Susuto

I’m not sure what planet you live on Ratteler, but the civil justice system is designed to compensate aggrieved parties WITH MONEY. So forgive my lack of surprise if a lawyer refuses to take either a losing case or a case that won’t pay for the costs of its own prosecution or defense. Because our system is based on a “loser pays” philosophy where the losing litigant pays the other side’s costs and attorney’s fees, it wouldn’t make sense to pursue cases in any other way. I understand that you expect all movies, music, and other forms of entertainment to be free, but to expect attorneys to forgo working for money too is simply beyond reason.

And I don’t know who is feeding you your propoganda, but you clearly have no idea how the real world works. Contingency fees are an incredibly important cog in the justice machine. They allow parties who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford the vindication of their rights to have their cases heard. If they lose, they’re out no money. If they win, then the lawyer gets a cut. And because you’re so fond of the social compact of contracts between parties, I can’t understand why you’re complaining that an attorney takes more or less of a piece if that’s what the parties agreed upon.

Additionally, the contingency fees actually promote the advocacy of grey area cases, contrary to your assertions. Without these arrangements, most of those cases would never see the light of day. Nor do you even bother to address the tens of thousands of pro-bono hours that go into cases every year, which also discounts your colored view of attorneys as only out for money. In fact, most cases of historical import have been done on a volunteer basis.

So when you say something silly like “only those who can pay up front” have access to the system, or the court system victimizes litigants (which makes little sense because >90% of cases settle before trial), you’re just making a fool out of yourself.