iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Lance Soskin

GET UPDATES FROM Lance Soskin
 

In Our Courts 'Justice' Is Bought

Posted: 02/26/2013 5:51 pm

There are few elements more important to a free and democratic society than an open, fair and accessible justice system. This is never more apparent than when your liberty or livelihood is at stake.

The executive director of The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, Rebecca Love Kourlis, summed-up nicely the state of the American justice system when she said, "If you get in a car wreck, and there's an argument about who should be paying damages, your assumption is that you can go to court to have that case resolved. The truth of the matter is that's probably the last place you want to be, because the fees and the costs will ultimately be more than your car is worth, even if you drive a really nice car."

Due to the nature of our adversarial justice system, it's more often than not going to be the party with the high-priced attorney who wins in court rather than the party with the more meritorious case. Litigation is a multi-billion dollar industry that favors the wealthy. Much of that money simply lines the pockets of attorneys who charge on average between $300 and $700 an hour to tell us what the law is and how it can be manipulated in our favor to vanquish our opponents. That's great for the small percentage of Americans who can afford a skilled lawyer, but it leaves the rest of the population at a significant disadvantage.

Even if you have a legitimate case, if your opponent has a lot more money to spend on high-priced attorneys who employ delay tactics, as Kevin O'Leary of Shark Tank and Dragon's Den fame would say, either "you're going to be squashed like the cockroach you are", or those high-priced lawyers are going to have you tied-up in hearings and motions and pre-trial discovery for so many months or possibly years that you will go broke before you ever get the chance to present the full merits of your case.

Given the complexity of our laws and legal procedures, if we want any hope in hell of protecting our rights, attorneys are a necessary evil. But why should the average person or business owner need to pay tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get the justice they're due? If "ignorance of the law is no excuse" when it comes to determining liability or culpability, would it not make more sense for the government to ensure that the laws and procedures can easily be understood by the average person? Shouldn't justice, in the true sense of the word, be available to everyone?

Although America prides itself on having a fair and accessible government-run justice system, the truth is that for most of us, justice is neither fair, nor easily accessible. The American justice system faces serious issues that are not easily resolved and will not be resolved any time soon without drastic reform. Most of us want, and in fact need, options that are cheaper, quicker and less complicated than going to court or hiring an attorney to fight all our battles. We need to make better use of alternative dispute resolution options such as mediation and arbitration. Given our shrinking budgets, both governments and personal, what other options do we have?

(My next post will explain alternative options like arbitration, mediation and online dispute resolution services offered by companies like eQuibbly.)

 

Follow Lance Soskin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/eQuibbly

FOLLOW BUSINESS
There are few elements more important to a free and democratic society than an open, fair and accessible justice system. This is never more apparent than when your liberty or livelihood is at stake. ...
There are few elements more important to a free and democratic society than an open, fair and accessible justice system. This is never more apparent than when your liberty or livelihood is at stake. ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 37
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
05:03 PM on 03/04/2013
Great article. There are so many public cases that reiterate the very point that this article is making. Why should those who cannot afford 'top notch' representation be at a disadvantage. I think that online dispute resolution is a great idea. Where can I find out more about eQuibbly? Thank you for sharing this article.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Lance Soskin
05:04 PM on 03/16/2013
Thanks for your kind words. The best place to find out more about eQuibbly is on the site itself: www.eQuibbly.com/about
12:26 PM on 02/28/2013
Although I've worked in the legal field as a nationally certified paralegal for 15 years (employment/civil rights litigation, representing plaintiffs), I made a very conscious choice several years ago not to pursue my law degree, but instead to earn my masters in conflict analysis/dispute resolution/conflict management. The litigation system does not resolve disputes. . .it festers them - often for years at enormous costs to one's finances, time, relationships and physical/emotional well-being.

In addition to working in the legal field, I began my own business offering non-adversarial approaches to disputes (conflict consulting, coaching for abrasive employess (aka "bullies"), mediation and facilitation, for example) primarily involving small businesses (employment, contract issues, etc.) as well as federal, state and local agencies.

I am also an arbitrator, but arbitration is not a non-adversarial alternative.

By the way, people do not "get their day in court." In court, what is admitted as evidence is entirely up to the judge, relying on the Rules of Evidence. Imagine trying to explain what happened to you, but the only way you can do so is through a series of questions from your attorney and then from opposing counsel. You are constantly cut off, not to mention being interrupted by a myriad of objections. Documents and other evidence are only admitted if the judge considers them to relevant and admissable; then they must be authenticated.

My apologies for being so long-winded!!

Debra Healy, MS
Conflict Consultant
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carol Hoousendove
07:54 PM on 02/27/2013
THIS I WAS ALWAYS AWARE OF.CASE IN POINT THE RICH BOY & GIRL THAT HAD ENOUGH EXPLOSIVE TO DOWN A BLOCK.SHE HAD A BABY AND WAS ALLOWED TO SEE HER BABY EVERY DAY. ALSO THEY FOUND PLENTY DRUGS BOTH ON DOPE. THEY BOTH COME FROM RICH FAMILIES. WATCH THIS CASE I KNOW I WILL. WHY CAPS I'AM MAD AS HELL THAT IS WHY. (PLEASE DO NOT TELL ME THAT IF SHE WAS BLACK SHE WOULD GET A CHANCE TO SEE HER BABY THEY WOULD TELL FAMILY TO PICK UP CHILD.)
RealistBC
Micro-bios must pass muster.
07:18 PM on 02/27/2013
The taxpayers won't pay for more judges and courtrooms to hear these cases. "Retired" judges are essentially carrying full caseloads if they choose to do so. Some jurisdictions have instituted night courts in an attempt to reduce the waiting time for a case to be heard.

If the public wants justice, they will have to pay for it. Just another item that pointless wars and corporatist colonization of the globe eat up the available funds to support.
07:00 PM on 02/27/2013
One solution is to financially punish resistance to a claim. If delay is a tactic then make certain that those delays will cost a fortune if the claimant prevails. It is very much like the mortgage foreclosures. A thirty day resolution should be mandatory. I'm in a condo and have been paying a share for a deadbeat owner for three years and it still drags on. There is no reason that repossession and pay off should have taken more than 30 days total. All the delays and nonsense make money for lawyers. That is why delays exist.
cwaged1002
There is hope but not for us
06:42 PM on 02/27/2013
There is no democracy without a fair and accessible justice system.

The USA was never intended to be a democracy and it has succeeded in never becoming one.
06:32 PM on 02/27/2013
Your argument is sound, and it's certainly one I've heard before, but what are your thoughts about the fact that, even if you do get your day in court, and are't bankrupted in the process, you still have deal with judges - particularly in America - who will likely decide your case on the basis of their political leaning than on the merits of your case. Another argument in favor of ADR, I suppose.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Lance Soskin
07:08 PM on 02/27/2013
That's a tougher issue to tackle. I don't know whether politics is as much a part of the interpretation of the law at the lower level courts as it is at the higher level courts. Everyone has their biases whether politically-influenced or not, so I would guess that personal bias of any kind could be more of a problem in the lower courts. It's really a question of how open a judge is to recognizing their biases and being able to set them aside while making decisions in court.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
clearasmud
Obama Is Nothing More Than A Moderate Republican
06:28 PM on 02/27/2013
There is no justice in America except for the rich. I know this firsthand.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
seaperl
05:55 PM on 02/27/2013
Remember, justice is for those that can afford it, otherwise, you're screwed. Every reasonable person in the world knew from the evidence that OJ killed his wife but because he had the most expensive legal team ever assembled he got off. Too bad he was too stupid to stay clean.

In "The Firm" it was true that if you jailed the lawyers the crooks could only launder their money with soap and water.
06:40 PM on 02/27/2013
OJ didn't get off because he had the most expensive team. He got off because he had a team that was able to work successfully with what they had; they had the same evidence, the same judge, the same jury, the same laws. A team with that ability doesn't come cheap, no. It's the myth of the "legal loophole", that somehow a law provides an escape. The law that is written is the same for both sides; that law may well be badly or wrongly written, but you cannot blame one side for taking advantage of that badly written law; lawyers swear to defend their clients zealously.
07:01 PM on 02/27/2013
OJ probably did kill his wife but real proof was not available and cops caught in lies created doubt as to the quality of all the evidence.
05:37 PM on 02/27/2013
This is one article I think everyone around the world needs to pay attention to. Globally our thinking needs to be shifted when we consider litigation to other types of dispute resolutions. It is difficult to justify litigation when you consider the price you have to pay and the system lands up favouring the ones that have the ability to pay for the services. We need to look for a better way to find justice and equibbly has offered a solution whereby we can be heard and our views and opinions can be considered.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sally Tallywhacker
Godless, just like everyone else.
02:47 PM on 02/27/2013
Corporate entities shrivel once they are threatened with small claims court, I've done this on more than one occasion and won, albeit for relatively small amounts of money.

You see, small claims courts are devoid of lawyers, so justice is much easier to come by.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Lance Soskin
04:00 PM on 02/27/2013
I think you may have either gotten lucky Sally or they knew they were completely in the wrong..or perhaps you're exceptionally good :) Most of the time large companies have lawyers on staff to take care of all their litigation so it does not cost them as much to defend themselves. They also have lots of experience. And typically experienced lawyers will be able to get the upper hand through various means that are unknown to laypeople. Even though the small claims court judge (who is typically not a licensed judge at all) is a bit more forgiving of mistakes than in other higher courts, they do not hold hands. So it is often similar to an amateur playing against and NBA player - you might get lucky, but 9 times out of 10 you're going to get smoked.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sally Tallywhacker
Godless, just like everyone else.
04:31 PM on 02/27/2013
Small claims courts, don't allow lawyers to attend at all, hence this is the corporations' Achilles heal...they cannot pay their way out of it.

Their business model is to make it difficult and frustrating to get to the entities you're trying to sue (boy do they ever!) - but once you find the correct entity to address they will settle out of ( the small claims ) court quite quickly.

I've been successful 3 times, they have always been in the wrong, but trying to get even a small piece of justice is very trying. (no pun intended)
07:06 PM on 02/27/2013
There are cases in which the little guy can prevail through the same tactics. Subphonea everyone who just might know a tiny thing about the case. Keep them in deposition for months. Run their legal bills through the roof and sit back and consider their settlement offers. I know first hand. I had to work as a security guard on the graveyard shift for six months as I had them in hearings for six months. When their legal bills passed $500,000 they were very willing to settle. They became aware that going to trial was going to run another million or so. Even the rich and powerful actually can get their heads handed to them if you have a solid case.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sally Tallywhacker
Godless, just like everyone else.
02:43 PM on 02/27/2013
There's an advert on my local NPR station for, "Trial Lawyers of Virginia" their by-line is, "Fighting for equality in out justice system."

That's how bad it is.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
charleyvldm9
He thinks outside the box.
02:33 PM on 02/27/2013
It is said that one who defends himself, has a fool for a lawyer, and has no respect for the court.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Lance Soskin
04:12 PM on 02/27/2013
That is true of our current Justice System - that's one of my points of the article. If the opposing lawyer is experienced and skilled, you're going to need your own lawyer to counter them. For some disputes and in some circumstances you will need lawyers arguing the case no matter how much the system is reformed. But for a great majority of cases that come before the courts it should not be necessary to have lawyers representing either party - they should not be in court. It has nothing to do with respect for the court.
02:28 PM on 02/27/2013
This is one article everyone needs to pay attention to. North America needs a change in thinking from litigation to Alternative Dispute Resolution. There will always be a need for some litigation but considering the price tag and the hard feelings we need to look for the better way.
02:15 PM on 02/27/2013
That's only the trial level. Historically, appellate justices, including members of the US Supreme Court, have been bought by parties appearing before their courts. For example, Justice Stephen Field, more responsible than any other justice for the fiction that corporations are people under the Constitution, was on the payroll of the Southern Pacific Railroad while he was on the court and it took years before we discovered that Justice Clarence Thomas had perjured himself numerous times ignoring the $700,000 paid to his wife by right-wing organizations involved in cases before the court.