Is practice of law legitimized slavery in violation of the 13th Amendment? In New York, courts often make it so

Under the common law, legal representation is provision of services.


Provision of services can be done under an oral contract, and performance of the attorney in reliance on a promise to pay constitutes a binding contract supported by consideration.  That is a hypothetical for a 1st year law student.


And, when the promise to pay is broken, and the client refuses to pay, for the past or future services, the contractual relationship is broken, too, and the service provider does not have to provide the service any more.


Yet, in New York at least, it is not that easy.


In New York, the attorney is deemed a "fiduciary" (trusted person), and, if the attorney is not paid, he becomes a highly educated and qualified slave (in court proceedings), even though slavery in this country has been abolished over a century ago.


Courts in New York repeatedly held that failure to pay an attorney is not a good reason for the attorney to be able to discontinue representation and be allowed to withdraw from a pending court case.


An attorney may be ordered by the court to conduct an entire trial for free, in full knowledge that the client will never pay.  It happened to me, and not once.


Are such court orders a violation of the 13th Amendment?  Of course, they are.


Is there a legal remedy to correct the problem?  No, there isn't, because judges are covered by absolute judicial immunity and the U.S. Constitution (which every judge is sworn to uphold as a pre-requisite of holding the judicial office), and 13th Amendment is unenforceable against the judiciary.  Good luck raising this issue on appeal.



Until this system is changed, it is unreasonable for the public to expect that prices of legal services and initial retainers will go down and that affordable payment plans for provision of legal services will become popular any time soon.