Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

If one can't afford a lawyer, the state should provide one. Is this not how it works? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I have a professor who's also a lawyer, and he said something that resonated with me: "The law isn't about what's convenient [or profitable], it's about what's right." People who have been wronged can take things far beyond what would be "reasonable".

The mere presence of a lawyer changes every interaction you have with any institution. It makes ignoring you a far more risky endeavor.




In actuality, the state will only provide you a lawyer to defend you in a criminal case, and then only certain criminal cases (I think in Missouri it is cases where the penalty is normally jail time, not cases where they normally only fine you, like traffic ticket). Even then, state provided legal defense is usually horrendous- public defenders are very over worked and simply don't have the time to help their clients.

There should be legal counsel available, and it should be a lot easier to navigate the system; but unfortunate in the US (and probably most other countries) that is simply not the reality.


In the U.S., there is no right to a lawyer for any civil case, and for that matter not even in a criminal case. You have to be both destitute and a criminal defendant to receive a court-appointed lawyer.

Many people believe that all criminal defendants are entitled to a lawyer at government expense, but in fact they are not. Unless you are indigent, you'll be required to hire a lawyer yourself or do without.


> If one can't afford a lawyer, the state should provide one.

Not for civil matters, at least in the US. You are only guaranteed a lawyer for criminal charges.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: