A person who renders emergency care . . .during an emergency, gratuitously and in good faith, is not liable for any civil damages or penalties as a result of any act or omission by the person rendering the emergency care, unless the person is grossly negligent or caused the emergency.Why can't Rule 14-802 (prohibiting the Unauthorized Practice of Law) have a similar exception for legal emergencies?
A person who renders emergency [legal services]. . .during an emergency, gratuitously and in good faith, is not liable for any civil damages or penalties as a result of any act or omission by the person rendering the emergency [legal services], unless the person is grossly negligent or caused the emergency.A "legal emergency" could be defined as a case involving an (1) indigent (2) defendant (3) with no access to professional services (4) ill-equipped to represent themselves. (Eg., a 75 year old who can't afford rent but is being sued over medical bills, and who doesn't speak any English.)
Normally I’d agree that a layman in court is a bad idea. I also normally prefer a doctor over some witness to a car accident with no medical training. A Spanish speaking senior citizen with a high school education is a layman among laypersons, and a legal emergency justifying whatever help is available, even less-than-professional help if that's all that is available. If lawyers won't volunteer themselves they should step aside and let somebody, anybody, help. Instead, the current system would punish any legal Good Samaritans.
1 comment:
Very interesting point. I had never really thought about this before. You gave some great analogies, and presented a good argument. I'd support it.
Post a Comment