You don't have to do it

The other day I got notice that I HAD to report for jury duty.  Funny thing, that word "duty."  The court makes it sound like it's voluntary.  However, if you don't show up, you get tossed in jail - so how voluntary is that?!  

I suspect it goes back to the days of indentured servitude where you were not a slave, persay, but you were still beholding to someone for paying your way over the Atlantic (so, you were less than a slave and were often treated worse).

Thing is, I really don't like having to do something.  For example, the wife says, "Take out the garbage" or "Empty the dishwasher."  

Yeah, I'll get to it eventually but what she's really saying is, "Take out the garbage....NOW!"  Not when you want to do it, but NOW (as in right the @&#%!# NOW!!!). It's more of a demand than a request and if I do it when I want to there will be hell to pay (eventually).

This was all brought to my mind when a Guy came into the library.  Seems he wanted to sue someone and really didn't want to spend the money to hire an attorney.  

Of course, he could buy a new computer, shoes, a watch and other things but no money for an attorney.  So, his buddy tells him to tell the court that he's "indigent" and that they'll appoint an attorney for him for FREE.  

Free?  Really?!?  You can compel an attorney to serve your needs in a civil case for free?  NOTE: this is different than working pro bono.  

Pro bono means the attorney willingly works for free because s/he feels a visceral need to serve the public.  What this guy wanted was to force an attorney to take his case regardless of said attorneys desire.

This was an interesting concept - free legal counsel in a civil case.  So I looked into it.

First off, I looked at California Business and Professions code Section 6068(h) which reads:

It is the duty of an attorney to [n]ever reject, for any consideration personal to himself or herself, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.

Uh huh.  What I take this to mean is that attorneys, must help people by taking on cases even when people can't pay for their legal services.  Promising, very promising. 

Then I came across Hunt v. Hackett, 36 Cal.App3d 134, 111 Cal.Rptr 456 (1973) which held that where an action is basically civil in nature, there is "no statute or case law authorizing a trial court to furnish counsel at public expense or to appoint counsel without compensation."  Hunt at 36 Cal. App. 3d, p. 138.  

Then Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for Southern Dist., 490 U.S. 296 (1989) held that 28 U.S.C. section 1915 does not authorized a federal court to require an unwilling attorney to represent an indigent litigant in a civil case.

So, unlike criminal cases where attorneys can be pressed into service and represent indigent persons (at reduced rates), where the matter is civil in nature, attorneys cannot be forced to represent someone without any compensation. 

Heck, I suspect under both Hunt and Mallard, attorneys can out and out refuse to represent anyone they like, regardless of circumstance or ability to pay.  Of course, Guy didn't want to hear this and blew me off.  

Hopefully, however, the judge in the case won't go all legislative and do his own thing and order the nearest attorney to take the (civil) case, sans retainer.  

Hopefully the judge in the case will consult their local county law Librarian to see if there are any cases or codes that can help direct them in their decisions.

Yeah, it's a pipe dream but it's my dream and my blog, so there!