how to kill independent attorneys

As it stands, I have little to no interest in anything DemocracyCraft has to offer besides the legal system. When I say I have no interest in anything but the legal system, I mean that to the utmost. I have no interest in making any money through attorney work- that comes as a nice little bonus. At its core, what I'm most interested in is the process of composing a complaint and then essentially debating that complaint is a brilliant (pardon the click phrasing) 'battle of wits'- it's an intellectually stimulating challenge that requires you to think on your feet to respond to claims and spin disadventageous facts to your own benefit. What I'm not interested in is making money. Keep that in mind.

I was lurking in #legal when sampois_ sent a link to a Google Doc containing a proposal for a bill. This bill- the hypothetical "Save the Judiciary Act" (the link to which I will supply here)- proposes that, given the storm of "blatantly incompetent lawyers arising from the Jaron wave", action should be taken to alleviate the Judiciary's workload and raise funds via the reduction of petty cases through a change to the CCA, to compensate Judiciary Officers more to incentivize work, to criminalize foolishly unqualified legal representation, to disallow lawsuits based on violent crime, and- most importantly- to impose a fee on filing cases in order to limit the number filed by these new, incompetent lawyers.

There's no issue with paying the Judiciary more. There's no issue in disallowing assault lawsuits, either- claiming $10,000 or however much in damages because someone hit you once (a criminal offence, might I add) on the basis of 'emotional damage' is an excellent way to waste the time of the courts. Actually, I don't find an issue with criminalizing incompetency in court, either, despite the discourse around this topic. If you pass the exams, you should be expected to hold yourself to a bare minimum standard, and clearly, some of the newer lawyers are not doing this.

What I take issue with are these two lines.

"The Judiciary may impose court fees upon the initiator of an ancillary claim or legal proceeding, except appeal.

(2) Such court fees may not exceed 1500$ or 7% of the total damages (minus compensatory damages for court fees and attorney’s fees) requested in the claim, whichever is higher."

This is a disastrous clause for any new lawyer- intentionally so. The goal is to stop the mass-filings of frivilous cases that've been plaguing the court forums since the Jaron wave, and this would, in fact, stop mass-filings. In fact, I believe this would stop nearly all prospect lawyers from ever filing independently. $1500 is already more than the entire sum of a new player's balance, and, after considering exam fees, is likely more than triple what they may have to their name. That disregarded, the real damaging portion of this article is the clause that specifies "whichever is higher". 7% of total damages (minus legal fees) is a LOT of money. Like, a LOT. Cases are already hard to come by as an independent attorney, since law firms are typically more well known and able to provide more professional help. This would likely be the killing blow to independent attorneys as a whole.

That's not very convincing, is it? Let me give you a scenario. Let's take the case I threw together (which, while likely not the world's most standards-compliant work, is certainly passable and not egregiously incorrect). In this case, I seek around $15,000 of damages. If this proposed bill had gone into law, I would have been required to pay $1050 in filing fees- nearly half of all the money I currently have to my name. What's more, more damages could have been ostensibly sought- up to $95,000 (an amount I didn't move for as the defendant would likely not have been able to pay). If I had filed for maximum damages, I would have been required to pay $6650 in filing fees- triple my current balance, and something that, at 7 times the starting balance, no new lawyer would reasonably be able to pay. In addition to this, cases above $120000- that is, any case requiring the involvement of the Federal Court- would have fees of $8400; a fee that would be coming directly out of an independent lawyer's own pocket. This essentially entirely bars new lawyers from the Federal Court unless they come across a sum of $8400. But wait, Uno, this sum can be come across via legal fees, right? Right?

I don't have much experience with legal fees, especially as I try to be exceedingly generous with my own pricing, but I hear that a typical price is $1000 and a 25% cut. This may be more or may be less, depending on the case. Let's assume that I win this hypothetical case I filed. I recieve 25% of $15,000, plus $1000. I recieve, in total, $4750. Subtracting the filing fees, we make a total of $3700. Not bad, right? But then account for the fact that this assumes we win the case- an assumption we can't reasonably make. No attorney wins 100% of the time; that's just factual. And given that cases can be dismissed or settled out of court, there's really no guarantee that an attorney will make a return on their case. If no return on a case is made, no future case can be filed- a bad losing streak could bankrupt an attorney. Obviously, success under these circumstances would still be possible; but it would take much more work and thought (which may be the goal; to weed out bad, undedicated lawyers) and cause unnecessary pressure- losing the case would have a substantial negative impact, especially on new lawyers.

This would leave, in my mind, a few options. One- stop being a lawyer. There's too much risk of bankruptcy for a beginner, and thus quitting being an attorney as a whole could stop this risk. Two- join a law firm. Law firms would certainly suffer from this change, but truthfully the server needs lawyers- and reasonably, if independent attorneys cease function, law firms must take up the mantle. The preestablished structure and balances of law firms reduces the risk of bankruptcy from a single loss, as they have more funds and generally charge higher prices. It's not unfair to assume that law firms would not suffer as greatly from this bill as independent attorneys. Three- power through and risk it. This one is self-explanatory- power through the risk and file your cases anyways, and find a way to make more money if bankruptcy does hit.

That being said, something does need to be done to reduce the number of frivilous/unprofessional cases in the courts. Aspects of this bill could be implemented; in fact, I think nearly all of the bill could be implemented save for the case filing section. This perspective also comes from- well, not a judge, and thus not the person actually affected by the increase in court cases, but rather from the perspective of an aspiring new attorney.

Tune in next time where I propose an alternative solution involving child sacrifice and Ancient Mayan bloodletting.