On Stereotypes and the Accessibility of Lawyers

Only approximately one fifth - namely 22% - of Latvia's residents aged 18 to 73 have their own lawyer to turn to in emergency situations to receive qualified legal assistance, according to a survey conducted by the market and public opinion research centre SKDS. [1]

"To dispel the stereotype about the inaccessibility of lawyers, the portal www.vajagjuristu.lv was created" - reads a tweet at @Jurista_Vards

As I continue to believe that Latvia's greatest misfortune is that qualified lawyers are inaccessible (in the sense that one cannot afford them), a few reflections:

• No one will do anything for free or cheaply. You yourselves won't either, and lawyers - even less so.
• The client will evaluate the cost of a lawyer's services, like any expense, by comparing it with the benefit. If in this country the concept of "moral loss" is something vague, it follows logically that there can be no moral gain either.
• A lawyer's work is measured in hours, but you as a client will never be able to assess how many hours the lawyer needed.
• Cases are never limited to writing a single submission. They usually involve complaints, appeals, expert assessments, litigation, etc. Accordingly, the costs of your "simple" case may also be unpredictable.
• If advocates are at least subject to some oversight, then a "jurists" is simply a person who at some point in the distant past obtained a law degree. Unlike doctors, with whom lawyers often compare themselves, lawyers do not need to undergo regular certification.

The Situation:

Let us suppose an unscrupulous police officer has "pinned" an administrative violation on you for allegedly speeding. The fine - 30 euros.

On the portal www.vajagjuristu.lv we find (for now the only) office prepared to take on the case for 50–200 EUR/h. It is possible that with "special" discounts for a "special" client the price will be ~150 EUR/h.

Scenario A:

Equally possible is that the lawyer's price will be 50 EUR. The lawyer will write a letter which you will need to send to the institution, and the institution's head will annul the decision.

Scenario B:

But the more realistic scenario: after listening to your tale of woe (which is called a consultation), the lawyer will announce with a wise facial expression that they are prepared to begin "case management". From this moment the meter starts ticking. For about an hour the lawyer will patiently listen to your account and ask questions. Afterwards (most likely - also an hour) will prepare the appeal document. Upon receiving the reply, which will most likely be some official's brush-off, and in order to understand what all those abbreviations (LAPK, VPP, KP, etc.) mean, you will again visit the lawyer to have the essence of the reply explained: +X EUR/h.

Unless you have missed the appeal deadline (usually - 10 days), the lawyer will recommend applying to the administrative court: +X EUR/h for drafting and filing the application. If the court accepts the application (which will most likely be the case), then after ~1 year the hearing will take place, at which you may want the lawyer at your side, and that is another +X EUR/h. It is not ruled out that the judgement will be unfavourable to you and the lawyer will recommend appealing to the regional court: +X EUR/h. If that decision is also unfavourable (and you have not yet tired after ~3–5 years of litigation), then also to the Supreme Court: +X EUR/h.

As a result, this seemingly simple case at first glance will drag on for several years and cost you in total, let us say, ~2,000 EUR. Even if you manage to "win" the case (this is precisely the expression used when the court rules in favour of the applicant) and contest the unjustified administrative act, no one will even apologise to you or compensate for the losses. But you will have recovered 30 EUR.

Of course, you as the client hope that your particular case will be resolved according to Scenario A? :)

Are lawyers accessible? - Yes, they are.
Is the client satisfied? - No, they are not.

A different story, where it would be inappropriate to blame lawyers directly, is when there are no guilty parties in the case:

The Situation:

Next to your house a factory began operating, which as a result of its activities creates unbearable odour disturbances. The lawyer will most likely recommend writing an angry letter and sending it to the company. The company will most likely not admit its fault, either denying that odour disturbances occurred at all, or claiming that somewhat further away there is another company which may also be responsible as a result of its activities. The lawyer will recommend approaching the local authority. But the local authority will indicate that in connection with environmental pollution, the State Environmental Service is responsible. The lawyer will recommend writing to the State Environmental Service, which will indicate that it has inspected the company and found nothing suspicious.
After some time the situation repeats itself. The lawyer recommends approaching the police. The police do not initiate proceedings, because the guilty party is not known (and cannot be established).

The problem is that in this story each "the lawyer recommends" will cost 50 to 200 EUR/h, but no result whatsoever is achieved.

References:
[1] Only one fifth of Latvia's residents have their own trusted lawyer - http://www.tvnet.lv/zinas/latvija/512892-tikai_piektdalai_latvijas_iedzivotaju_ir_savs_uzticams_jurists