|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 6, 2017 5:25:14 GMT -6
Right Honourable Minister,
First let me applaud the outstanding levels of activity and business coming from your Ministry.
I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit behind the work you are currently engaged in in reforming our justice and courts systems.
Would the Minister agree with me that we risk making our justice system more and more inaccessible to the general population of legal lays though?
Would the Ministry consider implementing a series of forms for lay persons to be able to access the legal system and to streamline our processeses?
Kind regards,
Senator Grischun.
|
|
|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Jul 6, 2017 14:58:28 GMT -6
Senator Grischun,
Thank you for your inquiry.
Unfortunately, I cannot agree with you that the proposed reforms make access to the legal system difficult for lay persons. I would be open to addressing specific instances that you can point out. But as a preliminary matter - if you are referring to the Ambiguity Resolution Act or the Bar Reformation Act, I would point out that those were proposed in my individual capacity as a member of the Cosa, and I would be happy to address those concerns in the threads on the Hopper.
If, however, you are referring to other conduct done in my official capacity, please let me know so I can address them.
Kind Regards,
Viteu Marcianüs Avocat-Xheneral The Kingdom of Talossa
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jul 14, 2017 14:43:29 GMT -6
Minister,
I apologise for the slight delay in responding. My family suffered a bereavement this past week.
Follows is a copy/paste with minor edits of the conversation we had off-Witt.
***
I was on my phone and made a very very quick post without thinking out all angles or joining two separate train of thought: a) your bills and work are great and you've been the best AG in a long while (but the bills are not the topic) and b) the accessibility issue (the actual terp).
I wasn't addressing your current bills per se. I think the bills are good measures and once you have the finer points battered out then I reckon I'll vote in favour once Clarked. Any input or concerns on the individual bills will, of course, be posted in the hopper as you say.
I'm talking more long term (past tense), so all this isn't on you, but you're the current AG so ... Yeah.
I actually agree that limitations should be in place in regards to who can simply walk into the court and start posting opinions. We have chat rooms for commentators.
Rather the meat of what I'm shooting at is more about how professionally legalistic are we going to take all this? I don't expect you to agree in full here, seeing as your very well versed in legal systems, terminology, procedure, etc.
My fear is that we are building a hobby club for "real life" lawyers. I certainly have no clue how to fight and argue a case in court. I would likely lose any case if representing myself. Fair enough, I'm not a lawyer. The same applies in my home nation's legal system. One is always advised to seek aid from legal professionals.
I guess the question I ultimately ask then is do we want Talossa to be strictly professional in the sense that only career level professionals can do what needs to be done this ape other nations as much as we can or do we want a Talossa with institutions that are more accessible and usable to the masses (a la sandbox)? I think there is a middle ground.
This isn't necessarily a slight on your approach or those of other legal minds, but I dare say you (and they) wouldn't have put much thought into building a system any less perfect, professional or legalistic than you/they possibly can.
Now, I'm not arguing for the systems to be dumbed down. I'm not even asking that you open the doors and let us all pour in unchecked. I was more thinking we could have a set of standardised forms that people like me without legal training could use to access the legal system. Something the professionals have designed that is easy to fill in. Say, an emergency injunction request form. A restraining order application. These sorts of things. At the moment we have to learn how to file a 'proper' brief or convince one of the very few lawyers around to do it for you. What happens when my lawyer suddenly takes ill or has a family problem or what have it?
A standardised template based system of forms for what should be open and shut cases could save a lot of time for lays and lawyers alike, as well as the judges.
|
|
|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Jul 18, 2017 15:13:40 GMT -6
Senator Grischun,
Thank you for your response, and my apologies for not responding sooner.
I do not disagree with you about the prospects of making our legal system a little too developed. For the most part, I have borrowed heavily from my experience outside of Talossa. I will confess I have toned it down a bit because our judiciary is not as developed as other nations and I do not want to make it some remote part of our State that seems inaccessible, but I also think that in a common law system it is important to present a case a certain way.
That said, I am completely with you about concerns for concerning pro se plaintiffs (or defendants). I agree we need a formal procedure guide and forms that can be filled out. We have those in NY and in most of (if not all) our Federal Courts in the U.S. I can say that two federal districts here in NY even have pro se offices to explain to lay people what they need to do (but not act as pro bono counsel). I do think it is entirely doable and reasonable to have forms that attorneys and lay-people alike can use. Further, I think it is entirely agreeable to hold pro se litigants to a slightly less strict standard for properly following procedure. That is to say, in the federal jurisprudence of my circuit of the U.S., the courts afford pro se litigants a bit more leeway in following the procedure than they do an attorney because, well, the attorney should know better. That does not mean they are held to a different legal standard, only that if they do not, for example, make a proper pleading, the court will give them a chance or two to fix the pleading and give them some explanation. I have personally witnessed judges take a moment to ensure a pro se plaintiff fully understands the obligations and procedures they have to meet.
To get to the point of making forms, however, we need a procedural guide. I cannot put together a template for a pleading or an order to show cause unless I know what the standards are.
Finally, as far as legal arguments are concerned – that I cannot answer. I will say this, being a lawyer does not mean you will win. I recall an evidentiary hearing in a criminal case, where the judge made evidentiary rulings like you and I blink, and restating the rules and case law in a similar fashion. Defendant’s pro se attorney could not adequately argue something, and the defendant asked the judge if he could address the court, which the judge permitted him to do. The defendant recited the law and rule in a way that I think impressed the judge. The motion went his way. Now, I offer this to you to say that even lay people without legal training can make a good legal argument. But you can also take away that criminals tend to know the law better than any of us. Nevertheless, my only point is that when it comes to synthesizing an argument, you don’t need legal training for that.
I hope my rather verbose response addressed your concerns. I will gladly respond but to any follow-up, but I will not respond, likely, until after next Thursday.
Kind Regards,
Viteu Marcianüs Avocat-Xheneral The Kingdom of Talossa
|
|