Court Costs

At the time of writing, the British government is mulling whether to make drastic cuts to legal aid. If implemented, those who can't afford legal fees would be forced to use, as their legal counsel, the lowest bidder.

Here are three legal evils.

1. Arguing the truth costs a hell of a lot of money. Incredibly, people are allowed to make huge wodges of cash out of people's right to live a fair life. (It's important to note that, if you think the fees are unreasonable, you can contest them. Remember: we live in an instane, money-orientated world, where not only does justice literally come at a price, but the cost of it can also be negotiated in the same way as other commodities, say, a used car. Consult the Citizens' Advice Bureau for more information.)
2. Legal representatives are not there specifically to tell the truth. The truth is impartial; instead, their job is to point-score to your advantage by any means available to them. The most convincing case wins, and that's what matters. And the loser pays more costs, whether or not they were right, moral or truthful.
3. Generally, the more you pay, the more effective your legal representative will be at arguing your case. So the more money you have, the more legal power you are likely to have.

The dilemma is that by providing legal aid, you're burdening The Public with  a huge expense. By removing legal aid, you're implicitly helping those with more money, which of course is just slightly  unfair.

All pretty basic stuff that you probably know or worked out already. But there would appear to be one gleamingly-obvious conclusion, that I for one have never heard spoken:

Abolish legal representatives. Just get rid of them. They're worse than not being needed: They're an impediment to justice, and an unnecessary drain on resources.

Removing legal advisors and representatives solves all of the above problems (except that you would still have to pay court costs). There would be no solicitors, lawyers or barristers to pay. No-one would be there to try to convince a jury using arguments that may or may not be truthful. No one party would have an advantage simply due to the amount of credit in their bank account.

The drawback, you might think, is that without legal representatives, there is no-one trained to argue for each of the parties. But you're wrong. There is: The judge. All the judge needs to know are the facts relevant to the case. He can do this by speaking to the litigants. The main skill he needs is to ask all the relevant questions to get a full appraisal of the situation, and to learn the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Where proving the truth is impossible, the jury is there to weigh up the evidence.

Some questions might arise in your mind. What if the judge is biased or inexperienced? Well, then the case would suffer in the same way as if there were legal representatives present. What if one of the litigants is more eloquent than the other, and thus more convincing? Well, this is an irrelevant question, and if it entered your head, then you don't understand what I've written above. The judge is there to ask those questions necessary to learn the truth, and nothing else. Eloquence is irrelevant: If you know you're in the right, then you'll easily mention the facts relevant to it.

By removing legal representatives, you remove any bias, faff, stress and unnecessary cost that is the scourge of the current legal system, and you focus on the truth. So... what's the problem? And why do we have these glorified, self-important middle-men who are scrounging good money from an irrelevant trade?