----- Original Message ----- 
From: Taoss - Sherry Swiney 
To: PATRICK Crusade ; Candyce J. Hawk 
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: [patrickcrusade] U.S. Opposes Proposal to Limit Who May Give Legal Advice

The thing of it is this.  People are supposed to be able to access Law, and even more importantly, Law is SUPPOSED to be understandable.  In some places, maybe the law can be understood, but I know that Law in Alabama is convoluted, confusing and subjective.  Obviously, this is wrong.  I wouldn't mind handing over my life to someone who actually works hard to do their best in Law, one who's word can be trusted, but that is not what I have experienced in this lifetime with lawyers.  They tell you the words they believe you want to hear, and keep at this until they are paid -- and then! they virtually disappear, or do as little as possible in the realm of defending, protecting and working in your best interest.

Sherry Swiney
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking 
we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Candyce J. Hawk 
To: Taoss - Sherry Swiney ; PATRICK Crusade 
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [patrickcrusade] U.S. Opposes Proposal to Limit Who May Give Legal Advice

This move by the AMA is clearly related to a lawyer's "right" to have exclusive access to the law.  This action is coming on the coattails of the recent court cases (started by the Napster case) to reserve intellectual property rights to the producer of the work.  The AMA is actually considering themselves to have creative license to the law.  This is, as Sherry says, ludicrous!

Already, non-lawyers cannot give legal advice without threat of action from the state bar associations.  Justice is purchased so lawyers already have a lock on income.  The AMA sees the opportunity to carve out a huge piece of territory by taking advantage of those who can't afford to pay $180 an hour!  If the AMA wins it will start a monopoly much like the health insurance industry.


At 06:35 AM 2/4/2003 -0600, Taoss - Sherry Swiney wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Swiney, Sherry
>Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 1:15 PM
>To: <mailto:'crimjustice@abanet.org'>'crimjustice@abanet.org'
>Subject: U.S. Opposes Proposal to Limit Who May Give Legal Advice

The problems with this, that have not been addressed, have to do with: (1) laypeople who don't have money to hire a lawyer, in concert with courts that won't provide lawyers, and people in prison who need lawyers but are too poor as well; 
(2) laypeople who don't understand the law, who should be able to trust the lawyer they hire, who receive lousy representation, half-job-done, or no job done, yet still charged by the hour anyway and sued if they don't pay; 
(3) laypeople who have no recourse from their loss, imprisonment, etc., because of having a lawyer who isn't interested in doing a good job but only interested in collecting their fee, but who are savvy on circumventing IAC charges by a court because they tell the court that the way the case was handled was part of their "strategy", and in a judge's eyes, if the lawyer had a strategy then he was not ineffective....and the client can just to lump it (suffer it).

SELECTING, DRAFTING or COMPLETING legal documents?  You mean you want it to be against the law for someone who actually cares about a client, but is a nonlawyer, to DRAFT a legal document????  Isn't this carrying the unholy hold lawyers have on people a bit too far!!!!???  I think it is.