Some lawyers make a lot of money; many lawyers are not rich. In fact most of them become "ambulance chasers" for this reason. On average, lawyers make between 50-100K
I find this difficult to believe. I'll have to call this one out. Some might not make much, but on average that doesn't seem right at all. The economics nor stereotypes simply doesn't equate with this assertion. I have yet to meet an ethical lawyer, but that doesn't mean much technically. However, the idea that their schooling is so expensive compared to other professions and the stringent requirements all point to a person who shall honestly be in the interest of "justice" to undergo such burden for an average pay of 50-100K. We all know, this certainly does not fit the bill with what we see hit the news and court rooms with personal greed and exploitation seemingly being the only motive for a lawyer.
As for free representation, you can get free legal advice depending on where you live. If you are charged with a crime, you have the right to free counsel.
"Advice" is not precedent. "Advice" is ineffective. "Advice" is nothing more than words without action. "Advice" is advice, nothing more. And when you are served, anything some random lawyer said really has no weight given your situation; very similar to joining the military, at point of no return you are often told that anything the Recruiter told you is probably a lie or otherwise unbinding.
I'm aware that free legal counsel is available and constitutionally guaranteed (US LAW) in criminal law.
But what about civil matters? What if I write a program and some company decides to send lawyers after me... asking for some settlement and to cease and desist, what then? This is the part of the system that is severely broke. Why should I only be guaranteed legal counsel in the event I'm a criminal? Why can't I be given counsel as the victim, or even if I wasn't a "victim" as the "dove".
Legal system should be equally accessible to all. If a Company is allowed to sue me for whatever reason, then I should be able to defend myself with whatever comparable resources they can bring to the table. In fact, I say such cases should be barred from settlement, and the company or the excessively wealthy one must manage total costs of his and the defendants legal counsel, through out the duration; and compensation for out of work time for the defendant regardless of verdict.
What does this mean?
I was pointing out other professions that require enormous expense that the public benefits from for far less out of pocket experience. I pay taxes, modest at that and it seems to be able to pay for the billions and billions poured into building roads, bridges and skyscrapers, nuclear facilities and power generation plants, water sanitation plants, sewage facilities and the rest of it all. My point was you can't argue that the poor Lawyer has so much to pay out of pocket, because so many other professions also pay dearly and those who benefit from their effort never have to see first hand the exorbitant costs. To see my cardiologist for about an hour, 20 dollars out of pocket. To walk into any lawyers office and say hello, a 500 dollar retainer fee. Both are highly subject to what they say, literally. The Cardiologist in SoCal is probably paid much more than the average lawyer. I pay medical insurance, so if my Cardiologist actually has to get bloody, I'm ok. If my lawyer has to file a paper and walk into a court room...
I think you see my point.
You could look at and say that the lawyer got too much of a settlement or you could look at it and say the individual would have gotten nothing without a lawyer.
This is what infuriates people. This is not a choice. This isn't a game of "in order for you to see justice, I shall be able to rape you before hand". This is a precise analogy, and one of the reasons certain groups of people throughout history have been slaughtered; and they will be again and again.
This isn't a game of exploitation, it's supposed to solve disputes.