Post a response to this discussion thread
>>My comments to grundle-James uninformed ranting set off by >>.
#1 When she was working on her own, she was doing the EXACT SAME WORK that she had been doing when she had been working at the law firm. She did the work correctly when she had been working at the law firm, just as she did the work correctly when she was on her own. The *only* difference between the two scenarios was that in one of them, the greedy lawyers were making tons of money by charging super duper high prices.
>>There was another significant difference -- she was under the aegis of her supervising attorney, and if she screwed up, his malpractice insurance would cover her. Because the client's potential loss from malpractice was covered, the lawyer is perfectly justified in charging a fee that covers his costs, including the cost of his malpractice insurance. Or are you saying that businesses shouldn't be allowed to pass the costs associated with maintaining professional credentials on to their clients?
#2 Her customers were PERFECTLY HAPPY. Her customers had NO COMPLAINTS. The *only* people who were complaining were the rich, money hungry lawyers who don't want lower priced competition.
>>Yeah, her customers are perfectly happy until something goes wrong -- and even the best attorneys make mistakes from time to time. Do you have some hidden information that Robin Smith was perfect?
#3 In the state of Arizona, people do this kind of thing without a licence to practice law, and the customers are perfectly happy. Your predicted doomsayer scenario did not come true.
>>But Robin wasn't working in Arizona, was she? So she's subject to Oregon's laws. On her appeal, she did not claim that she wasn't practicing law without a license, but that the Oregon State Bar was unconstitutionally abridging her right to free expression under the Oregon Constitution. By the way, from what I can tell, her appellate judgment remains unpaid. Would you and your Libertarian buddies care to pony up?
#4 In a free society, we have something called freedom of association. People shouldn't need permission from the government to do this.
>>No, and the Bar's suit against Ms. Smith didn't address this point at all.
#5 The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, and says that no state shall pass any law to take away someone's rights. Requiring someone to have a license to practice law is a violaiton of this.
>>What in hell are you talking about? Nobody has the right to misrepresent their professional qualifications or to claim to be able to practice law when the state requires them to have a license to do so. Or are you saying that licenses are violations of the 14th Amendment? Are drivers' licenses? Don't folks have the inherent right to get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and drive any way they want? Oppressive government interference! It should be up to every other driver on the road to look out for the unlicensed maniac, right?
#6 convenor, you claim to care about workers' rights, but that is bullshit. You only care about *certain* workers rights. Because you sure as hell don't give a dman about this woman's right to work.
>>Robin Smith has every right to go to law school, get her degree, take the bar exam, and conform to the professional standards of the state bar. Nobody's stopping her from doing that. I suppose if she decides to start practicing medicine tomorrow, the Oregon Medical Association should just let her put out her shingle as long as none of her patients complain? Well, they say dead men tell no tales.
#7 convenor, you claim to care about poor people. But this case proves that you don't. Because this woman was providing low cost legal service that poor people could afford. And they were happy with the service that they received. And you want that to be illegal.
>>Low cost and no cost legal services are available quite liberally in Oregon, funded by the IOLTA trust fund. In addition, scores of firms all over the state participate in the Volunteer Lawyer Project, the St. Andrews Legal Clinic and other programs designed to provide legal services on an ability to pay. The people who patronize clinics such as Robin Smith's are the ones who are trying to chisel legitimate attorneys out of their fees. You know, if you don't know what you're talking about, it might be better to remain silent and merely be thought a fool, than make a post like this and prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
#8 This is a case of individual choice vs. government control. Government officials claim to know what's best for people. But the people would rather be free to make their own choices.
>>No, it isn't, as I've amply demonstrated.
#9 This is a "victimless crime" law. The law is wrong, just like the laws against prostitution are wrong. As long as all of the parties involved are consenting adults, there's no reason why it should be illegal.
>>Then hire a lobbyist and change the law. Put your money where your mouth is for once in your miserable life. The technical term for your yammering is "All hat, no cattle."
#10 These laws create a government protected monopoly. That's wrong. The government shouldn't restrict competition. You claim to be against monopolies, but the truth is that you are in favor of government protected monopolies such as this.
>>There is no restriction on competition. There's a BIG difference between qualifying for and holding yourself out as a credentialed professional and wanting to be one. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Post a response to this discussion thread