Why are legal fees not unconstitutional where equal protection clauses exist? I live in Canada, where the equal protection clause looks like this: Equality Rights Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. But, there are fees to a lawsuit, including things like delivering a Statement of Claim. While, yes there are programs in place to help you with those fees, it won't help you if you above a certain income (over $34,320 a year in province), or even in certain type of lawsuits (for example, you will not receive any legal aid trying to sue someone for defamation) regardless of income. Because of that, when someone injures them or have been negligent towards them, and they could potentially sue for damages, it might be harder for those people to actually go through with the procedures, and even more so for categories like defamation. Also, it is my impression that someone might bring a civil case against people that barely have an average income. In those cases, they seem more likely to, for example, accept to remove the source for a defamation claim, despite everything in the written or recorded statement being true, when compared to wealthier people. And if the situation was reversed, there is a decent chance that they might not even sue. I'm not sure how true it is, but it seems common amongst the people around me that having more money tends to give you a better chance in court, because your lawyer tends to have more experience, a better team around them from being in a bigger law firm, etc. With those factors in mind, it appears to me that money is an obstacle that prevents some people from benefitting from the law as much as other people, going against the article above as it creates an unequal benefit of the law, based on the money you make. But, clearly I haven't seen many people in Canada, or any country that I am aware of with an equal protection clause, that legal fees are unconstitutional, and thus should be removed, which leads me to believe that they are probably constitutional. So, why aren't legal fees being a barrier of entry unconstitutional? How does it not go against the equal protection clause?
How does it not go against the equal protection clause? People had argued poverty is an analogous ground but it is not recognized. You may find the arguments outlined in William Head Institution v. Canada (Commissioner of Corrections) useful to respond to your question, but you certainly do not have to agree with those arguments. The main arguments there include The Charter is not a document designed to protect economic rights and freedoms, in so far that &quot;the worth and dignity of the human person&quot; is not threatened. Poor people form a disparate and heterogenous group without a central personal characteristic. The Charter protects &quot;discrete and insular minorities&quot;. Poverty is not immutable and changing it does not come with unacceptable personal cost; in fact, most people would be happy to become not poor. It is also necessary to understand section 15 or the constitution is not designed to create a &quot;perfect&quot; society. They must be read in conjunction of social and political &quot;progress&quot; or understandings of the society and interpreted so that it is &quot;practical&quot; and &quot;pragmatic&quot; under such understandings. Directing government policies in minute details are not the role of the constitution or the judiciary. Taking to the extreme, the equal protection requirement could require the government to assess all its policies at an individual level to ensure literally everyone does not benefit more than any other person under any law. But most people do not believe that should be done and it will paralyze essentially all governing activities. As another answer has showed, court fees can be unconstitutional for other reasons. But in general, court fees serve an important purpose to fund the judicial system and encourage non-judicial resolutions of disputes so reasonably compensated judges can have a reasonable caseload; in some sense, the courts are self-serving (but also serve the interests of the society in general so everyone is not suing everyone for every small things). With those factors in mind, it appears to me that money is an obstacle that prevents some people from benefitting from the law as much as other people, going against the article above as it creates an unequal benefit of the law, based on the money you make. The above is by no means a justification of barriers of access in the justice system. But it is mostly a political problem that the judiciary should (and does) steer clear of other than for exceptional situations.
when is it a good idea to get a lawyer? Only when you are not confident that you can put enough dedication to the matter &amp; learning curve, or when you are not confident of your ability to cope with the emotional/frustrating toll of judicial proceedings. I do not mean this in an ironic way or to challenge you. It is just important to avoid a false sense of confidence. However, if you decide to represent yourself in court, you will have much more control of your case than if you delegate it to some lawyer whose attention is split with many other unrelated cases. Also, never get intimidated by pedantic or wasted phrases such as "he who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client". In the XXI century, most urban people can read and write, Canadian laws are written in your own language, and the Internet provides many informative resources for free. Furthermore, even knowledgeable attorneys happen to be clearly wrong about the law, as I pointed out here. I feel like the bulk of the work is carefully detailing what happened which feels more like the job of a news paper editor. It involves more than that. A newspaper editor does not get entangled with subtleties of a story or of the law, and subtleties are often decisive in judicial proceedings. Litigation also involves intensive legal research so as to find case law (that is, binding court decisions) and statutes that support your position. The application of these laws to a particular case are often premised on subtleties. Hence my remark in the previous paragraph. A newspaper editor hardly ever knows what questions or evidence are required or would suffice for proving a case. This knowledge only comes through (self-)education and experience. What options exist if I don't want to pay a lawyer a bunch of money and am willing to do most of the work myself, for example would pro bono be a good option? Start by searching for "pro se" and "Canada" on the Internet. Some of the results might actually provide guidance on what procedural law(s) apply in your jurisdiction, the legislation, and so forth. As for searching case law, there should be a Canadian equivalent of http://www.leagle.com/leaglesearch (sorry I am not knowledgeable of the specifics of Canadian litigation/resources). Based on your other post, I presume you are or will be getting acquainted with the Tenancy Act. I recently addressed here a question about the Act, showcasing the combination of that legislation and contract law (interestingly, many tenants presume their issue with the landlord is strictly about landlord-tenant legislation when in fact it has to do with contract law). I am sure in a library will find plenty of useful books covering the basics of the legal system as well as the rules of civil procedure. Find out whether the public has access to case files in Canadian courts. If so, go to a courthouse and study those files. Get acquainted with the drafting and format of pleadings, motions, responses, briefs, and so forth (although in Small Claims court much of this would be unnecessary, for small claims proceedings are much more simple). This will show you the practice aspect of what you learn from books. When using a term that you consider essential to your case, be sure to consult its meaning in a legal dictionary (I do not know whether Black's Law Dictionary is applicable in Canadian litigation). The meaning of many words are much more specific in litigation compared to their common usage. Or would getting a real lawyer and spending only one hour of his time be better? I highly doubt it, especially if you have not gained any background in law. A lawyer will not explain things from scratch, let alone the intricacies you need to know. The most you could get from speaking with a lawyer for an hour would be notions which are too generic to be of any use at all. Moreover, I doubt that a lawyer in a phone interview will give you any legal references for you to verify on your own. In the very beginning of my litigation, I spoke with a law firm as assigned by a lawyer referral company. By then I already had some background in law and therefore I had specific questions. The guy from that law firm just kept babbling ambiguities very quickly. At the end of the phone call, I thought "nah, I will do this by myself". You might end up making that decision in your current or future matters.
You are deeply confused, probably by the blogs of a conspiracy theorist (perhaps discussing the Sovereign Citizen Movement mentioned in the comments), whom it would be helpful for you to reference. In fact, people with and without lawyers claim common law rights in the ordinary courts of the UK every day, in the lion's share of civil lawsuits. For example: There is a common law right to sue for damages when someone breaches a contract by not paying a bill that they owe. A defendant, meanwhile, has a common law right to defend against such a suit on grounds, for example, that the debt has been paid or that the debt is not owed because there was no agreement to pay in the first place. The substantive right of an owner of real property to evict a tenant who breaches a lease arises at common law, even though statutes spell out the process for enforcing that right. Furthermore, the way that ownership of real property is established (i.e. through a chain of title involving purchases by deeds) likewise arises at common law. The defendant meanwhile has a common law defense to a claim for rent for the remainder of the period in a lease after an eviction for failure of the landlord to mitigate damages if the landlord does not make a reasonable effort to find a new tenant. The right to sue someone who negligently caused an accident that injured you is a common law right.
No this is not a violation of discrimination law as there is no official language (de jure) in the United States at the Federal Level even though English, as the most common language is considered the National Language (de facto). Language is not a Federally recognized basis of discrimination for private business (your local state may require it though). Compared to Canada, where all services must be in English or French to comply with their Official Languages being English and French. It could be argued that, given America's very liberal Freedom of Speech laws, that requiring catering to a specific language by law could be challenged as a violation of your First Amendment Rights (after all, if you have freedom of speech, then you should have freedom of speech that others do not understand). Since there is nothing stopping an English Speaking American from learning the language you wish to do business in, nor is it confined to any race or religion (I, as a predominotly European descent, am perfectly capable of learning Arabic... or Japanese... or Navajo...). Where the confusion comes from is that in the United States, courts will often provide a linguistic interpreter for those who are not native English Speakers (even if they are conversational, given how technical legal terms can be, it may people who speak English as a Second Language will avail themselves of this service for the sake of making sure the nuance is properly translated).
Maybe s158 of the Equality Act 2010 allows proportionate action to redress disadvantage, different needs or disproportionately low participation by people with a protected characteristic. For example, woman make up 16.5% of the UK’s engineers. Given they make up more than 50% of the population one could reasonably come to the conclusion that this is disproportionately low. If this was an engineering scholarship, this would fall within the exemption. In contrast, woman are 52% of UK lawyers - not a disproportionate number for either gender and not engaging the exemption. However, female judges are only 39%, arguably disproportionate, so if the course is a post-graduate one preparing people to enter the judiciary, that’s probably ok. Women are 75.5% of teachers, so a scholarship for male students in that profession is ok too.
The question has a false premise: the law does not require defendants to pay for counsel. The right to counsel can be waived. However, the fact that court-appointed counsel are provided only to indigent defendants does seem at odds with the text of the Sixth Amendment. I will explain why the right is limited by reviewing the cases and historical background. Original meaning of the Sixth Amendment Part of the answer is that the Sixth Amendment was (probably) not originally intended to create a right to court-appointed counsel at all. Rather, it reversed the historical rule that people accused of felonies were denied representation even if they could afford it. See Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932), at pp 60–69: Originally, in England, a person charged with treason or felony was denied the aid of counsel, except in respect of legal questions which the accused himself might suggest ... Historically and in practice, in our own country, at least, [the right to a hearing] has always included the right to the aid of counsel when desired and provided by the party asserting the right. See also Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), at p 370: There is considerable doubt that the Sixth Amendment itself, as originally drafted by the Framers of the Bill of Rights, contemplated any guarantee other than the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution in a federal court to employ a lawyer to assist in his defense. Basis of the modern rule As noted in the question, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) is the leading case on this area of law today, but the modern rule was more precisely and recently stated in Scott, at pp 373–374: We therefore hold that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution require only that no indigent criminal defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment unless the State has afforded him the right to assistance of appointed counsel in his defense. Note that the rule is not derived directly from the Sixth Amendment (at least insofar as it applies to the States). The Bill of Rights did not apply to the States before the Civil War: Barron v. Mayor &amp; City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833). After the Reconstruction Amendments, through the process of incorporation, the Supreme Court began to accept that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause could entrench substantive rights against the States. The modern rule recognises that any person who is unable to afford a lawyer and who is sentenced to imprisonment without legal representation has been deprived of their liberty without due process of law. It does not establish an absolute right to legal representation. In Scott, after noting that the modern rule went beyond what was guaranteed by the text of the Sixth Amendment (understood in its historical context), the Court held that it did not extend to an indigent defendant who was fined for a petty theft. At p 373, the Court offered the following practical justification for limiting the rule: [W]e believe that the central premise of Argersinger – that actual imprisonment is a penalty different in kind from fines or the mere threat of imprisonment – is eminently sound, and warrants adoption of actual imprisonment as the line defining the constitutional right to appointment of counsel. Argersinger has proved reasonably workable, whereas any extension would create confusion and impose unpredictable, but necessarily substantial, costs on 50 quite diverse States. An unconstitutional taking? The Fifth Amendment provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The concept of &quot;taking for public use&quot; is another one that's hard to pin down at the margins, but there's a good summary of the cases available in the section on When Property is Taken in the Constitution Annotated: The older cases proceeded on the basis that the requirement of just compensation for property taken for public use referred only to &quot;direct appropriation, and not to consequential injuries resulting from the exercise of lawful power.&quot; Accordingly, a variety of consequential injuries were held not to constitute takings ... Nor was government held liable for the extra expense which the property owner must obligate in order to ward off the consequence of the governmental action ... But the Court also decided long ago that land can be &quot;taken&quot; in the constitutional sense by physical invasion or occupation by the government, as occurs when the government ﬂoods land permanently or recurrently. A later formulation was that &quot;[p]roperty is taken in the constitutional sense when inroads are made upon an owner's use of it to an extent that, as between private parties, a servitude has been acquired either by agreement or in course of time.&quot; I am not aware of any case in which it was argued that the need to pay for one's own legal representation amounted to a taking for public use. It is certainly a far cry from the compulsory acquisition of land. But perhaps in a case where the defendant is acquitted, or proven innocent, a takings argument could be run by analogy with the cases dealing with innocent people who suffered loss as a result of police execution of search warrants. See Everyone Benefits, Everyone Pays: Does the Fifth Amendment Mandate Compensation When Property is Damaged During the Course of Police Activities? 9 William &amp; Mary Bill of Rights Journal 277 (2000) for more about these cases.
It is not the court's function to educate you in the law and civil procedure. If you don't know then the onus is on you to learn at whatever cost that comes at in time and money. You have a right to justice - you don't have a right to zero cost justice. Just like having a right to bear arms doesn't entitle you to a free gun.
Fee Shifting In Various Jurisdictions Spain (at least as of 1984) has rules on fee shifting (or the lack thereof) very similar to the American rule. The other countries of the E.U. (as of 1984) had rules similar to those of Britain's loser pays rule, although there was significant variation in detail from country to country that made this less of an omnibus statement than it might seem. See Werner Pfenningstorf, &quot;The European Experience With Fee Shifting&quot;, 47(1) Law and Contemporary Problems 37 (1984). Most countries with civil law systems (i.e. those systems based upon the civil code tradition of Continental Europe rather than the common law tradition of England or something else entirely) outside of Europe in Africa and Asia are derived from the French Civil Code (most of West, Northwest and Central Africa, for example), or the German Civil Code (Korea and Japan, for example), and probably have followed in the footsteps on their parent legal traditions on this issue. This is also true of most formerly Communist Eastern European countries. Most countries in Spanish speaking Latin America, however, have legal systems derived from the Spanish legal tradition (and national constitutions modeled on that of the U.S.), so other countries besides the U.S. and Spain without automatic fee shifting to a prevailing party are probably located in Latin America. Some of these Latin American countries, however. probably adopted fee shifting rules of their own, and many of these countries declared independence from Spain before Spain adopted its civil code, so the extent to which those countries follow the Spanish model may not be as complete as in countries that gained independence later on. It is also worth noting that, however, in most civil law countries, the fees that an attorney can charge are usually significantly more highly regulated than in the United States, so the possibility of extremely high litigation fees is lower. Furthermore, civil litigation, in general, involves lower attorney fees on average in civil law countries (and in Islamic law and Chinese style Communist countries) than in the United States, in litigated cases, because the process is less attorney resource intensive due to civil procedure differences. So far as I know, fee shifting is also not used in Islamic law countries, where the basic assumption is that the parties are often pro se (i.e. without lawyers) and the institution of a professional legal class post-dates the establishment of the relevant legal rules. I do not know what the situation is in the People's Republic of China or similar legal systems. The American Rule It also bears noting that there are many exceptions to the &quot;American rule&quot; in U.S. law. While the American rule does not shift attorney fees, fees for out of pocket litigation expenses such as filing fees, copying charges, and expert witness fees are shifted as a matter of course to the prevailing party. Most professionally drafted written agreements have fee shifting provisions. Many specific statutes (e.g. civil rights actions and many labor law and consumer rights enforcement cases) also have fee shifting provisions (sometimes one sided, sometimes two sides). Fees can also be awarded in certain kinds of breach of fiduciary duty litigation contexts and in cases involving a dispute over a &quot;common fund&quot;. In divorce cases, litigation costs of both sides are often (really usually) allocated by the court in proportion to ability to pay, as &quot;winning&quot; and &quot;losing&quot; are ill defined. The biggest areas where fees shifting would be unusual in the U.S. would be in common law tort lawsuits, such as negligence cases (e.g. automobile accidents and slip and fall cases), strict liability products liability cases, defamation cases, intentional harm cases, and fraud actions. The American rule also applies in cases of oral contracts or contracts drafted by inexpert non-lawyers. Even in those cases various kinds of litigation misconduct can result in fee shifting. In U.S. tort cases, defendants usually have their attorney fees paid for by their insurance company, and plaintiffs often have an attorney paid on a contingent fee basis. Furthermore, awards by juries for non-economic damages and/or punitive damages often makes it possible for a prevailing plaintiff to receive full or nearly full economic loss compensation in such lawsuits, with the non-economic and/or punitive damages awards effectively providing resources to pay the attorney for the plaintiff on top of economic loss compensation for the plaintiff.