‘Is Private Justice Fair?’

Your editorial recognizes a long-term problem in civil litigation, but seems to attack one of the solutions instead of the problem itself.

In using the “rent-a-judge” method of settling civil disputes, the prudent (not necessarily wealthy) litigant avoids possible heavy financial losses or lingering family alienation that could result in lengthy waits for court dates. The result of the method? Reducing the court load!

Robert Raven and Alan Rothenberg complain that this method of “private justice” could reduce the will of our politicians to solve the civil court log jam. If that’s truly their concern, maybe they should spend their time and efforts lobbying to see that doesn’t happen.

I suspect Raven and Rothenberg, being presidents of the American and State Bar Assns., respectively, have a more mundane motive. They would like to protect the financial interests of their members who are seeing long-term cases disappear along with the fees.

The Times’ warning of a two-class court system comes too late. We presently have such a system in the criminal court system where those who can afford them have powerful, big-name attorneys, and the poor are relegated to using well-meaning but overworked public defenders.

Another solution to help alleviate the overwhelmed civil system would be to raise the limits of small claims courts even more to $5,000 or even $10,000 and use more commissioners and experienced lawyers in that court.

But please, don’t fault the prudent or wealthy for finding their own solution to the problem, fix the problem!

T.C. DIETERICH

Ontario