The entrepreneurial spirit lives in Americans, and maybe one day there will be a truly great idea that will change the way the law functions.  But this isn’t it.

Via the New York Times, which is curious that the Times thought this worth the space:

At that moment, a lawyer might help keep things from getting out of hand, asserting Miranda rights against interrogation or starting the bail process. But getting that lawyer is no easy thing, said Chris Miles, who co-founded a company, LawyerUp, to get lawyers on the case within 15 minutes.

“If I want a pizza, I can get a pizza in 15 minutes,” he says. “I can get a plumber in the middle of the night. Why can’t I get a lawyer?”

I can forgive the really bad analogy, as Miles isn’t a lawyer (or a professional analogy maker) , as there are some significant distinctions between lawyer and plumber.  Pizza, less so, according to the topping.

The notion of providing access to those who don’t know who to call when the emergency arises isn’t a bad one.  In fact, there are a lot of people who wouldn’t have the slightest clue who to call and would do well to have a lawyer there before they spill every bad thing they’ve ever done in their life.

The problem is that this isn’t the answer.

Some don’t like the name, LawyerUp.

Ralph J. Monaco, the president of the Connecticut Bar Association, seemed a bit ruffled in an interview when asked about the company, calling the name “so tasteless.” He said he fretted that it might create a relationship that an unscrupulous lawyer could use to gouge the new client.

The name is an awful lot better than some of the other ridiculous names of misbegotten ideas.  And sure, this could be used by unscrupulous lawyers, but that doesn’t make it a whole lot different than anything else an unscrupulous lawyer can do.  There are always ways to steal from clients if you’re so inclined. 

Antonin Pribetic, the Trial Warrior, has thoroughly discussed the possibilities for this to be another slime opportunity, and while some young lawyers may well do their best to use this as an opportunity to cut their teeth, far more will see this as a chance to get them while they’re in extremis and have no choice.  One call does it all, except they won’t have a clue who they’re getting or why.  But that’s the nature of the beast.

Who wants to be “on call” in the middle of the night?  No one I know, but I’m sure there are people hungry enough to be willing to do pretty much anything.  And if they happen to know what they’re doing and aren’t trying to scam people, it wouldn’t be a terrible thing to have lawyers available before the damage is done.

But it won’t work.  This concept is replete with structural problems that make it unfeasible.  What people need is a lawyer to show up at the police stations and precincts to stop people from yapping.  It can’t be done.  People don’t get to call when needed. Lawyers won’t be there when needed.  Whether they would be the right type of lawyer, say one with criminal experience, is a whole ‘nother matter, except it won’t matter because they won’t be there when needed anyway.

If anything, it raises the need to know who you might call if trouble arises beforehand, a level of preparedness that few bother with.  One never thinks one needs a lawyer until it’s too late.  Regrets don’t help. 

The proposed access to a lawyer, at $250 for an hour of time, whether that hour is of any use or not, fails to address the need of an emergent situation. 

Mr. Miles, who is not a lawyer, argued that it was the current system, not his company, that was open to abuse. “There has got to be something more fair than a pay phone and a phone book in a police station somewhere,” he said. The lawyers, he noted, had been vetted before being added to the list, and “I’d hire any one of these attorneys to represent me or my family.”

That there is a need here isn’t too far-fetched.  Whether this fills the need is another matter.  Miles is quite right that a phonebook in the police station isn’t the best way to find a lawyer when the need arises.  Nor is asking the other people on the bench for their recommendations. 

But Miles’ assurance that he’s “vetted” the lawyers who have signed up to work his service doesn’t bring much warmth.  Every scoundrel says this, and if it turns out Miles’ lawyers don’t do nearly as well as he suggests, it’s unlikely Miles will serve their time for them.  Heck, I doubt he will give them their money back.  I don’t see any satisfaction guarantee.

In a certain way, I try not to be unduly negative about every new idea that comes along.  It’s easy to be knee-jerk negative,and very much what people expect from lawyers, labeled as stodgy and mired in tradition.  The problem is that it isn’t easy to come up with something new that actually offers a meaningful service to people, once reasonably safe from abuse and reasonably designed to be effective.

And it’s all too easy to tout shiny, new ideas that offer surface appeal but can’t deliver, on the race to the bottom.