Shrinking the gap
SueEasy.com is an interesting site, it is a Web 2.0 site that purports to allow individuals to find lawyers based on the type of claim, including class actions, and provide the lawyer with some information on the prospective client.
One of the oft-heard critiques of lawyers and the legal system is that it is intensely hostile to pro se litigants. Generally, to be effective in court and successfully prosecute or defend a claim, you need a lawyer. And that does not even get into the difficulty in acquiring effective legal representation when you are short on funds.
Essentially, there exists a gap between the legal system and the average person. Whether this is because of the complexity of the legal system or because the system prefers experts trained in its intricacies is a moot point, kind of a chicken and egg debate. Take it as a given that lawyers are legal experts, hired to bring that expertise to the service of the client. Lawyers effectively bridge the gap between the legal system and the people who want access to it.
But it isn’t easy to find a lawyer. Locating a lawyer can be hit or miss, relying on anecdotes from friends or family and advertisements. And then begins the task of sorting legitimate from illigitimate claims, and paying claims from non paying claims. Class action suits rely on the opposite, lawyers casting a wide net for people to join the suit. SueEasy.com has the potential to make that easier, since it provides upfront information on claims to lawyers, and collects class actions for people who are within the class. It also has the potential to reduce cost on the system.
Overlawyered has a problem with it, assuming that quality lawyers won’t make use of it. That would seem to me to be contrary to basic precepts of invisible-hand capitalism. Lawyers would be foolish to ignore any avenue that would make access to clients at once easier and more discerning, and quality litigators are going to quickly rise to the top. The undercurrent to the objections is about “ambulance chasing” and the presumed sleeziness of reaching out to clients.
That illustrates a huge inequality. No one objects to corporations or government having a stable of lawyers, either in house or on retainer, that vet decisions and stand at the ready. But somehow, making it easier for the average person to find a lawyer, post-harm, is considered somehow off. Facially, one the causes of power disparity between consumers/citizens and corporations/government is the fact that either of the latter can bring massive legal force to bear in short order. If you want to mitigate the power difference, then you need to enable individuals to get a lawyer quickly and efficiently.
Worth noting is that both Tort Reform and Civil Forfeiture laws are attempts to increase that power disparity. Civil Forfeiture laws reduce the ability of those charged, not convicted, of crimes to engage legal help. Tort Reform, especially damages caps, work to make it is less financial feasible for a lawyer to take on a case.
Either way, I support anything that increases the public’s access to lawyers. And if it means that lawyers can more efficiently sort and resolve cases, so much the better.
