DouglasAugust 11, 2008 18:55 EST

In the US, all people who have been arrested have the right to an attorney and, if they cannot afford one, may have one appointed for them. These attorneys come from the Public Defenders office of the city or county in which they were arrested. The costs are picked up by the government (i.e. taxpayers). These attorneys are, in any number of cases, used as the basis of appeal when the person is subsequently charged, tried, and convicted. The cause for appeal is "incompetent counsel." I would not be in a hurry for universal legal assistance.

RickAugust 11, 2008 20:43 EST

You guys crack me up. In all fairness, it's nice to see this in print. However, everyone cries "My Rights, My Rights" and no one ever mentions the pain, sufferings, and poverty that is injected into children's lives while the "smart" people continue to think about this some more.

As managers of this country, judges and legislators suck big time.

At the very least, fast track custody cases and move divorce and divisions of property to civil court where everyone can blow their financial futures without affecting children's lives. Not to mention endangering them while their well being is been decided.

LauraAugust 11, 2008 23:04 EST

Actually, Douglas, the basis for your argument is absolutely false. In fact, only a tiny percentage of appeals are based on what the courts call "ineffective counsel" (and that's the proper term of art, not "incompetent counsel"). A claim of ineffective counsel is exceedingly hard to sustain on appeal, and most appellate counsel won't even bother advancing the argument unless the allegedly ineffective conduct is incontrovertibly egregious. And even in the tiny number of cases where the argument is advanced, the overwhelming majority of decisions reject it. So if your point is that appointing counsel is fruitless because it only begets more litigation — well, that's simply dead wrong and has no basis in fact.

ChrisAugust 12, 2008 13:38 EST

The topic of “ineffective” or “incompetent” counsel is an interesting one. I have been fighting a battle with the Canadian legal establishment that began, over eight years ago, with conduct that was much worse than merely ineffective or incompetent. My sole complaint to the B.C. Law Society elicited the bizarre response that the lawyer in question had no obligations to me whatsoever.

I have since been, of necessity, self-represented through a series of actions that have resulted in five tribunal decisions and four Superior Court judgments (the first of which was, crucially, in my favour). The legal issues now being addressed in tort are not the result of the facts of the original case. They result from my discovery that all of the previous litigation depended on statutory language that had never been debated or passed by the legislature. It is on the books (and still being used) because of a surreptitious and illegal “amendment” that could not possibly have been made without the complicity of legal establishment. For bringing this case forward, I have been deemed by a Supreme Court judge “misguided” or worse. I am appealing that outcome and will apply for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada if necessary.

Lack of competence in the legal profession is a pervasive problem. More consequential though is a lack of integrity: a lack of respect for the fundamental principles of justice, including the Rule of Law itself.

AnonymousAugust 20, 2008 12:37 EST

Universal Justice exists- but it costs money.
American Public Defenders are State Employees.
Conflict of interests occur when disputes arise
between citizens and the State. When push comes
to shove, Public Defenders protect their employer,
not their client. Do Canadians want to be American?

Francesco SinibaldiAugust 23, 2008 15:37 EST

The sensibility of a fallen desire.

The long vigils
of the night fall
on the ground
with a fine
sensibility, and
even that sunshine
invites me to cry
near the sound
of a finger: I dream
you my dear,
I remember your
fate.

Francesco Sinibaldi

AnonymousSeptember 20, 2008 20:53 EST

The article on ULC poses several interesting questions, but the inflation of numbers to justify the position are a little disconcerting. It's stated that a 3-day trial averages $60,000. If you allow for $10,000 in disbursments, that is still 200 hours charged at $300 an hour (which you can find many capable lawyers that charge less). I have heard a weeklong trial averages $30,000 from counsel I know.

Second, carry insurance, you will not have to fight the mailman who slipped on your walk if you have homeowner's insurance (it's also not the mailman suing you, but his insurance).

For avoiding costs in family law, get a prenup, don't have children, and behave like rational adult people not squabbling morons who want to spend $5000 bickering over a $2000 dining room suite.