Justice System Reform Bill 2 2015

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Polnut

[Blair]

Sorry for posting before Polnut has a chance to give his brief on this but could we change the name of this considering there's another justice reform bill being debated. This bill seems specific to 'legal aid' as we call it in the UK (getting a discounted lawyer basically)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well it's a different aspect of the judicial system (and strictly speaking the part that is role play rather than game admin) so it's not that confusing. Anyway, this has the support of the DoJ.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm comfortable with such a title change.

[TNF]

Why don't we just make all lawyers public servants? If everyone is a public defender, then no one is denied access to quality counsel on account of ability to pay. Set up a lottery system that gives everyone a lawyer and have the state cover the costs.

[Blair]

Legal language is always lost in translation across the pond.

Are public defense cases ones where you're defending a member of the public? So if someone is charged with burglary you defend them against the state?

[Cranberry]

Echoing Senator Blair's statements, I beg for a clarification of what exactly this would change in which circumstances.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I don't support Senator TNF's proposal, I believe we don't need to be making the Government do everything itself, we can work in partnership with other sectors.

Public defenders are those people who are engaged by the state to defend those in criminal matters who are unable to provide such defense for themselves.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The title was meant to be part of series of Bills to improve and reform the justice system. It might break the continuity ... Yet to see Bill 1

But if people are concerned, any suggestions for title changes.

[Cranberry]

I see, thank you for the clarification, Senator.

In light of this, I would deem this bill to be sensible indeed. It encourages legal companies to help the disadvantaged in our society, and I am certainly not one to oppose such measures if planned sensibly.

[Talleyrand]

Just finished reading this; I'm definitely on board!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We could use some more clarification, particularly a definition for "legal defense projects".


Also, what was the criteria for selecting 75% in clause 5? It is still rather high no? What is the industry average for instance?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

We could use some more clarification, particularly a definition for "legal defense projects".


Also, what was the criteria for selecting 75% in clause 5? It is still rather high no? What is the industry average for instance?

At the moment it's above 85%, closer to 90%.

[Lief 🗽]

What's the purpose of section 5? Also can you explain the FTE language? Does that mean 25% of the firm's work must be dedicated to this? Or 25% of a single employee in the firm's work?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

One of the known outcomes of the current over-worked public defense system is a marked increase in plea-deals. If someone is guilty that's one thing, but if they're taking a plea-deal because an over-worked public defender is recommending it, that's a big problem and it's a real one.

The suggestion was that a firm would undertake work of the equivalent of 25% of a full employee workload. So no, it's not a single employee.

[Blair]

I agree with the plea bargaining, I've read lots of things about poorer people existentially getting played by the legal system.

Would there be an issue with large firms getting a tax break here? I'm not 100% comfortable giving a multi-million pound law firm a tax break, but I could be wrong

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree with the plea bargaining, I've read lots of things about poorer people existentially getting played by the legal system.

Would there be an issue with large firms getting a tax break here? I'm not 100% comfortable giving a multi-million pound law firm a tax break, but I could be wrong

Sure, that's the risk here, but it's a pragmatic approach. We're trying to create an incentive for the firms with the most capacity to become engaged in this format, hence why the reduction is tiered, with the smaller firms getting more. A lot of firms undertake pro-bono work, but it's not formalised and doesn't in any way deal with reducing the workload of our existing public defenders. If it means throwing a bone to successful firms, it doesn't really bother me. Especially since smaller firms tend to have less capacity to undertake these kinds of projects or have a more niche focus.

[Blair]

I agree with the plea bargaining, I've read lots of things about poorer people existentially getting played by the legal system.

Would there be an issue with large firms getting a tax break here? I'm not 100% comfortable giving a multi-million pound law firm a tax break, but I could be wrong

Sure, that's the risk here, but it's a pragmatic approach. We're trying to create an incentive for the firms with the most capacity to become engaged in this format, hence why the reduction is tiered, with the smaller firms getting more. A lot of firms undertake pro-bono work, but it's not formalised and doesn't in any way deal with reducing the workload of our existing public defenders. If it means throwing a bone to successful firms, it doesn't really bother me. Especially since smaller firms tend to have less capacity to undertake these kinds of projects or have a more niche focus.

I didn't see the tiered system, that looks like enough to ensure that it's not just a hand out

[Lief 🗽]

I'm not sure that we want to be incentivize lawyers to pursue specific legal outcomes for their clients. Lawyers should work to get the best legal outcome possible for their clients, and many times that includes plea bargains.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm not sure that we want to be incentivize lawyers to pursue specific legal outcomes for their clients. Lawyers should work to get the best legal outcome possible for their clients, and many times that includes plea bargains.

Of course, but most recognise that the sheer scale of plea deals is not the advocate doing the best for the client, but the best outcome considering the public defense system being overwhelmed. If there's strong concerns about this, I'm happy to negotiate an alternative.

[Blair]

TNF's proposal is obviously a TNF proposal, and I don't want to distract from the core of this, but can anyone explain to me why it's to our advantage as a nation to subject legal representation to market forces? Does it actually result in a more efficient allocation of legal resources, or do market failures dominate?

I assume the idea is to ensure equality of legal access, which can be as detrimental as lack of access to healthcare/energy/schooling. I mean I think everyone should have a right to a fair trail, and this extends to ensuring everyone has good legal protection

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

TNF's proposal is obviously a TNF proposal, and I don't want to distract from the core of this, but can anyone explain to me why it's to our advantage as a nation to subject legal representation to market forces? Does it actually result in a more efficient allocation of legal resources, or do market failures dominate?

I'm not quite sure where you're coming from Mr Vice President. This proposal better utilises existing systems, business and expert knowledge to support a public defense system that is struggling and leads to worse outcomes for all involved.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Please tell me we are not going to be nationalizing the legal profession?


If we were to nationalize the legal profession, chances are with wages held down by the gov't like with teachers, the effect would be fewer of the top tier of college graduates going into the profession. With more coming from the bottom quadrants of college performance, that would mean a generalized decline in the overal skill of lawyers in general in the name of equality.

That said on the flip side, the lack of access to good representation is a threat to due process of law and equality before the law because it means varying outcomes based on the amount of wealth that one has.

That has to be some sort of happy medium where skill is rewarded and yet the poor and working class receive high quality representation as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am not talking about just skimming off the top. One could argue if taking to the extent with the teaching profession, the overal impact is much greater and much more negative with regards to the quality of service provided by the overal profession.

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am proposing this amendment.