That wouldn't really help. Even if only publicly-funded lawyers could represent criminal defendants (which I don't think anyone actually wants), those with financial means would be able to employ an army of experts, researchers, investigators, etc. to aid in their case, in addition to the biases juries have toward those with means, and political sway the elite hold. And if you somehow prevented that inequality, you'd just drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator, and all the more people would be harmed by unjust prosecution.

Every criminal defendant (at least for felonies or serious misdemeanors) in the US has access to a government-funded lawyer, if they can't afford their own. There are over 15,000 public defenders in the US, who get a fixed salary as you mention. They are often overworked, and have limited time and resources to help the people they defend, but they help countless people every day. I'd like to improve the funding and the number of public defenders available (and of course decrease the number of people on trial for nonsense). I'm glad the system exists. It's helped friends and family, with largely positive outcomes that I don't think would have been any better with an expensive private lawyer. When it comes to more serious crimes, you probably don't want to be in that situation.

I sat on a jury with a public defender. He ran circles around the prosecutor. It was pretty interesting to see and completely unexpected based on what I've heard about public defenders.

One relatively easy fix is to bump up the budget for public defenders, including a decent pay increase. You'll attract better talent and have more of them so they aren't as overworked.

> And if you somehow prevented that inequality, you'd just drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator, and all the more people would be harmed by unjust prosecution.

Saying it would be an unjust prosecution should include something to back it up; the most logical outcome is that if both lawyers are just as skilled the little edge they may have by actually having a innocent defendant -or a gilty prosecuted- would help get better justice overall, I don't think I could even be persuaded otherwise until I can read about a real world nation where such system was tried and failed.

I've been wondering about that. If there's no such thing as a private lawyer, all defenders are public defenders... would that work? The law should be equally accessible to all, and making the law ever more complicated only exacerbates the problem with no potential of getting better.

I'd like a lawyer who pays attention to my case, not one who draws a check no matter what he does.

Statistically speaking, you can't afford to pay one, so - too bad.

You do not want lawyers on the government payroll. That would destroy their ability to fight for citizens against the State.

Then those cases should be the exception to allow private lawyers rather than the rule. Another solution would be that the public lawyers should have protections against any repercussion from the state.