Watching the latest ABC episode of landline and a report called "Overkill" today and it made really ponder the question: How do we enable all people to have equal access to the law in Australia?

My questions:
Are lawyers paid too much?
Is there a better way than government legal aid to provide assistance in the courts?
Is the current system fair, where those who can afford a lawyer can be more adequately protected?

Or am I being too 'utopian' in believing that things could improve and should improve?

The link for the report:
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/

Does legal assistance cost too much?
Random Guy,
Only for innocent people, all others have Government funded Legal Aid. Another ALP legacy.

Random Guy an interesting subject.
One deserving reply s that at least under stand your reasoning.
Yes it costs too much but how can we avoid it.
I have always held the view we are at the mercy of country Lawyers And law givers.
Often the out come depends on the results of the last round of golf both played.
And those expensive clubs cost a lot so?
We do pay too much and often for far too little.

Indi, what is your slant, no legal aid for the guilty?
We have too many lawyers making the laws. In most parliaments more than 50% of members are from the legal profession. I suppose some would argue we live in a complex society so laws have to be complex as well to suit society. From my own experience lawyers are certainly not underpaid for what they contribute.
Every accused has the right to a defense, is there a better way than legal aid, if there is I can't think of it.

Yep definitely time we restricted OUR legal aid to OUR citizens. It should never be available to visitors, those who are only residents, & most definitely not to people who gatecrash our borders. Just how stupid is it to assist people who are ripping us off.

There should also be time limits. Say one lot of legal aid every 2 years. Time to tell judges who demand defendants be represented we are not about to let them feather yet another lawyer's nest.

It appears every decision of lower courts is appealed using more legal aid. If the judgments of these lower courts are always challenged, why have them? Lets stop the waste, close them down, & just have the high court.

If we do keep them, lets make the wait for funding for an appeal to be 2 years, & that time to be spent serving the sentence handed down. Half the sentences would be finished, & a useless appeal avoided.

Indi, what is your slant, no legal aid for the guilty?
Paul1405,
What's your slant, no legal aid for the victims ?

legal-costs is a j0ke..because the whole of the law rests on an implied deception..of constituted social contract..

see there is civil-law..[contract law
which must be used only under a valid contract
made between equalparties with full disclosure..further that there be a dispute..of contracted terms

[present..in court..in its original condition
the other type of law is criminal law..[where a LIVING being..sues for injury]..the dead[ie state corporations ploice force etc arnt 'living entities' ..thus cant be injured..thus cant sue under criminal law

there are ways to strip..our free born standing..eg by becoming a ward[the legal term is imbecile..or a ward of the court..via previous ruling for injury

reghardlesss legalaid is agreat scam
the lawyer is regarded as a servant of tre court..![his/her..jopb is tosee the courts time isnt wasted..if he does it right6he can become a judge..or a politition[60 percent of our polies are or were lawyers

yet alllaws are writtenby lawyers
judged by lawyers..[irecallthe aborigonallegal aid was set up..togain guilty plesse[see once yopuplead..you loose standing[become a ward of the court

anyhowe legal aid is a great little earner
pk onl;yua few hundred per guiltyplea..but 10 or twenty of them..is still thousands for a morning of getting guilty please

just the drug law[in1999]..alone raised 65 million in fines
how muchlegal aid?..20 out off 21 plead guil;ty..of owing..lol

possesing a plant
that under law..is regarded as a fixture..[belonging to 'the land'
[not a fungible..ie a tradeable commodity..able to be possed

if your 'in court'..remember the court ONLY has control over the stuff it created under the act..ie [licence/marriage certificate..contracts..butbiff you swallow the lie that they are you

[thats your problem

i seek no remedy from.the court your honour
but if you have an injured party..or a valid contract..i will listen to your OFFER*

its all bluff..no informmed concent
[yet silence signifies concent..do not stay silent..
no crime..no contract..no injured party..please go away..
or i begin charging you..for wasting my time..[1 oz gold perhour..or part there-of]

have a nice day*..eh?

Of course a couple of the usual suspects would, given the opportunity, replace legal aid with legal torture. The rack and the thumb screws would be very busy under their regime. They would extract the "truth" from those gatecrashers and undesirables.
Indy, my slant is justice for all.

See I was having these same thoughts, the whole cost-benefit, guilty-innocent arguments.

My idea to improve legal aid, is to privatise it as an insurance.

Consider:

For basic coverage of $5 a week to this legal insurance firm you can be freely protected against actions brought against you and also receive legal advice (conveyancing, etc) included.

For comprehensive coverage of $15 a week you have all the benefits of the above plus free actions that you initiate (negligence, etc).

The idea of the process in my mind provides everyone with affordable legal aid but can still have freedom from paying for something they dont want (called a tax)

My thoughs are that for every Australian having a basic coverage it is reasonable to think 20000000*5= a business turnover of $100,000,000 a week, or $5.2billion a year. Just on basic.
Ideas?

good point ..re the tax..for defending the criminal..[how about another levy on smokers]

of course only the smokers..will pay for it
as smoking is a crime

but it will only be
yet another cash grab..for making lawyers richer
[heck next thing we will need to pay a top up
or go to..jail for fraud..simply
by PLEADING..not guilty

[when..we refuse the lawyer
the/his ..promised guilty plea deal*..and insist upon a jury of peers..that may be informed..of the right*..PLUS DUTY..
to judge the law as well as the 'crime'

[see jury-nullification]
[just dont ever admit knowing about that..if selected for jury..'service'

[see that the judge cedes
his statuted right..to revenue raise..as remedy]

by rights..the judgment order alone..is the value
just like a money bond..its payable..by simply signing the order
[but its then become subject to the contracted terms of the bond[any signature creates a joinder with contract..it gives life to]

if forced to sign..sign it in a box
recall..jury sits in a box..[in a box means
technically..its not there]..just as a cross refuses/cancels..the contract

but sans[without]..INFORMED consent..its all fraud
recall..this anytime your required..to make..your MARK*

*your signature..is the mark/of the beast..as it takes the living..into..the realm of paper..[con-tract]..get it

the dead..corporation./.lord it over the living beings
using deceit..to drain ever more..life blood[cash].. from stoners /smokers/and the imbeciles..

*signing unilateral license..to..make legal
..that otherwise would be criminal..[unlawful]..they arnt the same thing

what is being done is legal[for those informed]
but otherwise ..s totally fraud..[un-lawful]

any..offer..must be signed..FIRST
any judgment order..you sign first is merely you making your offer

is that what you signed..your offer
or their offer..the imbecile accepted..unlawfully..[plus under duress]

Family law is an example of where what was originally designed as a low cost, self-represented solution for dissolving a marriage has become a complex and expensive legal process, where the court itself expects legal representation.

How many separating and divorcing couples have lost their assets of a lifetime and ended up with a legal bill still owing because it is now the lawyers and court that family law serves and the public are victimised twice?

You can get divorced for about $300 and you don't need a lawyer thanks to Labor's Lionel Murphy back in the 1970's. If the conservatives had their way you would still have to prove adultery or some such guff, plus $50,000 later, that is the conservative way.

anyhow..things change
and as things change..we dis empower..those looting society

how may things change
by saying no..its over..your serving shareholders
by abusing householders..[govt works for main..street..not suburbia

well..the lamb roars
[lamb-island..is succeeding in secession
and will..have their own banking credits systems..just wasit and see

or help..make it happen
we do have alternatives..

anyhow
here is an example of non-violent change
never ever never..any but..ever passive..change..for cause of course

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0

if you know..the law is built on a social contract
you..learn to note the signs of abuse [social-disparity]

you see that we must find a way..to free..the people
by binding thew ego..of those too clever by far[..the smartest guys in the room][able to make it up as they go their max ego]..but enough

dont..get tough
get even

suc-ceed

but how
anyhow..things change
and as things change..we dis empower..those looting society

how may things change
by saying no..its over..your serving shareholders
by abusing householders..[govt works for main..street..not suburbia

well..the lamb roars
[lamb-island..is succeeding in secession
and will..have their own banking credits systems..just wasit and see

or help..make it happen
we do have alternatives..

anyhow
here is an example of non-violent change
never ever never..any but..ever passive..change..for cause of course

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0

Paul1405, "You can get divorced for about $300 and you don't need a lawyer"

You are in fairy land.

What about leaving the political spin at the door and having a reasonable discussion?

OTB, you don't know what your talking about. Not long ago I got divorced myself, done all the work, very easy, not a problem if you have a bit of nouse that is, and guess what it cost me about $300 to lodge the paperwork in the Family Court, so who's in fairy land. A half wit could do it without a lawyer, but in your case I think you would need Frank Gallbally and a team of QC's, to tell you how you get custody of the monkeys.
A friend of mine, she done the same thing, so more than me has done it for $300.

Paul1405,

What I said to you was unfair and after reading what you did, I apologise.

I suggest your case and your friend's might be exceptions though.

OTB, I too appoligise as my post was terse, sarcastic and unfair.
In the case of divorce, if there is no children and custody issues and assets have been divided and you both are amicable, the steps to obtain a divorce are fairly straight forward. You download the forms, get then signed by a JP along with a form from your ex. You lodge it in the Family Court pay a once only fee of about $300, no blame involved and certainly no lawyer. In a couple of months after lodgement its all finalised, no appearance in court required, If things are less amicable and the lawyers get hold of it well then the sky's the limit on costs.
A couple of years back I was the executor for an estate worth less than a $1 million. A third party not mentioned in the will made a claim on the estate. The claim was erroneous, claiming dependency as a child on the deceased in the 1940's early 50's with affidavits based on fabrications. Contrary affidavits had to be prepared and mediation had to take place. To piss this person off cost a payout of $50 plus $70k legals fees, and it didn't even make it to court. If it had made it to the courts the legal fees alone could have run into $300k. Even though the claim was erroneous it wasn't worth the risk of court.

Funny, I thought marriage was for life. "For better or worse, until death do us part"
Why divorce?
Why marry in the first place.? Is it because divorce is so cheap. Just like marriage today.

"I thought marriage was for life" chrisgaff1000, looks like again your thinking is wrong, but what's new about that. Being as moralistic and judgmental about others as you are it hardly surprising. Are you still throwing homosexuals into the the Parramatta River?
"Paul1405, No we (chrisgaff1000 and his like minded friends) were too busy throwing them (homosexuals) into the Parramatta River with a brick ties to their leg to see if they could swim. Some did too." Such a comment even made in jest shows the mentality of the commentator.

Paul1405,

That was gracious of you seeing that I erred in the first place.

By coincidence, this morning I was talking with a friend I had not seen for a while who happened to tell me that he and his wife had worked out their settlement over the kitchen table very soon after they had decided to separate.

Having done that in draft each got a lawyer to quote up-front and check through their settlement.

I didn't get the opportunity to delve further, he was heading overseas. However if I got it right the agreement is best done up front and checked by a lawyer (a court requirement?), and then when the 12 months of separation is up the divorce can be applied for and there is a court appearance. They separated in the existing family house (it made financial sense) and slowly untangled finances over the months, with some joint property investments still existing to this day.

I hope I got that right.

However one hears of so many highly expensive divorces where one or both parties get greedy. Both lose.

I am talking about situations where there are no dependents, so as not to add unnecessarily complexity.

OBT, That's true often the lawyer are the winners (financially), people more often than not act out of spite and both loose. Neither my ex wife or I went into court, you have the right to do so, but we didn't. Your right about the 'settlement' I can't remember exactly how much, its was a few years back, that part, but the lawyer there was about $900 plus court fees. The big cost was the real estate agent to sell the property about $16k.
I suppose we could say this about lots of professions. I visited my specialist the other day and $170 for less than a 10 minute chat, not bad I suppose compared to my barrister $3k to appear at mediation for less than 4 hours, and I must say this barrister tried to be very free and easy with other peoples money, I had to speak up a few times to pull him into line. As you can see from the way I post on here I'll speak up when I have to. I think if I had let the lawyers lead me by the nose, it would have cost a hell of a lot more than it did. I would say another $50k, easy.

Paul1405,

My hat is raised to all those who are smart and principled enough to enjoy the simple, fault-free parting of the ways as originally envisioned by Lionel Murphy.

There are lots of columnists, magazines and daytime TV shows encouraging greed, distrust and expensive conflict though.

onthebeach,
You mentioned Lionel Murphy but you forgot to mention he died just before he was about to be charged with criminal corruption. Plenty of NSW coppers had dealings with Mr Murphy lurking in dark places at night as well.
Lionel Murphy knew too much. He died

Paul1405
No I am afraid that pastime was outlawed a few years ago just so you and your lot could "come out" to play or do you still prefer the closet.
Me, I've been happily married for forty years, 2 daughters, 1 in the Sydney Crime Squad, 1 in Dublin working for the IRA media, 3 sons 2 in the military WO1s 1 a forensic analyst with the ACC.

OTB, We talked about civil courts but then we also have the criminal justice system and it is certainly complex and costly to operate. We have the local courts to deal with petty matters, parking fines and such like. Then there is major crime and how best society deals with that. By its very nature these matters are often extremely complicated, how much of that is necessary and how much is the system I don't know, but I suspect the legal profession has a big hand in keep things the way they are, Our lawyers, judges etc do very well and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
There is a saying which goes something like this "A person who defends ones self has a fool for a lawyer." Under our system that would be true.