Comments on: Schwarzenegger wants Civil Right to Counsel Pilot Project

By: david giacalone

david giacalone — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:52:32 +0000

Ted, I can’t think of any Constitutional section that would deal with agreements not to bring legal malpractice suits, but you’d need to ask a Constitution Law expert or someone who has done research on the topic. Also, you might want to seek antitrust advice on whether an actual agreement (conspiracy) not to bring malpractice cases against other lawyers is an unlawful antitrust boycott of clients needing such assistance. However, without a “smoking gun,” showing an actual agreement might be very difficult, because every law firm has the right to decide independently for itself that it does not want to engage in legal malpractice law — a specialty that could make you very unpopular with your legal brethren. You don’t need an agreement to not want to engage in legal malpractice cases, and an agreement can be rather ineffective, since lawyers outside the conspiracy can foil it. Many lawyers also reject a lot of clients — especially on a contingency basis — because they simply do not think that the particular facts add up to malpractice, so taking the case is too risky. I hope this helps and I cannot get into the facts of your particular situation.

By: Ted King

Ted King — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:43:42 +0000

The argument of Right to Counsel is not only that the state should finance legal services for the poor; but rather, there is a Right to Counsel in civil actions that is not to be thwarted by agreements between lawyers and law firm not to sue each other. If a law firm is among those law firms that have agreed not to accept legal malpractice cases, then the argument becomes involved with a dfferent part of the Constitution. What part would that be? Which law is violated by resticting lawsuits through non-agression pacts?

By: shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » Family Law Civil Gideon: are free lawyers always the best approach?

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:29:37 +0000

[...] “Civil Gideon” is the right – and the name of the movement to obtain the constitutional or legislative right — of low-income individuals to the appointment of a lawyer when basic human needs (such as those involving shelter, sustenance, safety, health or child custody) are at stake in a court proceeding. The name comes from the analogy to the right to counsel in criminal cases, which was announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Gideon v. Wainwright. [see our prior post on a pilot project in California] [...]

By: usefulinfo.org - blog

usefulinfo.org - blog — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:34:18 +0000

[...] The Governor of California has just recently proposed a state budget that includes $5 million over three years to provide counsel to otherwise self-represented litigants in civil cases. Although nobody seems to have details yet about how the program would work, it’s probably some form of judicare. Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Reply [...]