As I have written several times before now, the argument "we need a 'simple' code so that people don't have to hire lawyers" fails for two distinct reasons. Nobody has ever in this debate attempted to address those reasons. I summarise them below:
1. [b:1396rwzi]Unavoidable complexity[/b:1396rwzi] The practice of law is mind-bogglingly complex whether the sources of law are apparently simple or not. Something that is short, basic and vague, and that contains little detial, does not make the practice of law any simpler than something that is long, detailed and precice, and, in fact, makes it less simple, less predictable, and less easy for litigants in person (who do not share the unwritten assumptions that judges and lawyers are forced to make in the absence of written rules), who are forced to guess how things work. It is of note that not a single real-life legal system of any civilised nation is anything other than vastly complex.
2. [b:1396rwzi]Advocacy[/b:1396rwzi] Understanding "complex" procedure is only a small part of why most people hire a lawyer. Indeed, in real-world jurisdictions, precise procedural rules grew up in consequence of the emergence of a legal profession, rather than the other way around. The main reason to hire a lawyer is because the task of arguing a case in court, understanding rule-situation interactions, and predicting the likely outcome of the formal application of rules to human behaviour, is a highly skilled and specialised practice, one which is necessary to do have the best chance in all but the most blindingly obvious of cases (and sometimes even in those). Whether the procedures are fully detailed or not, anyone who hires a lawyer will be at a significant advantage over anybody who does not hire a lawyer.
3. [b:1396rwzi]Scaling[/b:1396rwzi] The complexity of a legal system does not scale with the number of people involved in it, as some of those who have posted here about not needing detailed procedural rules "in a small community like ours" seem to think. Complexity scales with function, not with the number of users.
People also seem to think that the emergence of a legal profession in our community is something bad, or that somehow threatens democratic values. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only has Professor David Post, a leading academic on law in virtual worlds, for a long time predicted the rise of law (and legal professionals) as an inevitable and desirable consequence of the existence of such worlds, but part of the function of providing for a services industry that has the potential to benefit our economy. In particular:
1. [b:1396rwzi]Encouraging a thriving professional community[/b:1396rwzi] At least 10% of our current population are here partly because of our judiciary, many of whom are lawyers who have come here to practice. They are unlikely to be deterred from doing so merely because the procedures are now much vaguer, and give them far more room for argument in individual cases. In any event, our nation is enriched, not impoverished, by having a thriving community of intellectual professionals. Why should we encourage artists but discourage lawyers?
2. [b:1396rwzi]Right to counsel[/b:1396rwzi] Many human rights treaties, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights to which the CDS subscribes, provide for the right to legal advice as one of the fundamental human rights. The UDHR is not specific to any one particular nation, but is written with the entire world in mind. The reason for that is that, for people who need to use the legal system, having professional advice is [i:1396rwzi]universally[/i:1396rwzi] important - for the reasons outlined above.
3. [b:1396rwzi]Costs issues misunderstood[/b:1396rwzi] SecondLife is a money economy, and proud of it. People buy and sell everything from virtual clothes to houses to furniture, and most of all, of course, land. The economy works on the principle that human time is worth far less in SecondLife than in the first life, for the most part, on the basis that everyone else's time is also available for much less. It is a highly deflated economy. Graphic designers undertake, in thier spare time, 3d modelling work at a tiny fraction of what they would charge a client to do something similar in the first life; progrmmers write and sell scripts for the price of a few sandwiches and a cup of coffee. Many people even work for free. People work here to participate in a unique and exciting world, not, with a few exceptions, with any realistic hope of being able to make enough money to be worth anything much in real-life. Furthermore, people will only pay what something is worth, and people will only charge what people are prepared to pay: in a dispute over a L$2,000 transaction, nobody would think it worth hiring a lawyer for L$100,000, and so no lawyer who charged that amount would ever get any clients. There also seems to be an underlying assumption, which is entirely unfounded by any actual evidence, that the lawyers that we have now, and those whom we might have in the future, will be here primarily to make money. That is contrary to all the evidence so far: I have put hundreds of hours of work into this project without remuneration, we have three applicants for judicial office who have completed detailed questionnaires to apply to qualify to be a judge with little hope of reward, and if one speaks to the pepople who are here, one will find that they have come to participate in a fascinating experiment in virtual law and government, not to make money (the prospect of which, at least in any significant amount, is, for the foreseeable future, very slim indeed; lawyers are likely to be able to earn no more than would provide for a comfortable SecondLife, but not enough to be worth converting back into real money). The fears about the cost of hiring a lawyer are, therefore, quite unfounded.
4. [b:1396rwzi]Lawyers help the system to work more efficiently[/b:1396rwzi] People with a thorough understanding of law, both in theory and in practice, and with the skills of a good advocate, go a very long way towards the efficient running of a justice system. Courts dread litigants in person, not, for the most part, because they are prone to make technical, procedural errors (as some have incorrectly suggested; litigants in person are often afforded a wide latitude on such things), but because litigants in person often (but not always) have a poor grasp of the [i:1396rwzi]substantive[/i:1396rwzi] law, and often come to court to air general grievences instead of focussing on the issues that are in dispute, leading to cases being vastly prolonged whilst irrelevant matters are endlessly explored. This is not just a function of people not understanding the law or having the skills of an advocate, although that is an important part of it: litigants in person lack the necessary detachment to see their case objectively and make rational decisions about it. That is why it is often said that, just like doctors make the worst patients, lawyers make the worst clients.
5. [b:1396rwzi]There is nothing undemocratic about a legal profession[/b:1396rwzi] Given that law, by its very nature, makes the development of a legal profession inevitable and desirable, and makes it such that, whatever the system of law, and however "simple" the procedures, anybody who is legally represented has a massive advantage over anybody who is not, it is bizarre that some are arguing that there is something anti-democratic about having a legal profession, especially since every single democracy in the world has one (including, now, the CDS). Democracy is not about citizens being directly involved in every detail of state administration (there is nothing "undemocratic", for instance, in not having all citizens directly involved in the process of accounting: is the fact that we have a professional (or, at least, semi-professional) [i:1396rwzi]accountant[/i:1396rwzi] in the CDS an undemocratic thing?): it is about providing a popular check on ultimate legislative and executive power to prevent dangerous abuses of power. Nothing in the least about that conceivably contradicts the idea that a healthy profession grows up around offering specialist advice and representation to those who need to use a legal system, which is a daunting prospect for anyone not acquainted with it, no matter how "simple" the procedures.