From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Wed Apr 12 2000 - 20:56:35 MDT
On Wednesday, April 12, 2000 9:04 AM Michael S. Lorrey mike@datamann.com
wrote:
> > The ABA is a government supported monopoly. Without the government to
back
> > its power, it would face serious competition from law clinics (which it
> > already does in some states of the US*), unlicensed lawyers, etc. See,
> > e.g., _The Rule of Experts: Occupational Licensing in America_ by S.
David
> > Young for other examples of businesses that use the government to avoid
the
> > market.
>
> A State Supreme Court ruling in Vermont a few years ago found that the
legal
> requirements that a person's lawyer be an attorney did not explicitly
require
> that the person have a law degree and be a member of the bar. It was shown
that
> there is historical evidence that there is a distinct difference between
what
> the definitions of an attorney is, and what an attorney-at-law is. The VBA
was
> rather miffed at this....
Good for Vermont and its people. I thought it was a socialist commonwealth.
Guess I had it pegged wrong.:)
> > * Recently, the law clinic at some Louisiana law school was banned from
> > helping people unless the people being helped could prove they made less
> > than some minimum income standard. The reason? People were using the
law
> > clinic to sue one of the governor's supporters over, I believe, some
> > pollution issue. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that this was
practicing
> > law without a license -- except in the case of the indigent. In other
> > words, the court protected the monopoly privilige of lawyers from an
actual
> > competitor. (I believe this was on either "60 Minutes" a few months
ago.)
>
> Sounds typical, though Lousiana's legal system practices Civil Law rather
than
> Common Law, so I'm not sure how this would be different.
Somehow, I don't think so. Common Law, btw, is not law is most states of
the US. New Jersey, e.g., went over to statutory law in the 1930s and most
other states have done much the same. This was because of the Progressive
Movement I believe. This does not mean judges don't sometimes try to use
Common Law standards and recommendations, but that almost everything in your
typical court is going to be statutory -- guidelines, sentencing rules, etc.
At least, this is my understanding of the subject.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:59 MST