Alternativen der Rechtsberatung: Dienstleistung, Fürsorge und kollektive Selbsthilfe
This paper criticizes the theoretical background of different forms of legal aid to socially and financially underprivileged groups. The existing patterns of the attorney-client type of legal service and the public provision of legal services have different effects on the relationships between a client and his counsellor and the manner in which a counsellor defines his client’s interest and acts to protect them. Legal services provided through union legal aid offices (die “Arbeitersekretariate”) around the turn of the century give a historical example of collective forms of legal services. For the same reasons that led to the development of socially protective regulations within the substantive law, the legal services offered by attorneys proved to be unsatisfactory for the socially underprivileged groups. There were two historical responses to this problem: A collective representation of interests and a welfare orientated “rule of law” approach (“Rechtsfriedensbewegung”, which constituted a countermovement to the “Arbeitersekretariate”). The ‘rule of law’ movement attempted to achieve a conflict-free integration of all social contradictions. Yet another way to provide social services has been followed by the British trade unions. Unlike the German unions they were not incorporated into the formal legal system, a fact which allowed them to develop their own “extra-legal” forms of negotiations with regard to labour conflicts.
Consumerism and Legal Services: The Merging of Movements
The traditional emphasis on individual legal problems and their solution through "access" to legal services is seen here as being inadequate to produce general change in economic and political institutions. The concept of access is explored in the forms of freedom of information, prepaid legal services, and extralegal group action; examples of each are given. Institutional reform, it is suggested, can be brought about by creating a balance of power between consumers and large institutions. A "checkoff" system is described and put forward as a means of organizing consumers to use the evidence of individual complaints to advocate institutional change, something that legal services, as presently structured, do not do. Monopolies such as the utilities and the post office would be required by state law to solicit voluntary contributions from their customers to support a consumer action movement-"a piggyback ride so they can organize themselves." The interrelationships between group legal services and these piggyback consumer groups are pointed out: the accumulation of individual case evidence and the promotion of cooperative institutions that would provide legal representation as one of their satellite services. These lawyers could press for government reform of procedural restraints on consumer class actions. Possible conflicting interests between conservative sponsoring consumer groups and their progressive legal service staff are recognized and ways to avoid them are discussed. One solution offered is to permit lawyers a broader range of activities by relaxing the legal profession's self-restrictions. Law schools are urged to reevaluate what they should teach and to require more analysis and investigation of government and corporate structures in their clinical education. This would ensure a starting point for the continuation of reform in the legal system.
La inseguridad jurídica en normas de contratación estatal
It is established by different studies that the issue of government procurement has been marred by several factors, the test objective to publicize these factors, we take as starting point the constant conflict between the branches of government to try and organize this subject; will collect and analyze diverse regulatory and case material in order to achieve evidence and demonstrate the different concepts of constant change that produces excessive regulation of the subject procurement and is in turn causing rapid changes that result in legal uncertainty for our law on the Contract Status.