Post a response to this discussion thread
"Huh! I guess grundle-James' source didn't bother reading about the Robin Smith case. She didn't contest that she was engaged in practicing law without a license; she claimed that her free expression rights under the Oregon Constitution had been violated. But then, this is a grundle-James post, and facts aren't necessary when he's trying to make a point."
No. I understand what you are saying.
But the point is, given that she had already been doing the work when she was working for the law firm, why can't she do the exact same work on her own, and charge a lower price for it?
"Okay, grundle-James, riddle me this: What's the recourse for one of Robin Smith's "clients" when she fucks up? For a lawyer legitimately practicing law in the State of Oregon, there's an organization called the Professional Liability Fund. If a lawyer commits malpractice, a client has the option to go the PLF, and if the lawyer is found to have damaged his client's interest because of malpractice, his malpractice insurance covers the loss."
There is no recourse. But that's a risk that some people are willing to take.
Even a lawyer with a license can screw his clients. And suung for malpractrice doesn't guarantee any kind of recovery.
Look. The fact is that in the real world, you cannot eliminate risk. Some people are willing to pay a higher price to get a licensed attorney, and along with that, they get the ability to sue. But some people might want to choose to hire a lower priced paralegal, without the ability to sue. That's life. Life has choices. And different choices will have different risks, and different costs and benefits. Some cars are safer than others. Some neighborhoods are safer than others. Some people want to eat sushi, and they're willing to accept the associated risks. There are all sorts of such examples. But why not let each customer make his own choice?
You claim to be concerned about the customer. But that's a lie. Her customers were perfectly happy with the service that they recived. Your only real concern is that high priced law firms, such as the one that you work for, will have to compete against lower priced people such as her. That's what this is really about. You don't want competition.
"If Robin Smith gives bad legal advice, and her "client" misses a court deadline or files an outdated form, I guess it's too bad, and caveat emptor. Then a real attorney gets to take over the mess, set things right, do what should have been done in the first place, and put things to right. I can assure you that that is not cheaper than doing it right in the first place."
So far, her customers have been happy with the service that they recieved. And they saved a lot of money. The cusomters are happy.
Your predicted doomsayer scenario did not come to life in Arizona. Arizona allows unlicenced parlegals to do what she does. And your predicted doomsayer scenario did not come true.
"But Robin? She goes
on her merry way, refusing to pay judgments against her and
continuing to dupe unsuspecting persons into having her
perform
their legal work, all because they believe her line that
she's providing a low cost alternative to a real lawyer."
She's not duping anyone. She's doing the exaxt same work that she had done when she was working at the law firm. The only difference is that she's charging a lot less, and that the lawyers aren't getting any money.
The real "duping" is done by the lawyers. Someone hires a lawyer for $500 an hour, thinking that the lawyer is doing the work. But it's really the paralegal who does the work. This is fruad on the part of the lawyer.
"There's a reason lawyers are licensed by the states where they practice and there's a reason even the best of them carry malpractice insurance. If you had bothered to check out facts, you might know that."
I did check the facts. And the facts show that in Arizona, it's pefectly legal for unlicened paralegals to do this kind of thing, and that your predicted doomsayer scenario did not come true. And the facts also show that her customers are happy. And the facts show that she is doing the exact same work that she was doing when she was working at the law firm. And the facts show that different choices have different levels of risk, and it's better to let each person make up his own mind about how much risk he is willing to take.
And here's one final point: You have repeatedly said that rich people's money is "ill gotten gains" and that rich people don't deserve to have so much money. But in this particular case, where the lawyers weren't even doing any work, and all the work was being done by someone else, you actually want the lawyers to get most of the money. So this woman does all the work, but you want the lawyers to get most of the money. This is proof that you are a corporate stooge whose only concern is to protect the status quo of lawyers who don't even have to do any work. You want rich lawyers to make tons of money, while the paralegal does all the work.
Post a response to this discussion thread