Specifically in the USA, but feel free to share your status quo. We live in the internet age, doesn’t that cut overhead with filing and make things cheaper?

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This point can’t be understated. A main feature of a developed economy is a strong legal system, meant to handle business and property disputes. A strong legal system protects investments.

      For example, Iran is a country with a ridiculous amount of natural resources, yet their primary exports are nuts and rugs. This is becuase they don’t have a great legal system (and also they have the dubious honour of being the most sanctioned country in the world). Their government does what they want, when they want. If that means they jail you and seize all your assets on some made up grounds, then that’s what happens. The legal systems in developed nations is designed to prevent this from happening. That’s why it exists.

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        So what you’re saying is … legal systems are designed to protect the rich.

          • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ah, somehow it came off like you were saying the general population was the intended recipient of such benefits

      • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        And thus the question becomes how we can craft a fairer legal system that isn’t so pay-to-win, but still maintains the core principles of property rights that allows business to, ya know, happen. Sure we could do what many naïve people on the internet want and seize the means of production, but who on earth would want to start a productive business or make productive investments in a country where the government can just up and seize your assets without justification? Just as we need protection against businesses screwing us over, we also need protection against government screwing us over. Anyone who says we should just seize assets and nationalize industries willy nilly should ask themselves if they wanna risk some ghoul like Ron DeSantis being the one with the power to do that.

        As to actual answers on how to make such a system that isn’t pay-to-win but still maintains a stable system and rule of law, I don’t actually know. I’m no expert in the legal system. But I’m sure there are experts out there who have spent a lot of time thinking about these sorts of questions and have ideas on how to improve/reform.

        • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure we could do what many naïve people on the internet want and seize the means of production, but who on earth would want to start a productive business or make productive investments in a country where the government can just up and seize your assets without justification?

          That’s why you don’t create a legal system where “the government can just up and seize your assets without justification”. You create a system where it is clearly defined when it becomes acceptable to socialize a company, and what forms of organization and management it is going to take, and what compensation is the entrepreneur entitled to in exchange.

        • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The right wing fears governments and the left wing fears corporations but really it’s ALL metahuman entities that are suspect and should be regarded as predatory until they can show otherwise.

  • puntyyoke@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are some good answers here, but I would also note that because the legal system is adversarial, continued investment can go a long way towards a desired outcome. If you can afford a parade of experts, huge amounts of gathered evidence, and contingency plans researched and prepared by dozens of lawyers and paralegals, you’ll do better in court.

    It’s an arms race, so the “best” lawyers have spent the most on arms. That also means that even the worst lawyers have to invest a lot to keep up.

    • Jaytreeman@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Absolutely right, but the added subtext is so that rich people win against poor people.
      It’s designed that way. It was on purpose.

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    In Germany, it works like this:

    Everybody has to observe the laws, therefore it must be possible for everybody to go to court etc. It cannot be that you need to be rich first, before you can sue anybody.

    So our first ‘level’ of courts do not require that you have a lawyer in civil cases. You do not need to write things in ‘legalese’ language (of course it makes things easier if you do), instead you can simply walk to court and say I need to sue that person for this and that. They would write it down and start proceedings.

    Only court of appeals etc. require a lawyer. In criminal cases the court would provide a lawyer if required.

    Lawyers cannot decide their rates freely, but need to adhere to a kind of tariff system. So, getting rich just because you are a lawyer is somewhat difficult :-)

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most of that is similar to my understanding of the US system, except the last bit. We do have public defenders (state appointed lawyers) that are provided if needed, and I think lawyers are required to do a certain number of cases as a public defender per year, or something similar (but it can be avoided somehow I can’t remember). If you’re picking your lawyer on your own, then rates can be literally anything.

  • OnionQuest@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Like any subject matter that is complex it requires someone to have specialized training to understand and navigate. We all have a working understanding of the legal system, but sometimes we need expert opinion. Few people are willing/able to master the subject matter so supply relative to demand is low.

    The legal system is complex because our world is complex. We are constantly expanding human endeavors (Space law wasn’t an issue until Sputnik) and changing current laws (Marijuana laws have changed in many states). It’s not just a matter of learning the law once - it is constantly changing and requires an expert to be always up-to-date.

    You’re paying $.25 for the piece of paper and $199.75 for the lawyer’s knowledge of how to file it.

    • nxdefiant@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Of note is the dentistry industry, which is separate from the AMA, and has its own insurance in the U.S.

      It’s really weird when you think about it. We have separate insurance for our mouth bones.

    • Bipta@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Both are incredibly, unapologetically, corrupt to their core

      Citation needed…

      • GladiusB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Medical insurances charge 500 dollars for aspirin to inflate insurance companies paying for it and the services are just as expensive. Artificial inflation is bad for the services as well as the practitioners and the patients. We have a nation full of people that could have some of the best care in the world but we are gatekeeped by financial bullshit.

        Lawyers are liars. Straight up. Any single one I have dealt with representing me or I have opposed has lied in a major way to get what they want. What good is a system built on the fundamentals of the written word to have be more cunning than a four year old to win? It is dishonorable and it takes more effort to outwit a liar than someone with enough minerals to say they are wrong and just eat it.

  • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    In order to be cheaper we would need to flood the market with lawyers. But the number of lawyers is purposely controlled. Image if you regular people had access to lawyers. The chaos. Youd waste all the lawyers time complaining about illegal wage theft and union busting or excessive force. The system works much better when the law protects the people who earned it

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because when you need it, you really need it and can’t be too picky about the price. You only have a limited window to shop around.

    So the nash equilibrium is the prices are set dear, but not too high to be impossible to pay.

    Kinda like hostage healthcare in the USA.

  • nutsack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    lawyers maintain a high artificial barrier to entry. a lot of what they do doesn’t involve any actual work beyond filling out and signing a microsoft word document template.

  • Hillock@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Overall the legal system isn’t nearly as expensive as people think it is. Most cases can be dealt with for a few hundred dollars or less. Especially small court claims sometimes even prohibits the use of lawyers, so the only cost ist your time + getting a few documents.

    But as the complexity of the case increases so does the price. And that’s because you pay for a lot of time of people with specialized knowledge. But that’s true for every profession.

    These cases are what people usually talk about. These are the cases that get media attention. No one talks about the small court claims between Bob and John that took 30 minutes.