Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Yes in the lower courts that is largely the case, you go MC and DC and even FJC that is really the main value add that lawyers bring - the other one is also that laymen simply intimidated by other side having lawyer
The default is laymen can do it themselves in the lower courts - now the year 2023 every other mother son got uni degree and can read/write basic English
The courts recognise this, hence the recent push to simplify procedure and statutes to make them more accessible
The problems for most laymen is (1) the time/trouble to attend court, like mentions and case conferences, it's during the working day and need to take leave and (2) compiling evidence necessary to make out their case
(1) also lagi worse if you got to drag bailor to attend together
Generally (1) the issue is not procedure, JO will usually tell you what happens next, like OK we go for mediation liao and also just fix date/time to do something like exchange docs
(1) for most laymen can solve by paying lawyer to attend so their own attendance dispensed with
(2) also most laymen can solve by paying lawyer to filter out their nonsense, anyone who has done community law can tell you what lay client tell you or forward to you is 99% irrelevant to the case and ask a lot of stupid questions that are also irrelevant to the case or just speculative
|
With all due respect, I thought that this was in fact better for society as a whole, that people are becoming more aware of their rights and basic legal principles. This would allow lawyers to venture into other areas of law which requires more attention.
This is also in response to a previous post that lawyering was once reserved for nobles. So I thought it great actually, that more laypeople are becoming more informed.
For the low bono lawyers, perhaps the emphasis could be pivoted to conveyancing or wills and probate and CTC of documents? Just a thought.