Universal legal care

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article does not cite any references or sources. (May 2007)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Universal legal care is a legal system in which all residents of a jurisdiction have their legal needs paid for, regardless of their financial status. This type of a socialized judiciary is practiced in a few countries.^{[citation needed]} Universal legal care systems involve both schemes to secure funding and the methods of actually providing for legal services.

The majority of universal legal care systems are funded primarily by tax revenue. However, it is possible to employ a multi-payer system which, like health care, would be funded by private and public contributions.

Single-payer describes a type of financing system in which a single entity, typically a government-run organization, acts as the administrator (or "payer") to collect all legal care fees, and pay out all legal care costs. Some advocates of universal legal care assert that single-payer systems save money that could be used directly towards legal care by reducing Transaction costs ("administrative waste").

[edit] Arguments for and against

There are many common arguments for and against universal legal care.

Those in favor of universal legal care often point out that it would provide legal care to the people who currently do not have it. They claim that since today we have a two-tiered system, where only the rich can afford quality legal assistance, it would be a good idea to socialize the entire legal profession. Therefore, every American citizen will have access to good quality legal assistance. It would also cut down on fees that the lawyer can earn annually and will take out all the incentive for lawyers to file frivolous law suits to earn money, and consequently, reduce the total number of excess lawyers.

Opponents of universal legal care often point out that socialized judiciary necessitates higher taxes. These opponents also claim that the absence of a market mechanism retards large cash awards, and leads to rationing of care through waiting lists. These have also looked to more philosophical arguments, debating that people do not have a fundamental right to have legal care provided to them by their government.