that the judges here make every effort to accommodate them and to make sure they understand the implications of the choices they make/. But when it becomes clear that a pro se litigant is too uneducated or too emotional to represent herself, the judge usually continues the hearing so that the person can get a lawyer. If the person keeps coming back, the judge will eventually make a ruling ... and then the pro se litigant can lump it.

Mr. Perkins, S.A., could not agree with you more. I’ve had the case where the engineer thought he could write his own contract without a lawyer, then hired our firm to defend him with the other party sued him for breach. The “contract” was so incoherent there was no way to determine what the original intent of the agreement was. Instead of spending $1000-2000 to protect his interests on a multi-project million dollar+ deal, he would up losing about $600,000.00 worth of work. And a judgment against him, since he violated the settlement agreement he paid his lawyers to write!!

In conclusion, Ms. Sieverding, I’m sorry you got chewed up by the legal system, but there is not enough money in the world to pay me to deal with the clients who know better. I would rather work in a brothel in Amsterdam.
Posted by associate - 4 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 2 hours, 37 minutes ago

If you do the math on becoming a lawyer, it’s a pretty bad proposition financially speaking for a very long time. You’d be much better off as a mechanic, welder, machinist, factory worker, or in the military coming right out of high school. Most people have no idea and are violently opposed to acknowledging that.

The real problem isn’t how much lawyers cost, but how little most people are making these days. It’s barely a living wage. Execs and the board soak up all the money that should be going to workers and the owners, and these are the kinds of problems that result.
Posted by J.M. Burda - 4 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 2 hours, 30 minutes ago

Representing oneself is sometimes the only way a person can appear in court. I represent the poor in a homeless legal assistance program. My clients do not have the funds to hire a lawyer and it’s the local bar does not want to do the work pro bono. My clients have no assets to fight over. They may have children. Since there are no lawyers willing to represent them, they have no choice but to represent themselves. My program tries to help as much as possible, but the demand far outreaches our capacity. I’ve suggested that the court establish a protocol to deal with these issues. In most cases, the mother has the children, father is gone and whereabouts unknown. There is no reason why the court cannot establish a procedure to fast-track these cases before magistrates. Child support can be set at the state minimum, visitation held in abeyance and the court retains jurisdiction over these matters. Custody can be awarded, a divorce granted and the filing spouse can get on with his/her life. Still, this suggestion is dismissed out of hand by the family law bar. They insist that these clients can afford to hire a lawyer. Hard to justify when the client is on SSI and receives $600 a month.

I believe the profession has an ethical obligation to ensure access to the judicial system to everyone. Question is how to accomplish this. That’s where the bar associations come into play. It’s a problem and it’s not going away. Self-help clinics may be the answer. Allowing specially trained paralegals to assist these litigants may be helpful. And, I’m not talking about folks who could hire a lawyer but choose not to; but for those who have no alternative, the profession needs to address the issue.
Posted by Kay Sieverding - 4 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 1 hour, 30 minutes ago

Dear NC lawyer

Problems with confining evaluation of legal system reforms to lawyers are that 1.) They have a financial incentive to avoid making the system more available and less expensive to the general citizen 2.) Lawyers and judges experience the best of the legal system not the worst, so they discount how bad the worst is.

I am too polite to “mouth-off” to any judge. If I had been imprisoned for “mouthing-off” (contempt in the presence of the court), the judge was required to state what the “mouthing-off” consisted of. These were pre scheduled contempt of court hearings at the request of Faegre & Benson, which was representing Mutual Insurance Limited of Bermuda. Their lawyer Christopher Beall said:

“the point is that this is a civil contempt hearing. Regardless of any possibility of incarceration, Mr. and Mrs. Sieverding hold the keys to their cell. They may comply with the Court’s order, at least prospectively, and they may avoid incarceration. As a result, this is civil, not criminal contempt. They do not have the right to counsel. They do not have the right to a jury trial. They do not have the right to a full and complete evidentiary hearing.” (08-cv-01064 document 30 transcript 9/2/05, p. 13)

The order was that I could not litigate pro se “based on the same series of events”. The first case was dismissed without a jury trial, summary judgment, or rule 52a or 54a compatible judgment. They claimed that the Anti Injunction Act does not apply to federal courts. There were no rule 11 c. 6 orders and there was no Rule 65 procedure nor Rule 65d compatible order.

The U.S. code is clear:

“Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall be prosecuted for such contempt… This section shall not be construed to relate to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States, but the same, and all other cases of contempt not specifically embraced in this section may be punished in conformity to the prevailing usages at law.” U.S.C. Title 18 Part 1, Chapter 21 § 402. Contempts constituting crimes

Pro se litigation is not a crime and I was not prosecuted on behalf of the U.S. government. Was it the “prevailing usage at law” in 1948 to put pro ses in jail for being pro se? Pro ses are entitled to rely on the written law. Even a rich man who employs a law firm needs to have pro se rights so that his lawyer is his agent and if he looses his riches, he can still preserve his rights.

Let’s be clear too that when we are talking about people not hiring a lawyer, we are not only talking about people with limited financial resources. The reason I originally represented myself is that I wanted to sue a lawyer and I couldn’t “find a lawyer to sue a lawyer”. That problem was recognized by the McGee Commission.
Posted by kay sieverding - 4 months, 3 weeks, 4 days, 1 hour, 23 minutes ago

sorry
“loses” his riches not “looses” his riches

I think pro ses should be able to pay for proof reading.
Posted by kay sieverding - 4 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 23 hours, 23 minutes ago

The Holocaust provides an additional example as to why pro se rights are important. As I understand historical facts, there were plenty of good Jewish lawyers. Before the Jews were killed, their property was taken from them. First law licenses were removed from Jewish lawyers, then court time was only allowed to those with law licenses.

Robert J Grey, a former ABA director and a black man, observed:

“…The Constitution establishes the fundamental right of access to the judicial system. The courts, as guardians of every person’s individual rights, have a special responsibility to protect and enforce the right of equal access to the judicial system… Real and meaningful access to the courts is fundamental to the health and vitality of any democracy. It is the shield used by citizens to protect themselves against tyranny, abuses, and simple errors in judgment. Access to the courts is the lifeblood of the system because from it flow all other rights.” “Access to the Courts Equal Justice for All”

Another ABA article published yesterday is entitled “Foreclosure Crisis Worst Since 1930’s Great Depression”. This implies that more people than ever will be unable to afford a lawyer, or can purchase only some legal services. At the same time, there are something like 2000 insurance companies in Bermuda selling insurance in the U.S. market. I think it is very significant that when Faegre & Benson acted as prosecutor in an indirect contempt action, although that is forbidden by the U.S. Supreme Court, they were representing a Bermuda insurance company that doesn’t have a NAIC number. At some point U.S. lawyers and the ABA itself must decide if they have a commitment to the Rule of Law that goes beyond their personal finances.
Posted by Oliver Wendell Holmes III - 4 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 22 hours, 6 minutes ago

To poster number 1: you are not, my dear man, an attorney, solicitor, barrister, or member of the bar, and despite all of your noble efforts to enumerate various statutes, legal theories, legal phrases, and, notably, your own case number, those attempts do not make you a member of the bar. If you yearn to become an officer of the court, I strongly urge you, my good man, to attend law school. Your valliant though quaint efforts at speaking like a lawyer are vastly outweighed by your ignorance of the law and the danger you present to your family, friends, and yourself in attempting to represent yourself before a tribunal. If I was your judge, I would have sentenced you to a year of hard labor, followed by a public tar and feathering in the town square, and concluding with the stocks on the grounds of your boarding house. You are indeed fortunate, my dear man, not to have entered my court room, which happens to be in the Commonweath of Massachusetts! This court is adjorned!
Posted by Chicago attorney - 4 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 17 hours, 1 minute ago

Kay Silverding:

It would help if you provided the background for your remarks.

Since you didn’t , I attach an opinion from the 10th circuit that provides some background for other commenters.

http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2007/07/06-1465.htm

Courts have the power to bar vexatious litigants from filing additional lawsuits pro se. When such orders are entered, it typically means the filer has established a track record of frivolous and abusive filings and that an attorney’s involvement is necessary to ensure that the litigant limits their use of the judicial system to meritorious claims.
Posted by Kay Sieverding - 4 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 50 minutes ago

All that the 10th Circuit order said was that I filed too many motions. It does not say that I filed anything fraudulent. I verified every single thing I filed under penalty of perjury and was not accused of perjury once. There was only one non pro se rule 11 motion and that was assigned to a magistrate in violation of Rule 54 2 d and e. He didn’t have a hearing nor did he issue any rule 11 c. 6 order, nor did the judge, Edward Nottingham. There is a bill for a conference call between a defendant, the lawyer for Lloyds of London and the magistrate and the lawyer for Lloyds billed for 20 calls to and from the court. The only rule 11 motion listed as its only basis attorney immunity and listed as its only authority the very same magistrate judge.

What is your source in statute for our statement “the courts have the power to bar vexatious litigants from filing additional lawsuits pro se”? I am a citizen of Wisconsin and the WI Const Art 1 Section 21 (2) gives Wisconsin citizens have an absolute right to represent themselves in civil matters. Under Federal Rule 17 b that gives me an absolute right to represent myself in federal court. In Wisconsin, even disbarred lawyers are allowed to represent themselves and the court claims that it considers the arguments without regard to whether the person is a lawyer, a disbarred lawyer, or a pro se litigant who never went to law school.

The motions the 10th Circuit referred to were mostly motions for partial summary judgment. They were assigned to the magistrate even though magistrates aren’t supposed to hear dispositive motions without the agreement of the parties, under the Magistrates Act. Instead of responding with a report, he ordered the defense not to respond and struck them. I tried to use motions to build my case because the defense did not file Answers and there was no case management conference. Under common law an unlimited number of motions is allowed. There was never ever even a single motions conference before my case was dismissed.

The order is not an injunction, it is not a rule 11 order, and it is not a procedural order. The Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that have jurisdiction only over cases not over persons. There was no jury trial and no order complying with rules 52a and/or 54a. The Court took my statutory rights from me and argued that they could do so because I was not a lawyer.
Posted by kay sieverding - 4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 23 hours, 27 minutes ago

sorry, to Chicago attorney

You were the one who stated “courts have the power to bar vexatious litigants from filing additional lawsuits pro se”. Australia tried a vexatious litigant statute and excluded a lawsuit against a tobacco company on that basis. Congress has not passed a “vexatious litigant statute” of any type. The Courts don’t have the authority to amend the laws of civil procedure by judicial interpretation.
Posted by DC lawyer - 4 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 6 minutes ago

Chicago attorney hit the proverbial nail on the head..
Posted by Googler - 4 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 18 hours, 21 minutes ago

Sounds like Ms. Sieverding needs to find a different hobby. And maybe some medication.

As to the rest of the commentors - “Never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.“

Lawsuit-happy woman now in contempt of court
Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News
Friday, February 3, 2006

A federal judge on Thursday ordered the arrest of Kay Sieverding after she failed to show up in his court to explain why she broke her promise to drop numerous lawsuits in exchange for her release from jail.

Colorado U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham said the former Steamboat Springs resident, now of Wisconsin, is in contempt and that he won’t let her out of jail again until he sees certified copies of documents dismissing the cases.

“The court no longer believes her or credits her promises,“ Nottingham said.

Her husband, David Sieverding, flew from Wisconsin Thursday to appear before Nottingham.

“Did she tell you why she chose to stay in Wisconsin?“ Nottingham asked Sieverding about his wife’s absence.

“Ah,“ said Sieverding. “I think she just said she decided to stay in Wisconsin. I’ve tried to avoid talking about this with her.“

The people Kay Sieverding has sued now want to collect more than $100,000 in attorneys’ fees for having to defend themselves in those actions.

Nottingham jailed the woman in September for refusing to drop the suits, which stem from a dispute with her Steamboat Springs neighbors. She filed the suits without a lawyer.

Sieverding sued the neighbors, city officials, the local newspaper, the Colorado Bar Association and the American Bar Association, among others. When she has lost in one court, she has filed in another.

Sieverding, 50, told Nottingham on Jan. 4 that she would drop the suits if he would let her out of jail. But she didn’t drop them, and earlier this month filed documents in the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, protesting Nottingham’s order.

Outside the courtroom, David Sieverding said he has tried to persuade his wife to drop the lawsuits, but said his wife is very stubborn.

“I just don’t understand that level of stubbornness, to be honest with you,“ he said.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Legal Profession