I see it a lot. Information asymmetry occurs when one person has access to a lot more information than the other person. Auto mechanics, webmasters, realtors, doctors, and yes, lawyers all have access to specific information that is beyond the understanding or reach of the average person. I recently read a court transcript of a final divorce hearing. The former husband brought me the transcript, wanting me to prepare a petition to modify his alimony. We'll call him Joe. His wife had an attorney at the final hearing, Joe did not. As I read the transcript, the neon words flashing in my mind were – sheep to slaughter.
During the hearing Joe expressed in various ways, numerous times that he did not understand what was going on. Joe is mentally competent, English is his native language, but he has no understanding of the law or legal system. Joe is not unusual. Lack of understanding of the law and legal system is common in America. The obfuscation is by design. If we could all understand the law, there would be no reason for lawyers to be.
On Joe's march to slaughter the wife's attorney convinced the judge that Joe should pay over half of his monthly income to his former wife. Joe earns slightly less than the Florida individual median income of around $27,000; and substantially less than the $47,000. household median income. By Joe's estimates, after taxes he ends up with about $4.00 per hour. The wife's attorney also convinced the judge that the alimony should be permanent, because not only was it a long term marriage, but the wife is allegedly unable to work. No medical evidence – not even a scribbled note from a doctor -- was offered to support the wife's assertion that she is unable to work. This lack of any shred of documentation leads us to wonder, if she is unable to work, why doesn't she apply for disability? Joe, who is already almost 60, will, in just a few years, be paying alimony out of his social security.
And it wasn't even that Joe never had legal advice. He did. He hired an attorney when he initiated the divorce. But, Joe's funds ran out right before the final hearing, so he was in court by himself, $3,500 poorer. The money that he spent on his attorney was wasted. Although the legal work was well done and worthwhile, Joe had no understanding of the documents and no use for documents he did not understand. Too bad the attorney bailed right before the final hearing.
Among other things that Joe didn't know before or during the hearing was that maybe he could request the court to order the wife pay for his attorney, and he could have continued to be represented. Maybe Joe's attorney could have suggested it, but he didn't. Joe didn't know to ask his wife to prove she couldn't work. Or if he knew to ask, he didn't know how to ask.
I work hard everyday to educate and inform consumers about their legal system. I carefully walk the tightrope, and gingerly avoid offering legal advice. Instead of legal advice, I offer consumers legal information. And, I teach consumers how to find legal information that is specific to their circumstances. I want the playing field to be level. I want my customers to have a fighting chance. Do your research before you go to court. If you need information – just ask – we're here to help.
Sounds like one of my customers who had alimony and child support ordered using a false inflated income on his financial affidavit thatwas prepared by his spouse's attorney;and his spouse's attorney also acted as mediator and encouraged him to sign the MSA. He was struggling with substance abuse at the time, unrepresented, and made to feel he had to sign it. As a contractor his income is now much less than it was in '07, the time of his divorce. He makes inconsistent income, whenever he can get work, and is ordered to pay over $4,000. a month combined alimony and child support. Again, both were ordered at an inflated false income he never had. Being at a disadvantage with no atty, and not in a good state of mind, he signed it, and the Judged ordered the MSA because he signed, not taking into consideration that he was being taken advantage of in his weakened state of mind. Lawyers will take advantage of unrepresented litigants to "win" for their clients. As if winning is more important than being ethical and moral. It is a sad, flawed legal system we have that unfortunately favors the litigant with deeper pockets who can afford to pay an atty. That is not justice, it's larceny.
ReplyDeleteI have been in the Legal Document Preparation Business for 27+ years and have witnessed the same too many times, additionally I have represented myself many times (pro-se) in Litigation as the Plaintiff, and in addition many (not all) Judges will believe anything the Attorney says even when it contradicts the evidence, and completely disbelieve the Pro-se litigant when the evidence supports, just because he is not an Attorney. This problem has escalated only because the amount of pro-se filings has escalated.
ReplyDeleteWe all are awaire of the problem but what is the solution?
Very well put!!
ReplyDeleteWhat's the solution? A grassroots campaign directed to the legal services consumer to RE-OCCUPY the Legal System built on efforts to expose the "inconvenient truths" about the Attorney Business, demystification of the legal process in general, and organizing peaceful, purposeful, politically targeted OBJECTION!
The first step? Getting the public to understand that UPL regulations are DECEPTIONS for PROTECTING the Lawyer Industry from competition with non-lawyer alternatives (which are proven to be less costly and more ethical) that are TAXPAYER FINANCED!