The first caveat is that I'm sorry I haven't posted anything recently. Work here at Alerding Castor Hewitt has been going like gangbusters and yours truly has been up to his distinguished eyeballs in work. Trust me, however, I'm now dutifully committing myself to continue providing insight and humor as your Indiana Internet Litigation guru.
Second caveat is that this post actually has nothing to do with privacy litigation, software litigation or really any other technology law issues. Rather, it tangentially touches upon one of my other areas of practice, namely banking law. Rest assured that I will be doing more tech blogs soon. End of the caveats.
Recently, New York made an unprecedented move toward being the first state to offer court-appointed counsel to debtors/ homeowners in mortgage foreclosure actions. Similar to a court-appointed attorney in criminal matters, the attorneys would represent clients in mortgage foreclosure actions that do not have the means to obtain legal representation. The New York Times reports that New York's state chief judge has asked the legislature for an approximate $100 Million increase in the legal services program over the next four years to accommodate the plan to draw upon legal aid groups and volunteer pro bono organizations to provide the appointed attorneys. The Times article can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/business/16housing.html
This is, frankly, an amazing move, but one that worries me. Lawyers often talk about the "slippery slope". You likely think this is a wonderfully-fruity concoction created at your local drinking establishment, but it isn't. Rather, it is the reality of practicing law; namely that our decisions have consequences, and those consequences can quickly lead us to a point that we didn't expect and that we aren't really ready to embrace. I understand their is a mortgage crisis in this country. Trust me, I see it every day. But, a court-appointed attorney in this instance is going to lead to court-appointed attorneys in every civil dispute. Why should one debtor be entitled to an attorney in their foreclosure action, but another (similarly situated) debtor is not entitled to one in their action to defend their credit card bill. And ultimately, the taxpayer gets left with the check.
Before you deride me as being heartless, please understand my argument. There has to be boundaries to the amount of court (i.e. government) involvement in our day-to-day lives. I think any debtor faced with a lawsuit should seek legal counsel, and if they don't have funds, I think they should seek out legal aid groups and volunteer organizations. I think lawyers should volunteer their time to those endeavors. And I think court staffs should be trained to direct debtors that inquire about assistance to those groups. The onus is upon the debtor to seek out that help. But to guarantee a court-appointed attorney in this limited civil context is opening up a can of worms that I think will lead us to a result that we as a society don't necessarily want.
Enough of my rant for now. When next we meet, I'll be back to the intricacies of privacy litigation and Internet law.
Second caveat is that this post actually has nothing to do with privacy litigation, software litigation or really any other technology law issues. Rather, it tangentially touches upon one of my other areas of practice, namely banking law. Rest assured that I will be doing more tech blogs soon. End of the caveats.
Recently, New York made an unprecedented move toward being the first state to offer court-appointed counsel to debtors/ homeowners in mortgage foreclosure actions. Similar to a court-appointed attorney in criminal matters, the attorneys would represent clients in mortgage foreclosure actions that do not have the means to obtain legal representation. The New York Times reports that New York's state chief judge has asked the legislature for an approximate $100 Million increase in the legal services program over the next four years to accommodate the plan to draw upon legal aid groups and volunteer pro bono organizations to provide the appointed attorneys. The Times article can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/business/16housing.html
This is, frankly, an amazing move, but one that worries me. Lawyers often talk about the "slippery slope". You likely think this is a wonderfully-fruity concoction created at your local drinking establishment, but it isn't. Rather, it is the reality of practicing law; namely that our decisions have consequences, and those consequences can quickly lead us to a point that we didn't expect and that we aren't really ready to embrace. I understand their is a mortgage crisis in this country. Trust me, I see it every day. But, a court-appointed attorney in this instance is going to lead to court-appointed attorneys in every civil dispute. Why should one debtor be entitled to an attorney in their foreclosure action, but another (similarly situated) debtor is not entitled to one in their action to defend their credit card bill. And ultimately, the taxpayer gets left with the check.
Before you deride me as being heartless, please understand my argument. There has to be boundaries to the amount of court (i.e. government) involvement in our day-to-day lives. I think any debtor faced with a lawsuit should seek legal counsel, and if they don't have funds, I think they should seek out legal aid groups and volunteer organizations. I think lawyers should volunteer their time to those endeavors. And I think court staffs should be trained to direct debtors that inquire about assistance to those groups. The onus is upon the debtor to seek out that help. But to guarantee a court-appointed attorney in this limited civil context is opening up a can of worms that I think will lead us to a result that we as a society don't necessarily want.
Enough of my rant for now. When next we meet, I'll be back to the intricacies of privacy litigation and Internet law.
Powered by Compendium
Comments for New York guarantees lawyers to foreclosure debtors