Robert Williams: Underestimation of the #legalprofession and its consequences

The legal professions are divided into several categories which each invested by law have competences. Some of them such as prosecutors, judges are remunerated directly by the state.

Notaries, lawyers, legal advisers are independent professions and ensure their income from the services provided and state funding of fees for people who cannot afford to access their services.

Notaries ensure their livelihood through notary fees that are paid to the state and a percentage remains with them. The amounts commit operating expenses, personnel, utilities, etc. The profit of this profession is varied and different from the remuneration of lawyers or prosecutors and judges.

Lawyers’ services are addressed directly to clients through exclusive payment by the client or through government funds in exchange for his services.

There are lawyers or law firms that do not work with government funds so they have an increased independence from financial risks that involve delaying fees paid by the state, reducing their amount and thus depreciation slowly and surely makes its presence felt.

Legal fees vary and target stages of consultancy, drafting, representation and others where energy, time and resources are consumed to achieve the goal of commitment to clients.

What are the differences between legal professions?

Prosecutors and judges are not remunerated according to the number of cases or trials investigated, they receive only a monthly salary established by law.

Notaries register income from fees charged depending on the volume and type of services offered, there being no limit.

Lawyers have a wider range of services and fees than any other legal profession, so they cover all areas of representation, sometimes giving rise to debates with accountants, experts.

Now we have to answer some questions:

1. Why payments for lawyers’ services are also limited by the state for sensitive areas such as criminal, civil, family law and others where part of the population cannot afford it.
2. State funding for lawyers, criminal investigation, pay, functioning of justice become the subject of political debate so that reducing the fee would mean a decrease in access to justice?
3. Lawyering means members and dues, contributions, so depending on the organization (U.S. -Asia-Europe), a decrease in the number of this profession makes services so expensive that only a percentage of litigants can access it?
4. The complaint that fees are reduced by underfunding is claimed to be a lack of defence against abuses, a violation of international and constitutional treaties on access to justice.
5. Politics operates under pressure and its own visions, so any visibly increased spending growth requires reduction.
6. Is a discouragement of processomania equivalent to reducing those who give up doing law?
7. An endorsement of growth or a budget means political debates and accusations, currency and negotiation until everyone has their own story. Is the legal foundation and respect for it above political decisions of underfunding?

Continuing debates through media articles would divide the camps so that things get out of control in the short term, so what solutions would be advisable?

Solid legal education of society, lobby and respectable representatives who are credible in advocating the cause of financing legal services are not enough just to express the decline in the legal media.

Every citizen must be the partner of lawyers because they are guarantors of access to justice. The lack of defense lawyers and the establishment of the mentality that “I can defend myself” before the law is a catastrophic message in the short and medium term.

The messages of legal leaders draw attention to the fact that more and more citizens represent themselves, trials take a long time, court buildings are degraded, judges are insufficient and crowding at pacht with underfunding is becoming more and more difficult to bear.

This article contains journalistic observations and is not intended to offend someone or interfere in the act of justice or defame it.

By

Robert Williams

Editor in Chief