The Bar Speaks
Dear Editor:
I read with interest the recent editorial in the Mo Bar Journal [Thomas M. Burke, A Civil Gideon? Let the Debate Begin, 65 J. Mo.Bar 5 (2009)] suggesting that we need to provide public funding for legal services in civil cases, much as we now do in criminal cases where the intent would be to balance power between the massive resources of the government, and the lack of resources on part of an individual defendant.
Though most would agree that a policy offering free legal services to indigent criminals is a fair idea, many would argue that this representation is frequently not top notch, and that incredible sums of money are spent on complex, lengthy trials and appeals in cases that should have been resolved more efficiently.
But let’s move on to the issue of “free lawyers for civil cases.” Why does anyone think there is such a need, and what types of cases are we referring to?
Certainly we don’t mean damage claims. Any person having a claim with any merit will easily find an attorney to handle it on a percentage basis.
Do we mean common civil matters – divorces, adoptions, bankruptcy? My practice has handled these types of cases for 36 years; in fact I was among the first to advertise, and create an efficient system that handles high volumes of cases for very low prices. Can a person claim “need” when lawyers exist who will allow payments, and low prices?
Do we mean people sued for damages? True, a lawyer can not take this type of case on a percentage basis, and defense does not lend itself to efficient, high volume handling. Do we mean auto accidents? Doesn’t state mandated care insurance provide lawyers for this? If you have no insurance, you are violating state law – should that entitle you to free legal representation? Accidents in the home? Again home owners insurance would provide this. Should we reward people who don’t take insurance with free attorneys? If this is the intent, the insurance industry is in trouble – we should all cancel our policies now!
What about the (alleged) willful tort feasor? Obviously not covered by insurance, and if not criminal, no free lawyer there. As a practical matter, most people who commit willful torts rarely have assets. For the few who do, and the fewer of those who are innocent – is it worth dislocating the free market system, and embracing state socialism for these rare cases?
Do we mean people sued for failure to pay medical bills, charge cards, other bills, or notes? Aren’t the vast majority of these cases cut and dried? The bill exists, it has not been paid. What would a free defense lawyer be able to do to mitigate this? Most collection dockets are rather informal, and the defendant who appears will most likely be allowed to tell the Judge his defense, and the Judge would consider that in his ruling.
No system is perfect, nor will it ever be. Should we turn a system that has worked for, say 99% of the population on its head to take care of the 1% who have possibly experienced injustice?
Lastly, for those of you who truly feel a need for this – STEP UP. I assure you I will not complain that you have taken a civil case pro bono. In fact, I believe many of us have done so through the years. I have taken three cases to the U.S. Court of Appeals, invested the real costs of staff time, and countless hours of my time on these cases without a penny of compensation from the defendants because I felt these people needed representation and could clearly not afford it. It was the right thing to do. I did not need the government to tell me that, and you don’t either.
If the Bar Association wants to help the public, it should do so by investing in the dissemination of knowledge. Make certain people know what their rights are, and know that it is attorneys who are there to aid and protect them.
Yours truly,
T. J. Mullin
Clayton
Dear Editor:
I write to extend my compliments to the above-referenced authors* for such a clear and concise discussion of the distinctions between Missouri law and the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
The article is certain to benefit all attorneys who may be involved in a broad swath of personal injury-type cases and/or issues.
A bright line standard trumps an inferential one any day of the week. And these bright young ladies have wielded bold red “sharpies” in demarking the limits of protected health information (PHI) law access in the pages of your Journal.
I salute them.
Respectfully,
Larry D. Coleman
Kansas City
*Ashley Baird & Jaclyn Taylor, Ex Parte Communications with Physicians? Missouri’s Old Rule v. HIPAA’s New Rule, 65 J. Mo. Bar 66 (2009).