A non-lawyers who practices law will harm consumers.

From Moral and Practical
Revision as of 01:18, 15 July 2023 by User (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Arguments

Non-lawyers don't know enough

  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.

Non-lawyers can't litigate

  1. Even if the non-lawyer is allowed to give legal advice, he cannot litigate the case in court. [1][2][3]
  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.

Objections

TBD

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. ↑ "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). That means two things: 1) paraprofessionals will not be able to give consumers the same leverage in protecting their rights against creditors and debt collectors; and 2) in scenarios where consumer attorneys can bring a case in federal court with an attorney fee provision, they can provide the underlying service in state court at no cost to the client (which again the paraprofessional will not be able to offer). The paraprofessional will be under no legal or ethical obligation to explain to the client the limitations of their representation and their inability to fully utilize all of the consumer laws that are available to seek the best result for the client." 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.
  3. ↑ "Another problem that paraprofessionals operating in this practice area will run into is that most debt harassment claims are usually small (under $3,500), however, consumers are not typically being harassed by the bank or creditor that originated the debt. Banks typically sell these debts to third party debt collectors, who then hound consumers in violation of state and federal laws. A consumer in this scenario especially requires the full representation of an attorney who can take their case to court if needed because third party debt buyers typically cannot meet their evidentiary burden of proving the debt and 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. This is the full scope of representation that only an attorney can provide in these scenarios. To open this area of law up to paraprofessionals who can only provide ten percent of the representation needed, is dangerous and unfair to consumers and will not lead to greater access to justice." 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.
Retrieved from "http://www.moralandpractical.com/index.php?title=A_non-lawyers_who_practices_law_will_harm_consumers.&oldid=39"