Civil Gideon
The ABA has long pursued the concept of "Civil Gideon" which, loosely defined, means the right to a lawyer in civil cases (Gideon v.
Wainwright was, of course, the case that guaranteed the right to counsel for criminal defendants).
At the ABA Annual meeting in San Francisco in August, 2010, the resolution passed.
The resolution can be accessed by clicking this sentence.
This week the Fulton County Daily Report published an article about a lawsuit in Georgia which attempts to guarantee the right to counsel for certain civil defendants, particularly those at risk of incarceration for failue to pay child support.
What a dilemma? While states such as Georgia are struggling to find funding to provide lawyers for defendants in criminal cases, there are now lawsuits being filed, such as the one referenced above, to require funding for lawyers for defendants in civil cases.
The goal is noble and well intentioned, but the potential pitfalls are numerous.
For instance, why should only the defendant receive such assistance? Perhaps the plaintiff who may be filing to receive support is even more worthy of the public's assistance? Should we, the taxpayers pay for lawyers for people who "may" be incarcerated? We do that for criminal defendants, so perhaps why not for civil defendants.
Yet for child support obligors, is that fair? The recipient has not been receiving child support, and may have to borrow money to hire her or his own lawyer.
Of course there are many government agencies that will file a case on the recipient's behalf, so perhaps this new idea only levels the playing field? What I think makes more sense is an idea known as "unbundled legal services".
In other words, we should permit lawyers to give advice and not remain in the case the whole time.
This way people could afford to have a lawyer's help at a hearing or other proceeding while not having to pay for various motions or other behind the scenes work.
Certainly it is better for the client to have a lawyer throughout.
But if that is unaffordable, this may be a good alternative? The beauty of America is that we can have this debate.
While aspirational goals are great, when there is only so much funding available, sometimes aspirations must yield to practicality.
It will be interesting to see where this case goes.
Links to the actual case of Gideon v.
Wainwright as well as to the ABA Resolution and various articles discussing each are available via my blog located at: http://www.
kssfamilylaw.
com/blog/.
Wainwright was, of course, the case that guaranteed the right to counsel for criminal defendants).
At the ABA Annual meeting in San Francisco in August, 2010, the resolution passed.
The resolution can be accessed by clicking this sentence.
This week the Fulton County Daily Report published an article about a lawsuit in Georgia which attempts to guarantee the right to counsel for certain civil defendants, particularly those at risk of incarceration for failue to pay child support.
What a dilemma? While states such as Georgia are struggling to find funding to provide lawyers for defendants in criminal cases, there are now lawsuits being filed, such as the one referenced above, to require funding for lawyers for defendants in civil cases.
The goal is noble and well intentioned, but the potential pitfalls are numerous.
For instance, why should only the defendant receive such assistance? Perhaps the plaintiff who may be filing to receive support is even more worthy of the public's assistance? Should we, the taxpayers pay for lawyers for people who "may" be incarcerated? We do that for criminal defendants, so perhaps why not for civil defendants.
Yet for child support obligors, is that fair? The recipient has not been receiving child support, and may have to borrow money to hire her or his own lawyer.
Of course there are many government agencies that will file a case on the recipient's behalf, so perhaps this new idea only levels the playing field? What I think makes more sense is an idea known as "unbundled legal services".
In other words, we should permit lawyers to give advice and not remain in the case the whole time.
This way people could afford to have a lawyer's help at a hearing or other proceeding while not having to pay for various motions or other behind the scenes work.
Certainly it is better for the client to have a lawyer throughout.
But if that is unaffordable, this may be a good alternative? The beauty of America is that we can have this debate.
While aspirational goals are great, when there is only so much funding available, sometimes aspirations must yield to practicality.
It will be interesting to see where this case goes.
Links to the actual case of Gideon v.
Wainwright as well as to the ABA Resolution and various articles discussing each are available via my blog located at: http://www.
kssfamilylaw.
com/blog/.
Source...