A non-lawyers who practices law will harm consumers.

From Moral and Practical
Revision as of 01:06, 15 July 2023 by User (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

One argument for the conclusion that consumers will be harmed if non-lawyers are allowed to practice law is as follows:

  1. A non-lawyer does not have a deep understanding of state and federal laws.[1]
  2. If someone does not have a deep understanding of state and federal laws, then he will not be able to fully protect the rights of the litigant.
  3. If someone cannot fully protect the rights of the litigant, then the litigant is harmed.
  4. Therefore, a non-lawyer will harm a litigant.

Another argument for the same conclusion is:

  1. Even if the non-lawyer is allowed to give legal advice, he cannot litigate the case in court.[1]
  2. If the non-lawyer cannot litigate the case in court, then he cannot fully protect the rights of the litigant.
  3. If someone cannot fully protect the rights of the litigant, then the litigant is harmed.
  4. Therefore, a non-lawyer will harm a litigant.


TODO

  1. Claims where these harms would occur
    1. "paraprofessionals will not be able to give consumers the same leverage in protecting their rights against creditors and debt collectors" as attorneys (p31)
    3. "The import of these ancillary consumer statutes is not just that paraprofessionals will not have the same education on them as consumer attorneys, but the fact that consumer attorneys can use them (Specifically in federal courts – which paraprofessionals will not be able to do)." (p31)
    4. "only a very real threat of an attorney willing to take the debt buyer to trial will lead them to dismiss their claim against the consumer" (p32)
    5. "Consumer debt and creditor harassment require a deep understanding of not only state laws but also, numerous federal laws including: the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), a federal law which prohibits untrue or misleading representations and requires certain affirmative disclosures in the offering or sale of "credit repair" services, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692), which governs how debt collectors may try to get you to pay back a debt." (p28)
  1. Identify the faulty logic.[2]


References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 "Consumer debt and creditor harassment require a deep understanding of not only state laws but also, numerous federal laws including: the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), a federal law which prohibits untrue or misleading representations and requires certain affirmative disclosures in the offering or sale of "credit repair" services, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692), which governs how debt collectors may try to get you to pay back a debt. Even our state laws are incredibly nuanced and require an understanding of how federal and state remedies intersect and require an attorney who is willing and able to take the case to court, to ensure the consumer has the best chance of winning their claim." Consumer Attorneys of California, "Comments of the CAOC in Response to the CPPWG September 2021 Report on Licensing Paraprofessionals to Practice Law in California without Attorney Supervision" Letter,December,9,2021.
  2. ↑ blahbalh
Retrieved from "http://www.moralandpractical.com/index.php?title=A_non-lawyers_who_practices_law_will_harm_consumers.&oldid=31"