Hacker News Reader

Comment by sassypotato | Hacker News Reader

I never understood when Americans threaten people with court expenses in TV series or real life. I was under the impression that no matter the case, if you are unable to afford representation, a state lawyer is appointed and does a barely passing job. Wouldn't a barely passing job be enough for a judge to throw a case like this away?

I've actually been in court and it has never been an expensive experience.

I suppose from one comment I read that patent law is different, and you have to actively defend your patent, but I see this theme in many different types of cases; for instance someone starting directing a documentary about something someone didn't like attention drawn to. How can this possibly be expensive to defend.

View on HN

You're only guaranteed representation in a criminal trial in which case you're opposing the government. In a civil case between two private parties there is no such right.

The right to have an lawyer provided by the state only applies to criminal cases, not civil cases like in this one. In civil cases the burden of funding a defense is on the defendant. Even if it’s initially thrown out, the appeals process can take years and even more money.

There is a difference between criminal law and civil law

If the state wants to throw you in jail, you get a free lawyer.

If some random person alleges you harmed them snd they want you to stop and reimburse them for the harm you caused them, you pay for a lawyer

Ianal

re: "free lawyer" - many times you get what you paid for. Hence people with incompetent representation (purposefully or otherwise) ending up with bad plea deals and/or lengthy sentences.

I suggest you consider reading a book called A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr. It's about a lawyer suing a large company over the deaths of children. Hint: He was vastly outspent and crushed. Don't watch the movie, the book is much better.

You are kidding right? You are guaranteed representation for a criminal trial. Not a civil trial. How could that ever work??

I dont see why it couldnt work.

You could say that plaintiff has to pay for a crap lawyer for other side (there are complicated consequences, makes it harder for the little guy to access the legal system, etc). Or you could say the state has to provide one always (if the state pays for my doctor [i am not an american] than its in theory possible for them to do this.

Whether or not they should is a different question.

Probably similar to how it works in criminal trials. There would be a public defender office for handling the civil cases of those without means.

Not saying that it should be done, but implementing it seems straightforward.

In Germany, their rough equivalent of a Civil trial guarantees representation for the sued in most cases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com