Judges and lawyers are divorced from reality

[Thorn]

The finding - by the World Justice Institute - underlines the fact that justice is increasingly available only to the wealthy or small minority who are so poor that they qualify for legal aid programs, she said.

“This is not terrible, but it shows that we are not doing as well as we should,” Chief Justice McLachlin said.

Globe and Mail

I bet a lot of people would say it WAS terrible, and that the chief justice of the supreme court ought to be somewhat more concerned about it. The CJ offered up a number of suggestions, including the expansion of legal insurance, and sub-dividing bigger cases to make them cheaper, but of course, being a lawyer, the real problem never even popped into her head. Maybe, just maybe, the fees lawyers charge have gotten out of hand. Not to mention, of course, that the way lawyers charge, billable hours, is an encouragement to run up the bill by taking their time, by delaying cases, by filing all sorts of complex, but largely time-wasting applications.

How many professionals in this day and age charge by the hour? Mostly that's something done by contractors, which is another group known for being corrupt and incompetent. When employees are paid by the hour their employer gets to supervise them and make sure they're working hard at the work he designs for them. Even when you hire a contractor you can keep an eye on how fast he's working and how long he's on the site. You can't do a single thing to supervise what time a lawyer actually puts into your case, or whether he's doing things too slowly or whether he's dragging things out deliberately.

And the average fee lawyers charge in Toronto is $338 per hour. That's only the average.

Oh you can appeal, of course, to the lawyers themselves, but only in the most egregious cases will they do anything about it.

So lawyers are encouraged to take their time, research every possible thing, engage in long trials. Lawyers who cut quick deals don't make much money. Lawyers who drag things out do.

And what does the CJ have to say about that? Not a blessed thing. Instead she whines about lawyers and judges not being respected properly.

I wonder why.

[Tilter]

The finding - by the World Justice Institute - underlines the fact that justice is increasingly available only to the wealthy or small minority who are so poor that they qualify for legal aid programs, she said.

“This is not terrible, but it shows that we are not doing as well as we should,” Chief Justice McLachlin said.

Globe and Mail

I bet a lot of people would say it WAS terrible, and that the chief justice of the supreme court ought to be somewhat more concerned about it. The CJ offered up a number of suggestions, including the expansion of legal insurance, and sub-dividing bigger cases to make them cheaper, but of course, being a lawyer, the real problem never even popped into her head. Maybe, just maybe, the fees lawyers charge have gotten out of hand. Not to mention, of course, that the way lawyers charge, billable hours, is an encouragement to run up the bill by taking their time, by delaying cases, by filing all sorts of complex, but largely time-wasting applications.

How many professionals in this day and age charge by the hour? Mostly that's something done by contractors, which is another group known for being corrupt and incompetent. When employees are paid by the hour their employer gets to supervise them and make sure they're working hard at the work he designs for them. Even when you hire a contractor you can keep an eye on how fast he's working and how long he's on the site. You can't do a single thing to supervise what time a lawyer actually puts into your case, or whether he's doing things too slowly or whether he's dragging things out deliberately.

And the average fee lawyers charge in Toronto is $338 per hour. That's only the average.

Oh you can appeal, of course, to the lawyers themselves, but only in the most egregious cases will they do anything about it.

So lawyers are encouraged to take their time, research every possible thing, engage in long trials. Lawyers who cut quick deals don't make much money. Lawyers who drag things out do.

And what does the CJ have to say about that? Not a blessed thing. Instead she whines about lawyers and judges not being respected properly.

I wonder why.

I guess what you're saying that 338 bux/hr is too much---- boy are you dumb--- they have to pay their clerks 20 to 30 bux an hour to do that research which only leaves a fair profit (fair lawyerly profit) of around 305 bux /hr ---- so what's wrong with that?--- those country club fees & 20 year old Scotch do cost a little and without those amenities how can they suck up to those judges?

Edited August 14, 2011 by Tilter

[Wild Bill]

Here's the link to an article appropriate to the OP:

http://www.thespec.com/news/ontario/article/573157--attorney-general-complains-about-judge

"Attorney general complains about judge

TORONTO The office of Ontario’s attorney general says it has launched a complaint with the province’s judicial council after a judge let a dozen people go free because a lawyer was late for court.

Ontario Court Justice Howard Chisvin dismissed the defendants in a Newmarket court north of Toronto last month after Crown attorney Brian McCallion returned a few minutes late from a morning recess.

The accused included a violent schizophrenic, a spouse charged in a domestic abuse case, a disbarred lawyer charged with fraud and a robbery suspect.

Some of them had already pleaded guilty."

This is the original report. Yesterday's paper is not yet available online but further reports tell how the judge in question is notoriously late himself!

The fact that a judge can dismiss 12 cases so cavalierly, including some who had pleaded guilty, with obviously no thought to the effect on society at large is deeply troubling.

Then to hear that the judge himself is so often late, for far more than a few minutes!

If that doesn't show a divorce from reality I don't know what does.

[Wilber]

Seems it's all about this judge. Perceived contempt of his court trumps all other crimes.

[dre]

Seems it's all about this judge. Perceived contempt of his court trumps all other crimes.

Theres obviously some problems, but all in all the judiciary is by far the most functional branch of our government.

Edited August 14, 2011 by dre

[Wilber]

Theres obviously some problems, but all in all the judiciary is by far the most functional branch of our government.

One might say that what he did was "functional".

[Oleg Bach]

The more aware and sinister lawyers and judges know exactly what is going on - and understand that the current state of affairs is very lucrative - For instance the judges that like to release violent dogs back into society get a kick out of "let go the hounds"...Bad rulings create fear and loathing within the system - and a fearful - hateful population is much easier to control and manipulate. They know the difference between right and wrong - but will not do what is right if it does not benefit their class. So doing wrong is always an option.

[Oleg Bach]

Seems it's all about this judge. Perceived contempt of his court trumps all other crimes.

Foaming at the mouth and enraged..with the veins popping our on their heads - I have seen judges to balistic if you did not fear them...as for lawyers - I had one once and he was well paid - One day he attempted to dominate me - he insisted that I sit while he towered over me...I was paying him and not to dominate me - so I fired him...If you enter a lawyers office and sit across from his desk - and notice that your chair is a full foot lower than the chair of the lawyer - walk out - this is not your allie.

[William Ashley]

My justice policy is as follows:

1. Revise the legal code to remove the Criminal Code and Summarize Administrative laws that contain legal recourse. As part of this project a PUBLIC SAFETY code would include capital offenses, such as Murder, Aggravated rape, maiming, etc.. While a Treasury Code would handle economic crimes such as Fraud, Counterfitting, etc.. Administrative offences that are not of the other two offences would be "operating policy". Provinces meanwhile would need to create provincial criminal codes for lesser offences, or a "civil/criminal" law code for the administration of justice, as it applies to civil practices. The Federal would handle issues Public Safety and crimes that effect the Federal Economic organs - such as the S.S. is responsible for in the US. http://www.secretservice.gov/criminal.shtml

This codification would not be confused by caselaw, which can often cloud judgement - rather than allowing a very simple judgement based on establishment of the situation, and best outcome for all parties.

2. Transitioning the courts to an inquisitional/arbitrated process where the judge is an "investigator" not only based on the facts presented but those facts that the judge would like to establish.

3. The creation of Magistrates courts would be based on a mixture between duties of the Justice of the peace and inquisitional justices, and crown prosecutors pretrial type "out of JUDGES court" remedies. That address healing the event, not punishment for an event occurring. You can never remove victimization, but we shouldn't embed sadism in the social fabric. How is such a twisted mind suppose to set out to improve society or to heal society? We need to remove dangers, and to ease the hurt of those victimized. We need to care about society, just because you commit a crime it doesn't remove you from society it puts you to another part of society, and when people are released from custody or care of someone else they are where you left them. People should understand a 5 year jail term is not a lifelong bandaide.

4. Restitution as a focus. And work camps for prisoners, so they can save, and actually get benefits for their time rather than regressing, and taking away the capacity to prepare for a meaningful life on the outside. There is too much institutionalized destruction of individuals subjected to prison. Just because the victim forgets, it doesn't mean the "perpetrator has, or being locked away for 5 or 10 or 15 years time can have a hardening effect especially when up against other "mean people" or socially disenfranchised, victims themselves.

Codification and rationalization of law as being real lasting social crimes, or civil crimes needs to be realized. Lasting crimes need remedy and prevention from reoccurrence. Civil crimes often can be remedied by compensation direct to the victim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_France

Specific things do need to be changed.. peoples previous right to self representation needs to be UPHELD... the requirement to have a lawyer in any civil law process needs to be STOPPED... in Ontario for instance individuals MUST be represented by a member of the bar to sue a corporation.. that is just wrong, especially if corporations are suppose to be equal with persons at law. They have more rights than citizens and that is backward.

Likewise court costs should be paid by everyone BUT be 100% free to individuals seeking redress by the courts.

In this way a Courts cycle (in my financial system there are no taxes only cycles that have maximum payments and everyone pays in 1 cent each cycle plus 1 cent for every $10,000 of income over the middle income line. So 1 cent per cycle at ~30,000, 2 cents at $40,000 3 cents at $50,000 etc.. however there are also mitigating factors such as number of dependents These cycles are for "Old Age Security, the Poverty Removal Program,

Poverty and Disabled National Health Insurance and Medical Cost Lowering Plan, the Free Public Bank/Public Service Operating Fee (the public service would be melded into a Financial Institution like a private bank of sorts/a more active central bank with public services), and a few other "REQUIRED services" The point being that the Courts fee would in part be paid by this cycle, and paid by a "Criminal Fee" that everyone who was convicted of an offense would pay a small fee to pay for the system. However people would not be given legal aid. Because the code would be made in plain language with no "secret laws" or "secret defences" etc.. atleast at the federal level since this ia federal forum and this is the Federal Policy stuff.

The french court system is a good example of about half of this. Other steps are more publically elected magistrates to get rid of the stupid insignifigant cases that clog the courts. A very meat and bones public safety code to get rid of real dangers, and a treasury code that has the financial crooks sued easier for restitution and damages, as well as monitoring or barring from financial services - the Public Bank goes a long way to help stop financial crimes. The key is to heal the damage and heal society where possible by involving victims and interested members of society able to share their view of what would make things better. Sadism however should not be seen as a mentally healthy mindset as that is a desire to hurt others, and that would under mental health be deemed enough to lock someone in the nut barn.

Edited August 15, 2011 by William Ashley

[Thorn]

Is anyone else surprised at how quickly people are being arrested by British police and run through the courts? Many people have already been sentenced and are serving time, while in Canada, you know that no one would have been sentenced until at least some time in the spring or summer of next year. That's assuming they ever get arrested. While we've seen images of Brit police busting in doors and dragging out people who had taken part in the riots and stolen property, the RCMP have not yet charged anyone who didn't turn themselves in for the BC riots, or who was arrested at the time. And as far as I know no one has yet been given a sentence of any kind. Why can't our legal system work with the same speed as the British?

Although a public opinion favors stern punishment for rioters, a few cases have made headlines and sparked debate. A London man received six months in jail for stealing a case of water worth 3.5 pounds ($5) from a looted supermarket. A Manchester mother of two who did not take part in the riots was sentenced to five months for wearing a pair of looted shorts her roommate had brought home.

Late Tuesday, two men in northwestern England were handed stiff jail terms for inciting disorder through social networking sites. Cheshire Police said Jordan Blackshaw, 20, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, both received 4-year sentences for using Facebook to “organize and orchestrate” disorder.

Men who organized riots on facebook given stiff sentences

[guyser]

Seems to me someone has an agenda.

I bet a lot of people would say it WAS terrible,

Probably, but they generally either dont have a clue or lost a case against and are whiners.

... and that the chief justice of the supreme court ought to be somewhat more concerned about it. The CJ offered up a number of suggestions, including the expansion of legal insurance, and sub-dividing bigger cases to make them cheaper, but of course, being a lawyer, the real problem never even popped into her head. Maybe, just maybe, the fees lawyers charge have gotten out of hand.

Yes...

And what does the CJ have to say about that? Not a blessed thing. Instead she whines about lawyers and judges not being respected properly.

I wonder why.

Well I'll be......

From your link...

“They feel they cannot take the step of finding a lawyer or launching a lawsuit or doing whatever is necessary to protect their legal rights,” she said. “They fear expense. They fear delay.

“In the family area, they can get mired in processes that actually exacerbate the dispute and have bad consequences for the children involved and for preserving as much of the family assets as can be preserved,” Chief Justice McLachlin said.

Yup, she skipped right over that, didnt mention a thing.

Now about that 'whine ' thing....

Edited August 16, 2011 by guyser

[Thorn]

Seems to me someone has an agenda.

Probably, but they generally either dont have a clue or lost a case against and are whiners.

I wonder why it is that there are virtually no liberals on this site who are capable of describing their disagreement with another poster's argument, belief or statement without adding in their derision and hatred for the poster for daring to HAVE such opinions.

Now about that 'whine ' thing....

So you essentially have nothing to say other than that you hold me in contempt for daring to express an opinion critical of the legal profession. Have I got that right? Why is that? I know you're not a lawyer. Lawyers, for all their faults, are capable of putting an argument without resorting to adolescent mockery and derision, and you evidence no such level of maturity or intelligence.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Thorn

[guyser]

Before we dissect my misgivings, which are legion, lets stick with the issue at hand

A poster comes here , today or in the past couple, and starts a thread about "judges and lawyers are divorced from reality" in which he or she opines , principally, that the Chief Justice doesnt have a clue why this is so, and why she doesnt mention the real problem, which is the cost.

And some smart ass comes along, see s right thru that since the smart ass read the link the post was based an , and voila, the Chief Justice did mention exactly that which OP was ranting about.

And now of course you try to turn it on me.

Frankly dude or dudette , what is the problem with the law and judges, since of course Bev Mac blew your asserttion out of the water?

Or I could have just gone for the old ..." Why do Conservatives read at a grade below 1 level, then try to deflect when proven wrong?

Look, there are problems with the justice system, none of which you opined about.I think you'll find me reasonable to discuss, but when your first post on this is entriely without merit....what can I say?

Edited August 16, 2011 by guyser

[guyser]

BTW , I dont hold you in comtempt , just consider it a smack to the side of the head that we aint dummies around here.

Well, maybe if mikedavidII comes along, but Im sure your noggin works better than his.

Stick around , you'll see

[Thorn]

Before we dissect my misgivings, which are legion, lets stick with the issue at hand

A poster comes here , today or in the past couple, and starts a thread about "judges and lawyers are divorced from reality" in which he or she opines , principally, that the Chief Justice doesnt have a clue why this is so, and why she doesnt mention the real problem, which is the cost.

And some smart ass comes along, see s right thru that since the smart ass read the link the post was based an , and voila, the Chief Justice did mention exactly that which OP was ranting about.

So because you don't like my position it's a "rant".

And by the way, while the CJ mentioned cost and expense she said absolutely NOTHING about the high fees lawyers charge, or the methodology they use, as in billing hours, which was what I said. So you are, of course, entirely wrong.

And now of course you try to turn it on me.

Oh sure, so because I call you on the way you attack me I'm turning on you? There's that victim mentality we see so often from the activist left. Poor you. Are you crying as you write this? Do you feel oppressed?

[guyser]

So because you don't like my position it's a "rant".

Like it or not, it was dumb since she did mention what the problem was. The report did not solve why, but then again, neither of us were at the meeting and perhaps she did make suggestions, or opened the floor for some. She commends the CBA for taking a strong stance against lowering funding for Legal Aid.

She also discussed "subdividing complex cases to make them more affordable and providing services pro bono"

(Pro bono means free)

So your assertion is w/out merit. She did discuss things you posted about, too bad you should have read your link.

And by the way, while the CJ mentioned cost and expense she said absolutely NOTHING about the high fees lawyers charge,

Why would she? Pick a cheaper lawyer.

She is discussing the system, not someones fee.

or the methodology they use, as in billing hours, which was what I said. So you are, of course, entirely wrong.

Not that it was reported you mean?

If billable hours are a problem, then take it upo in court or with the lawyer, they can and do and can be made to justify their fees to a judge, who at the drop of a gavel can reduce them significantly.

O sure, so because I call you on the way you attack me I'm turning on you? There's that victim mentality we see so often from the activist left. Poor you. Are you crying as you write this? Do you feel oppressed?

Ah see !

I read some of your other posts in the last few minutes, I see a pattern, Left = Dumb. (you dont want me to show you do you?)

But frankly, one who makes a post about the CJ and her ignoring the "real issue" when in fact the CJ does discuss what the OP said she didnt makes one......

...oh whats the word.....

Escapes me right now.

Let me guess, our justice system is a shame, we coddle criminals, the criminals have more rights than the law abiding citizens, our Judges are too lenient and crime is thru the roof?

Am I close?

Edited August 16, 2011 by guyser

[Wild Bill]

Let me guess, our justice system is a shame, we coddle criminals, the criminals have more rights than the law abiding citizens, our Judges are too lenient and crime is thru the roof?

Am I close?

Guyser, You throw these last points out as if it's a given they're just silly stereotypes that your opponent must be an idiot to believe.

Sez who??!!

There are a LOT of people who believe those points, are intelligent and well-informed and there have certainly been enough threads on MLW to show that!

Do you think that if you keep dropping such assumptions that sooner or later the world will just accept and believe them?

[Thorn]

Like it or not, it was dumb since she did mention what the problem was.

She did not mention the problem, which is high lawyers fees, so you are lying.

The report did not solve why, but then again, neither of us were at the meeting and perhaps she did make suggestions, or opened the floor for some. She commends the CBA for taking a strong stance against lowering funding for Legal Aid.

She also discussed "subdividing complex cases to make them more affordable and providing services pro bono"

(Pro bono means free)

Yes, she commends the lawyers for complaining that the government doesn't pay more for their services, and she calls for insurance (which of course is what raised medical fees to the roof in the US) and mentions others things, but she never mentions fees, which are the heartt of the matter.

So your assertion is w/out merit.

Not that you've been able to demonstrate that, but it's apparent that your massive arrogance feeds delusions of grandeur which enables you to dismiss, out of hand (and without thought) any argument with which you don't agree.

Why would she? Pick a cheaper lawyer.

There's that contempt again. You don't care about the way lawyers bill people, and so sneer at anyone who does. I again wonder what your connection is with lawyers. Clearly there's one there, unless this level of antipathy, angry defensiveness and contempt is your normal posting style.

I read some of your other posts in the last few minutes, I see a pattern, Left = Dumb.

You've certainly done nothing to prove that belief wrong.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Thorn

[Wilber]

Is anyone else surprised at how quickly people are being arrested by British police and run through the courts? Many people have already been sentenced and are serving time, while in Canada, you know that no one would have been sentenced until at least some time in the spring or summer of next year. That's assuming they ever get arrested. While we've seen images of Brit police busting in doors and dragging out people who had taken part in the riots and stolen property, the RCMP have not yet charged anyone who didn't turn themselves in for the BC riots, or who was arrested at the time. And as far as I know no one has yet been given a sentence of any kind. Why can't our legal system work with the same speed as the British?

Although a public opinion favors stern punishment for rioters, a few cases have made headlines and sparked debate. A London man received six months in jail for stealing a case of water worth 3.5 pounds ($5) from a looted supermarket. A Manchester mother of two who did not take part in the riots was sentenced to five months for wearing a pair of looted shorts her roommate had brought home.

Late Tuesday, two men in northwestern England were handed stiff jail terms for inciting disorder through social networking sites. Cheshire Police said Jordan Blackshaw, 20, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, both received 4-year sentences for using Facebook to “organize and orchestrate” disorder.

Men who organized riots on facebook given stiff sentences

BC is one of only three provinces where Crown has to approve all charges. Proponents of this system say it is great because of the high conviction rate. Of course, if you only lay charges on sure things then plea bargain them down several notches, you are going to have a fantastic conviction rate. Couple that with the slap on the wrist sentences our judiciary is famous for and you have the BC "justice system".

[Thorn]

BC is one of only three provinces where Crown has to approve all charges. Proponents of this system say it is great because of the high conviction rate. Of course, if you only lay charges on sure things then plea bargain them down several notches, you are going to have a fantastic conviction rate. Couple that with the slap on the wrist sentences our judiciary is famous for and you have the BC "justice system".

They haven't even laid charges against the people who turned themselves in yet! It's been two months and not one charge has been laid. Not one.

Meanwhile, in the UK, people are already being sentenced and put in jail.

And some people say our system is just peachy keen!

Canada's Brooken Justice System

[Wilber]

They haven't even laid charges against the people who turned themselves in yet! It's been two months and not one charge has been laid. Not one.

Meanwhile, in the UK, people are already being sentenced and put in jail.

And some people say our system is just peachy keen!

Canada's Brooken Justice System

Peachy keen if you are part of the system, otherwise, not so much.

[guyser]

Guyser, You throw these last points out as if it's a given they're just silly stereotypes that your opponent must be an idiot to believe.

Sez who??!!

Sez me.

Criminals have no more rights than you or I. So strike that one.

Our Justice system is one of the best in the world (needs improvements as Bev Mac said) according to the link/ Strike that.

Lenient Judges is a misnomer for the most part since most people come to conclusions absent of facts or knowledge of the Charter, or rules of procedure so strike that one.

No I dont believe anyone should take it at face value Wild Bill. We do need to improve things and strive to be better but we have a system that works well for the majority of cases

But when someone comes along , links to an article, then chastises a system for reason X and says the CJ missed the main point, when in fact no such thing occurred , they get mocked.

However as most posters will put forth a treatise of cause and effect or some such, then they get reasonable answers from us all.

[guyser]

She did not mention the problem, which is high lawyers fees, so you are lying.

What high lawyers fees?

Some cases are done for a fee, some are flat rate , some are pro bono , thus none of her business what fees are charged since it is market rates.Go to Bay street, their rates are $1000 an hour or more.

So?

Yes, she commends the lawyers for complaining that the government doesn't pay more for their services,

Er no, she talked about defunding services for legal aid.

and she calls for insurance (which of course is what raised medical fees to the roof in the US)

Oh bullshit it was the cause of rates rising.

Drs F up as much as anyone, results of those screw ups are debilitating vs the contractor putting the wrong paint on your wall.

We've had insurace policies for legal fees for eons. So have you by the way assuming you own a home.

and mentions others things, but she never mentions fees, which are the heartt of the matter.

Pick a cheaper lawyer, free market, dont like the cost ? Go somewhere else. Not hard to understand

Not that you've been able to demonstrate that, but it's apparent that your massive arrogance feeds delusions of grandeur which enables you to dismiss, out of hand (and without thought) any argument with which you don't agree.

Only yours , and it was too easy.

. You don't care about the way lawyers bill people,

Change lawyers, find one that does it different. Pretty simple.

. I again wonder what your connection is with lawyers. Clearly there's one there, unless this level of antipathy, angry defensiveness and contempt is your normal posting style.

Have to deal w lawyers quite a bit. Got to know what they did and how they did it.Some are great, some are horrible, some make oodles of cash, some a mere pittance.

Some I liked, some I wish I reported to the Society.

You've certainly done nothing to prove that belief wrong.

Yes well, when ones rant is proven wrong by the very link the ranter provides, well buttercup, it aint me having to prove anything.

Edited August 17, 2011 by guyser

[Wild Bill]

Sez me.

Criminals have no more rights than you or I. So strike that one.

Our Justice system is one of the best in the world (needs improvements as Bev Mac said) according to the link/ Strike that.

Lenient Judges is a misnomer for the most part since most people come to conclusions absent of facts or knowledge of the Charter, or rules of procedure so strike that one.

No I dont believe anyone should take it at face value Wild Bill. We do need to improve things and strive to be better but we have a system that works well for the majority of cases

But when someone comes along , links to an article, then chastises a system for reason X and says the CJ missed the main point, when in fact no such thing occurred , they get mocked.

However as most posters will put forth a treatise of cause and effect or some such, then they get reasonable answers from us all.

But that's NOT what you did! Your points were NOT facts! They were points of disagreement or argument! YOU used them in your "mocking" as if they WERE facts!

It totally took the sting out of your mockery and reflected it back on yourself! It made you appear dogmatic. I thought I was the only one on this board old and self-centred enough to be dogmatice!

[guyser]

But that's NOT what you did! Your points were NOT facts!

WB I certainly do not need to factually point out accuseds have the same rights as you or I .

The OP links said we have a superior justice system compared to the rest of the world.

Canada ranks very favourably when compared to 62 other nations.

So no need to post facts on that, it already had been established.

It totally took the sting out of your mockery and reflected it back on yourself! It made you appear dogmatic. I thought I was the only one on this board old and self-centred enough to be dogmatice!

Judging by his reaction, it stung.

You arent the only one !