Is it fair that if you have to go to court, one side can afford unlimited legal representation and the other basic free legal aid ?

How is it fair for someone to only have acces to three hundred dollars and the other side has one million....

Who could take Harvey Weinstine to court if he can spend millions and get Isreals secret service to defend him...and the girls he's raped are pennyless  in comparison....

why would anyone care about attorneys ...it's just a job and vast sums of money to them....

Why would anyone care about the attorneys? Because they are people who worked hard and spent a lot of money to get through years of schooling to get that job. 
Take Wienstien to court...that is civil suit. The women do not have to have money to file a criminal complaint. 

Who pays them.....not the girls he molested....

In a criminal case the state pays the prosecuting attorneys.
The accused would pay his/her defense attorney(s). If they cannot afford to pay then the state will pay for a public defender.

In a civil suit, normally if you have a case with damages that you are likely to win an attorney will take the case at no fee unless you receive a settlement then the attorney would get an agreed upon percentage of that settlement. If they want paid ahead it is a good sign that you really are not likely to win. This post was edited by my2cents at March 18, 2018 6:54 PM MDT

It's not that way in England...you can apply for legal aid and if you have more than £75 a week disposable income you get no aid at all... 

That sucks. Here legal aid would be for thinks like divorce and custudy etc.

Millionaires can somehow manage to get it...if you have nothing you can't....

Doesn't justice mean it should be equal to both parties.... If you fight a duel with pistols don't both parties get the same amount of bullets ...or is it only the rich and powerful that's allowed them.... . .? 
How can a system be fair if it favours only the rich...

It isn't fair but it is the way it has always been.

Not not wishing to apear rude...but ,"always been " is not excepable and no excuse for those expecting a fair and unbias hearing...

How many judges make rulings knowing that finding for innocent  party would seriously effect some of their own investment....?

I agree and our court system really sucks.

The more I think about it the more it disgusts me......xxx

Is it bad there too?

In England it's nothing more than pathetic... You pay to go through the motions only.....

It's there just to patronize the rich and powerful......they can afford to buy what ever justice they need 

There really is no justice.
If you win you either have the money to get out of it or you got lucky.

That is why there are public defenders, so those who can't afford it are represented. 

Not in England.....if you have more than £75 a week disposable income you get no aid at all....

Sounds like there is no public defender in England. 

Kids under the age of eighteen would get free legal representation....for that you would get a solicitor that wouldnt put his self out much... ....above that you would need legal aid,It's mean tested and if you work and have more than £ 75 disposable income you can't get free aid.....

If you are accused of committing a serious crime they could take your home or sell your goods to pay your legal bill...
Then if you loose the case you could  loose your home as well...... You can't quote me on that as I'm not quite sure .... I will ask though ..

There is something called Pro Bona where solicitors give their time for free.......  They have rooms in high courts where they give advice to people about to enter court or where people can go to seek advice...