= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Open Thread: November 2009 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (539)
Okay, suppose a lawyer is not allowed to accept briefs. In the Least Convenient case where you happen to be a really expensive lawyer, how much can actually be accomplished courtroom-wise if you talk for a few hours with a much less expensive lawyer? Would any lawyers care to weigh in?
I'm tempted to suggest 'about the same amount a professional dancer can teach an amateur, and for similar reasons'.
Why would you need to do anything with the inexpensive lawyer? Contribute nothing to the fund - maybe even forfeit your half of whatever the other party contributes - and then represent yourself.
I suspect that the only real solution to the Lawyer Problem is to remove the necessity of the profession -- ie, either simplify the law, or cognitively enhance the people to the point where any person who can not hold the whole of the law in his/her head can be declared legally incompetent.
If possible, that would certainly be a great solution.
The original (our-world) Lawyer Problem goes beyond what we've discussed here: it involves (ex-) lawyers both deliberately making the law and the case law more and more complex, to increase the value of their services.