No one would argue
against increased access to justice for claimants.
Not exact matches
Others still championed LSPs as important for meeting the
access to justice gap, but argued
against their regulation by state courts on the grounds either it is unnecessary (they are already regulated by consumer protection laws), that it would unnecessarily
increase costs, or that regulation would only enable the state bars and courts
to exercise their «protectionist instincts» (see this response, this response and this response).
[98] Some respondents championed LSPs as important for meeting the
access to justice gap, but argued
against their regulation by state courts on the grounds either it is unnecessary (they are already regulated by consumer protection laws), that it would unnecessarily
increase costs, or that regulation would only enable the state bars and courts
to exercise their «protectionist instincts.»
Any push for an
increase in mediation must be balanced
against access to the civil
justice system: «If we expand mediation beyond its proper limits as a complement
to justice we run the risk of depriving particular persons or classes of person of their right
to equal and impartial
justice under the law.»