I think I understand your overall point, but I believe you are contradicting yourself at some points. I think your point is that it is unjust for companies to drain money from common people. You say that if a person cannot afford a lawyer, the government will supply one, but the government will not always supply one to poor people. So are poor people being provided a lawyer or not?
From what you are saying, it seems that you are implying that the government should supply everyone with the money to defend themselves against the government. That the government is unjust to not supply lawyers to those in the middle class. I think, however, you mean that it is unjust for companies to mercilessly fight people in court. When they do this, people lose a lot of money, and their lives are often ruined. Companies are concerned with their own affairs and not the affairs of the city thus making them unjust. So, if I understood your main point correctly, I believe that I agree with it, I was just expanding on your argument.