Why would we need such a thing? Most attorneys assisting accident victims and the like provide free consultation in order to determine whether or not your case has merit. And if they think it does, they will take your case and collect a percentage of your settlement.

I just saw on the news a story about an unfair eviction. Thinking about that in this context it might make sense. The people were poor so couldn't afford an attorney and if they won all they would like get is to not be evicted. Though I suspect the judge would have been some what lenient on everything just proper if they had enough sense to try and one can usually get free help in actually filling out the forms.

On the other hand, I can see my ex-sister-in-law bring endless actions against my brother...we already saw that when her grandfather was feeding her money.

Hmmmm...seems like this would have a lot more problems that benefits.

Legal aid will help stave off an unfair eviction, won't they? There are people who will volunteer their time. Taxpayers shouldn't be made to volunteer their money for the unfunded litigious.

Every city has free legal services already. Pro bono work is a lawyer requirement. This is just more liberal "take your money to control you" nonsense.

"In civil cases, there is no corresponding constitutional provision." Not sure I agree here.
14th amendment states
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Property is also protected under the constitution. In most civil cases there is an exchange of money which as property. Also you have civil commitment cases, Mass calls them pink paper. Which are a really ugly gray area.

"Pro bono work is a lawyer requirement." Talk out your ass my dear. While some firms may require it and there are tax reasons for it there is no legal requirement. Not in NY and not in Ma.

The key word there is "state".

A landlord is not an agent of the state.
Nor is a private company.
Nor is a private citizen.
Nor are married couples.

Too many times in my short life I've been standing on the end where I needed a lawyer and I had to scrape up every extra dime in the sofa cushions to obtain one. Or worse, I couldn't scrape enough up for one. There is too much in this country that is determined by what attorney is purchased.

And not every city or county has free legal services. It is hard for me to understand the vast amount of people on both the East and West coast that really have absolutely no idea how the people in the vast amount of square footage in between live.

I think it can be reasonably argued that in any lawsuit it is the "state" making the judgement against those private citizens and private companies. Otherwise, it would simply be private citizens, companies, or landlords just taking the money (which we kindly refer to as theft).

We already honor due process in civil hearings by providing a judge. Yet, it has been determined that in previous criminal proceedings that due process includes an attorney for representation whether or not it can be afforded. I'm not sure that at any point that I can draw a line between those criminal proceedings which result in jail or those civil proceedings that result in wage garnishment.

Imagine a scenario where Ms. A and Mr. B are getting divorced. Ms. A is a secretary making 25,000 a year (or some amount just over the cutoff) and Mr. B lost his job last year and is now making minimum wage.

Mr. B's (free) lawyer keeps throwing paperwork at Ms. A costing her 10's of thousands of dollars. Probably not how Judge Lippman envisioned the system.

On the other hand, the current system where Mr. B is assessed child support based on the job he had last year which is more than he takes home now isn't the best either.

We don't have enough lawyers already, so now they must feed at public expense? I think it is time to cull the herd.

Law licenses should be like NYC taxicab medallions. Limited in number and tightly regulated.

I cannot imagine the nightmarish repercussions this would have in a place like the Rio Grande Valley, which may be the most litigious culture in America. When poor people see lawsuits as a way to make money, everybody starts suing everybody. Of course the intentions behind Lippman's suggestions are good; that doesn't mean the results would be.

The state may be the one making the judgement in a civil case, but it is NOT the one bringing suit.

I will only add this: there is a gaping market "hole" out there for anyone who has been wronged in the range of $7,500 - $100,000. Less than that rightfully belongs in small claims court which requires no lawyer. More than that and you can probably find contingency representation.

But in between? I'd have a hard time referring a case that small to a competent attorney. Its simply not worth the litigation expense.

Legal aid will help stave off an unfair eviction, won't they? There are people who will volunteer their time

Note that the reporter categorized it as "unfair" but not "illegal" and I suspect that might make a difference. I missed exactly what it was over. As I mentioned, there are some groups that will help you fill out paper work for free. But lawyers going in front the court for free (or very little) seems pretty rare - though I have not looked so who knows.

I don't think this is a good idea because it is so easily abused...it just like there is also some legitimate uses for it.

I love the comment that assumed lawyers are (and therefore should be) required to work for free. Last time I checked, this is called "slavery." Lawyers do give away a substantial amount of time -- out of a sense of public service ("pro bono publico"), not because they are forced to do so. Can you think of any other profession that is expected to, and does, give away as much free services as lawyers?

That said, all of those who say there are too many lawyers must like to pay more when they need a lawyer, given the dictates of supply and demand.

Also, I think most people here would be surprised to know how LITTLE most lawyers make. Even though a small percentage of lawyers (big-firm partners, famous PI attorneys, and the like) can make a ton of money, still the average annual income is only $100,000 (not much for a job requiring a doctorate degree). However, most lawyers are solo or in small firms, so the biggest single block of lawyers, 34%, only makes between $50,000 and $100,000 per year. There are also many, many lawyers who are currently unemployed, or under-employed. For all too many, the cost of a law degree and the difficulty and stress of passing the bar exam will not have been worth it in terms of career earnings.

My goal as a now-solo attorney with decades of experience? To make enough some day to be able to afford to hire myself. I haven't gotten there yet ....

Almost anyone can start a legal aid association and apply for federal grants to fund it. A community health center, same thing. It happens all across the country. The USA is not a bad place in which to be poor. BTW, I've been poor, and glad not to be anymore.

Establish a right to a lawyer so that the courtesy of the taxpayers, the low-income New Yorkers may have free legal representation is a wide range of cases of eviction and divorce, labor disputes and well-being, and more. But such a program is not the result Judge Lippman and others of good will should wish. far-reaching idea of a misnomer "civil Gideon" after the landmark decision of Gideon v. Wainwright, which by law the idea of the court appointed legal representative of the poor in criminal matters. But there is one big difference: Gideon unanimous Supreme Court decision was based on clearly stated the right of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution which is to verify the incredible power of the government deprives someone of liberty.
My goal as a now-solo attorney with decades of experience? To make enough some day to be able to afford to hire myself. I haven't gotten there yet ....

While only a layman, I have a few ideas:

If the USA adopted loser pays, let's assume the result would be fewer baseless lawsuits. With fewer baseless lawsuits, we can perhaps assume a drop in the demand for legal services. With reduced demand, we should have a short to medium term reduction in costs at the bottom end of the market, making access to legal advice more affordable. In the long-term, under-employed lawyers would leave the profession.

Also, I have heard that a long discovery process is one of the most onerous parts of the US civil lawsuit system. Finding a way to abbreviate the process will lead to cheaper, speedier decisions.

Arbitration and mediation are other ways to make law more accessible to the poor, or any middle-class person who doesn't want to piss away their life savings on lawyers.

Creating a make-work welfare program for attorneys is not the way to go. My uncle, a retired account, would easily admit that overly complicated tax code was just welfare for his profession. Let's not do more of the same for lawyers.

The civil discovery process is indeed expensive and onerous, but what alternative do you propose? Less truth-seeking and access to relevant evidence?

New York is already broke, leveraged to the hilt, and hanging on by using budgetary gimmicks. California, with worse weather.

Sure, let's hit the taxpayers up to subsidize lawyers. What could possibly go wrong?

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm making certain that I will end up owing NY some income tax at the end of the year. If I were due a refund, it'd probably arrive, late, in the form of a voucher for a lawyer.