Self-Represented Litigants

More people are representing themselves in court:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081124/ap_on_re_us/representing_yourself

This is wonderful news. This will force the court system to be more open to the general population and will cause state legislatures to avoid emphasizing procedure over substance. We already see that happening in family court, where the system has been made consumer-friendly. Tellingly, the California State Bar approved "unbundled services" for family law services first.

The law is the only place where the authorities used to demand that clients get full service or nothing at all. That's like forcing someone who just wants a haircut to get a manicure and pedicure at the same place or get no service whatsoever. That kind of system has never made any sense to me.

In addition, self-represented clients can get flat fees for unbundled work, such as responding to motions or making a specific court appearance, which places the consumer in control rather than the attorney. From the financial perspective of the consumer, unbundled services are excellent because they create more competition, which leads to lower prices, and they allow the consumer to control exactly what s/he pays for specific services.

"Full service" was fine when civil lawyers charged more reasonable fees, and when it was easier to get to trial. Now, it sometimes takes more than a year to get a civil court trial, by which time 6 to 50 very expensive motions have been filed. If the State Bar forces attorneys to offer only full service, the business-savvy lawyers--by that I mean the ones that want to stay in business--will demand deposits of $5,000 to $10,000 before taking on any case. High deposits reduce court access to the poor and middle-class.

Unfortunately, the days of the "country lawyer" are long gone. I try to be a country lawyer, but it is becoming more and more difficult because I end up becoming more of a counselor and therapist than an attorney. When clients know their lawyer won't charge them for emails and phone calls or will cut fees, it creates an incentive to contact the lawyer more than necessary, and to use the lawyer as a therapist. This, in turn, can make an attorney who cares about his/her clients more emotionally involved in the case, causing the attorney to absorb the clients' negative emotions (after all, few people contact a lawyer because something good has happened).

In any case, the "full service only" system requires, practically speaking, a large deposit up front and places the control of that money solely and immediately in the hands of the lawyer. An unethical attorney can easily deplete the initial deposit and dump the client if the client chooses not to provide more funds. Thus, a "full service only" system--by creating an incentive for larger initial deposits--rewards lawyers who see their clients as short-term business propositions, because the less you care about your fellow human being, the easier it is to dump them if they fail to pay your bills or run out of money. In contrast, with unbundled services, the client has more leverage to demand a flat fee and the lawyer has an incentive to do good work so the client comes back.

The best definition of morality I've seen was from Immanuel Kant: "Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end." A "full service only" legal system favors attorneys who treat their clients as "means to an end" by reducing the power and choice the consumer/client has in legal transactions. As such, an argument may be made that "full service only" is an intrinsically unethical system.

Kiva Stats

More good news from Kiva, a pioneer in micro-finance--their interest rates are substantially lower than the local competition:

Average Interest Rate Borrower Pays To Kiva Field Partner 22.91% (as of November 23, 2008)

Average Local Money Lender Interest Rate 85.22% (as of November 23, 2008)

Kiva's existence means that the poor can borrow money and create small businesses without being subject to usury. Even so, I don't like how high the interest rate is--23% still seems high to me, especially because the money given by Kiva lenders is given as an interest-free loan without expectation of re-payment. I'd like to see more transparency in terms of the overhead. I wouldn't be surprised to see nonprofits, especially international ones, without adequate bookkeeping. If some corruption comes to light, it would be devastating to the microfinance world, because it would scare away potential and existing lenders.

Malanga on Public Schools

The City, Autumn 2008 edition, has an article on poverty--"We Don't Need Another War on Poverty," by Steven Malanga. Mr. Malanga points out that all the money we've been throwing at schools hasn't resulted in better performance. This lack of improvement is what is spurring Congress to demand accountability from schools in some format:

[T]he U.S. has made vast investments in its public schools. According to a study by Manhattan Institute scholar Jay Greene, per-student spending on K-12 public education in the U.S. rocketed from $2,345 in the mid-1950's to $8,745 in 2002 (both figures in 2002 dollars)...Washington D.C. now spends more than $22,000 a year per student...

An Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Study found that most European countries spend between 55 percent and 70 percent of what the U.S. does per student, yet produce better educational outcomes. If urban school systems are failing children, money has nothing to do with it. (from page 37, The City, Autumn 2008)

In the same issue, there is another interesting article by Michael J. Totten on "The (Really) Moderate Muslims of Kosovo."

Also, on page 121, Theodore Dalrymple recalls the British stiff upper lip and laments its decline:

I found his self-effacement deeply moving. It was not the product of a lack of self-esteem, that psychological notion used to justify rampant egotism; nor was it the result of having been downtrodden by a tyrannical government that accorded no worth to its citizens. It was instead an existential, almost religious, modesty, an awareness that he was far from being all-important.

Looks like the West needs more of that old time British culture.

Commonwealth Club

Some great websites re: the Commonwealth Club I recently found:

http://commonwealthlit.blogspot.com [Broken link]

http://weimarworld.blogspot.com [Still works as of March 2018]

http://commonwealthclub.blogspot.com [Outdated link]

Here's an interesting anti-regulation website:

http://overlawyered.com/

And an economics-related one:

http://delong.typepad.com

Dept of Homeland Security's Incompetence

Yet another reason Homeland Security is America's most incompetent government agency:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/21/60minutes/main4625729_page3.shtml

The American government is spending our taxpayer dollars trying to deport wives of Americans, including dead soldiers, solely because their interview did not occur before the unexpected death of the husband. In the 60 Minutes segment, called "Immigrant Widows Left In Limbo," one mother-in-law tearfully says, "This is America." It's heartbreaking to learn just how incompetent the Department Homeland Security is. I am writing my Congresspersons in both the House and Senate.

And here I thought the federal government couldn't top its previous pinnacle of incompetence, which was improperly jailing an innocent man for seven years. Mr. Lakhdar Boumediene, a Bosnian of Algerian descent, was recently released by a judge--who was appointed by none other than George W. Bush himself. For the legal eagles, there's more about the Boumediene Supreme Court case here: The Most Significant Recent U.S. Supreme Court Case.

For even more on Mr. Boumediene, see WSJ, November 21, 2008, A6. The government jailed him for seven years on the basis of a "single, 'unnamed source.'" Basically, our United States government used secret evidence to jail a man on American-controlled soil for seven years, all the while insisting the man was not entitled to a trial. I'm with the mother-in-law featured on 60 Minutes, but I phrase her sentiment differently: "Is this the America we want, where the Department of Homeland Security appears to have no substantive checks on its powers and very little transparency?"

Ted Turner

I was going to post a review of Ted Turner's speech at the Commonwealth Club last week, but someone beat me to it:

http://weimarworld.blogspot.com/2008/11/ted-turner-on-old-media-plus-economic.html

Ted's book, Call Me Ted, is a quick read. It conveys his man-child personality, which masks a fiercely competitive spirit. Although the book is fun to read, the only real way to experience Ted is in person or on video--the book does as good a job of conveying his personality (several friends call him "crazy," and there's a story about him getting down on all fours at a business meeting asking whose shoes he had to kiss to get the deal done), but Ted is a man meant to be experienced in the flesh. Two interesting tidbits:

1. I am a fan of the San Jose Sharks and although our rivals are the Dallas Stars, I hate the Calgary Flames more because of playoff history. Apparently, the Calgary Flames used to be the Atlanta Flames. (page 105 of hardcover edition)

2. CNBC, the now-ubiquitous finance channel, used to be called the Financial News Network (FNN). The FNN was bought for around 100 million dollars by NBC in 1991. Turner was blocked from buying the channel, which he (correctly) believed would complement CNN's international and political coverage. (page 257 of hardcover edition)

Christopher Buckley

I like David Sedaris, Christopher Moore, and Chuck Thompson when it comes to laugh-out-loud funny books. A friend of mine pointed me to Christopher Buckley, who is featured in this month's Commonwealth Club magazine (p. 39):

You may know of the situation of the teenage boy who has to do a report for school on the difference between hypothetical and reality, so he goes to his father one night and asks him if he could give him a hand with it. The father thinks for a bit and he says, "Go ask your mother if she would sleep with a total stranger for a million dollars." So the son goes off and he comes back pretty quickly [and says] the answer is, You bet. So the dad says, "Go ask your sister," and the boy comes back quite lickety-split, and reports the answer as, "Totally." The dad says, "There you go. Hypothetically, we're sitting on two million bucks. In reality? We're living with a couple of hookers."

I think he's modifying something Churchill said, but it's still funny.