subject: Lawyers Obligated To Help The Poor [print this page] An attorney claimed that it was unconstitutional that lawyers are not properly compensated when they represent indigent clients and demanded that this system be abolished in place of a fairer one.
It was pointed out by the lawyer how unfair it was for attorneys to pay for the defense services that poor citizens get.
What he said brought out reactions and questions from the justices which seemed to indicate their sympathy.
The problem of compensation is seen mainly in areas where there is an insufficiency of lawyers and there are zero public defenders' offices.
Judges end up with the obligation to arrange defense systems for the indigent and also to give lawyers their cases.
It is up to the state and not the legal profession to make sure fair trial and defense are given to indigent criminals.
Are any constitutional rights available to lawyers? Lawyers, being the only people required by the state to give their time and wealth to the poor, do not get enough compensation for what they do.
If the state is going to require lawyers to use up their resources for the poor, then they should require other professionals as well.
Attorneys must fulfill their moral and ethical duty to represent a client regardless of the amount of compensation he might receive.
It is not among the constitutional duties of the state to pay attorneys for public defender work. It has long been the public policy of the state of Kansas that it is the moral and ethical obligation of the legal profession to make representation available to the public.
I do think lawyers are getting poorer because they represent clients who are of indigent backgrounds.
Attorneys are bound by law to take indigent cases, although I do sympathize with them and their compensation problem.
Attorneys who represent indigent clients have no constitutional right to make a profit from such a representation.
An attorney claims that he sees no problem with his obligation to help the poor, provided that it will not cause serious economic problems for himself.
A justice explained that she couldn't understand why during a financial crisis, private attorneys' rates were cut down while the public defenders' offices' budgets remained as they were.
The justice saw the similarity between the present condition of the state and the old federal system where the attorneys provided legal services without any form of compensation.
A system for federal public defenders is already active.
Aside from the fact that attorneys are unfairly required to spend their own money in defending indigent criminals, the accused are also unfairly denied their unconstitutional rights to sufficient legal representation.
You'll end up with a weighing scale containing your financial state in one hand and your client's rights on the other. The defendants are denied their constitutional right to a fair trial.
Being given a client to represent used to be considered honorable. Other kinds of cases were then added to the free legal counsel for felonies.
The system is about to self destruct. I do not object to doing a certain amount of free work and I'm proud to do it. This situation is now unstable.
by: John Chambers
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
