Monday, April 9, 2012

Lars beneath the waves

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mr. Morton
In this LW column (below) the crowns say the poor don't need a (legal aid) lawyer unless they are at risk of jail time. This CL column (below) offers a very different picture of "self-reps".
Come to think of it - one could simply forward this CL column to LW as proof why the Crowns are wrong to say legal aid litigants not facing incarcaration don't need a lawyers. Clearly they do because according to the author they are either too stupid, too smart, too deluded or too unethical to represent themselves!!!! How does one reconcile these competing presentations of unrepresented litigants in a context of ever-increasing (often reluctant) "self-reps"?
Brian

LW - Ruling puts test for Legal Aid on trial


CL - Making the most of wasted time
The Accidental Mentor
April 09, 2012

James C Morton said...

I tend to agree -- to suggest any criminal matter is so minor as to make it unnecessary for an accused to have some counsel is an error. But there are funding issues and priorities and, wrongly I think, legal aid is at the back of the line.

Anonymous said...

What about the painting of layperson/"self-reps" as stupid, deluded and unethical? Do you agree with this portrayal? Professors and engineers are painted as pompous and"condescending" while those with less education than the author/lawyer are ridiculed as dim-witted and villified because they don't have a professional code of ethics. One could argue this column reveals far more about its author than it does about self-reps".