As a practicing attorney representing plaintiffs and defendants in collection matters, I read with amusement your “Access to justice” editorial of Dec. 29. The most likely reason 98 percent of collection cases have no attorney representing the defendant is that the money is owed.
Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governs parties and attorneys alike. The rule prohibits parties or their counsel from filing a pleading that is without merit. No moral or ethical attorney should file an answer disputing a debt that is justly owed. Doing so would expose the defendant client not only to the original debt, but also increased attorney fees from the opposing side, together with attorney fees for their own counsel.
The 65 percent that default (your number) are smarter than you give them credit for. They don’t want to file a bogus answer subjecting themselves to additional attorney fees or possible sanctions from the court. Rule 73 of the same rules has a sliding scale of fees approved by our Supreme Court when there is a default (the defendant doesn’t answer). The scale begins at $250 for cases up to $1,500 and caps at $775 for cases exceeding $4,500.01.
If you rob a bank and take money that isn’t yours, you face serious prison time. You can, however, borrow money or incur a debt that you don’t intend to repay and the worst that will happen is a judgment will be entered against you.
Perhaps the real crisis is not the access to justice problem alleged in your editorial, but a failure on the part of debtors to pay their just debts as they become due or earnestly strive to work things out with the person/entity they owe money to before it goes to court.
James T. Dunn, South Jordan