Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 217 posts

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#121

Post by prodigal_erik »

mfaustman wrote: post #71
learc83 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>More lawyers could afford to charge reasonable market rates, and not work for large firms, if it weren't for the ABA mandating that you have to attend a law school (that results in huge piles of debt) or clerk for years (four in California) in order to join the bar. That's exactly the problem, regulatory capture of government protected guilds. It's exactly the same with Doctors and the AMA, or electricians, hell in…

So you do not need to go to law school to be a lawyer. Anyone can take the BAR and be a lawyer. Again, as Antone points out, this all comes down to a perception of quality. Many people (and I am not saying you) would not hire a lawyer who did not go to law school.

If I'm reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_bar_in_the_Uni... correctly, there are only four US states which don't make law school a requirement, and two more which don't require a granted degree.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#122

Post by law »

dctoedt wrote: post #98
thinkcomp wrote: post #41

There are all sorts of reasons, but first and foremost is the lack of transparency in all things legal. This is why I'm working on PlainSite ( http://www.plainsite.org ). The opacity creates the illusion of difficulty, the need for (arbitary) specialized knowledge, and uncertainty as to the real price because so many factors are hidden from view. For example: you're expected to follow the law even without knowing wha…

Thinkcomp, I agree with almost everything you say about the economics of the legal profession, but I think you miss out on something crucial. Before I went to law school, I unconsciously thought of law as a branch of engineering: Learn the rules, twist the right dials, and things will happen as you expect. That was naive. Law does have rules, and dials to twist, but for socio-political reasons I won't go into here, t…

As an engineer, that's why I went to law school. I thought law could be represented deterministically...but that's a naive assumption. A stochastic model fits much better, which is why I'm now extremely interested in artificial intelligence.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#123

Post by ktizo »

javert wrote: post #92
ktizo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That's a description of a free market, but not a definition. (The OECD saying it's a definition don't make it so.)" Is that definitive? As the description of the definition of the noun 'definition' from http://thesaurus.com/browse/definition defines definition as a description, of this I am definite. ;)

Saying a definition is a description is a total dumbing down. I don't know why they don't teach this stuff in grade school anymore... they should. A definition must identify the nature of the units, i.e., the essential characteristics without which the units would not be the kind of existents they are. And The rules of correct definition are derived from the process of concept-formation. The units of a concept were d…

Am reminded of the quote from Futurama;

"All that is ours was once flushed down your toilets. Over there is our aquarium. This is our library.

Nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand."

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#124

Post by andylei »

learc83 wrote: post #86
andylei wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> regulatory capture of government protected guilds this just doesn't align with evidence. if it were true, there would be too few lawyers, not too many lawyers. i'm not saying the effect you describe never happens, but when it does, there is not enough supply, driving prices up (this is probably the case in medicine, where there are not enough doctors, driving prices up)

It's not just about the number of lawyers, but also the cost to become one. In the US, unlike many other countries, practicing law requires a graduate degree from an accredited school. This dramatically adds to the cost of a legal education, and drives up the price for everyone. This is the direct result of "regulatory capture of government protected guilds."

> the cost to become one

the cost of law school is a fixed (and by the time you become a lawyer, sunk) cost, and therefore has no bearing on supply decisions.

moreover, how does the cost of law school jack up prices in a world where there is an excess of lawyers? if you're a lawyer, do you charge the amount that covers your loans, or the amount that nets you the most profit?

the very fact that there are excess lawyers is evidence that regulation of who gets to become a lawyer is not increasing prices. now i'm not saying that lawyers are efficiently priced, merely that regulatory capture is not the reason for this.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#125

Post by SoftwareMaven »

law wrote: post #110
thinkcomp wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really cannot be serious.

Read the rules. They're taken very seriously. Your opinion that a Wachtell attorney isn't worth >$1,000/hour is immaterial. As a matter of law, what they're charging is not unreasonable, because you're paying for more than the amount of time an attorney spends typing on a word processor. You're paying for the firm 's experience and reputation. Moreover, many lawyers would have actual knowledge of the firm's fraud, we…

I'm not buying it. There are a lot of reasons that reporting could be just as devastating as not reporting, except it's more likely to happen.

Imagine a James Lawyer at your prestigious $1000/hour partnership. He finds out Joe Partner is up to no good. What are his options?

Blow the whistle, get Joe Partner in trouble, get black-balled (if not outright fired [but, of course, not for whistle blowing]) and eventually (or immediately) have to find a new job. In trying to find other jobs, James finds nobody is interested in him in any capacity remotely near his previous level of employment, because, like any close professional community, everybody knows James is a whistle blower. He eventually has to settle for a position in a local law firm, make 1/3 what he was making before.

Or, don't blow the whistle. If Joe Partner eventually gets caught, James might get caught up in it, or he might be able to skate around it.

Do you really think no lawyers knew about Bernie Madhoff or World Comm or Enron? To say this ethical code of conduct justifies the high prices is laughable.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#126

Post by law »

gcflymoto wrote: post #119
law wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, just to be clear, lawyers' fees are reasonable because lawyers have a duty to report fraudulent billing practices. If they don't, they can be disbarred . That duty to report covers all of the rules (excluding Rule 1.6 and information gained by lawyers participating in approved lawyers' assistance programs), and the reasonableness of fees absolutely includes consideration for this duty.

What about law firms with a single lawyer and the rest associates. Nobody reports anything. Lawyers round billing, type 5 words per minute, templatize their documents but charge as if writing from scratch, and play the system in many ways, double bill for multitasking status hearings, and so on. I would be more than happy to pay the billing rate if they actually worked those hours.

What do you mean by associates? Do you mean non-lawyers engaging in document preparation? If so, they might be criminally liable for the unlicensed practice of law. If they're also licensed attorneys, then again, you're paying for the firm's time, not a single lawyer's time. If a partner tells an associate to do something against the rules (i.e., superior tells subordinate to act illegally), "the subordinate is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct notwithstanding that the lawyer acted at the direction of another person." (Rule 5.2(a)). The only exception is if it's an "arguable" question and the superior's instructions were reasonable in light of this.

For non-lawyer assistants, (see Rule 5.3), the lawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the non-lawyer's work complies with the professional obligations of the lawyer. This mostly applies to cases when a non-lawyer assistant is sorting through documents and accidentally loses one that's later found by the media. Again, if they're doing anything that's the practice of law, they're committing a crime. The subordinate would be criminally liable, and the supervising lawyer would be professionally liable under Rule 5.3.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#127

Post by learc83 »

law wrote: post #116
randomdata wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to have the choice, yes. I still can choose to pay more for someone with a demonstrable history, but if I want to take the risk on an unknown and save some money in the process, why shouldn't I be able to?

Because it results in uncontrollable externalities. Take the electrician example: what happens if an unlicensed electrician kills himself when performing work? Does his family get to collect from your homeowner's insurance? Can they sue you? Are you criminally liable? What about when you sell the house? Should you have to disclose that someone unlicensed did the wiring? What if you don't and the house ignites in a fi…

>Are you criminally liable?

There's nothing in the current law about granting you immunity from criminal liability as long as you hire a licensed electrician, so that's a completely moot point.

>What if you don't and the house ignites in a fire one night caused by improper wiring, killing the future owners, are you responsible? Is the electrician?

In most jurisdictions you can already preform electrical work on your own property. If you install a ceiling fan should have to disclose to the new owner that it wasn't installed by a licensed electrician? Are you responsible for killing the future owner? There are scores of people installing their own light fixtures, where's the public outcry over all the dead homebuyers?

What happens when you hire the unlicensed kid next door to cut your grass, and he cuts off his foot?

What happens when an unlicensed painter falls off a ladder and kills himself?

If you want protection from damage caused by people you hire to work on your house, only hire contractors who are insured. Make them present proof of insurance before the job begins.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#128

Post by law »

law wrote: post #110
thinkcomp wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really cannot be serious.

Read the rules. They're taken very seriously. Your opinion that a Wachtell attorney isn't worth >$1,000/hour is immaterial. As a matter of law, what they're charging is not unreasonable, because you're paying for more than the amount of time an attorney spends typing on a word processor. You're paying for the firm 's experience and reputation. Moreover, many lawyers would have actual knowledge of the firm's fraud, we…

@SoftwareMaven: I never said "justifies," but I did say it's one factor that contributes to the inherent reasonableness of the fees. My argument is based on the law and professional practice, while your counter-argument is based on a hypothetical, conspiracy theory.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#129

Post by law »

law wrote: post #116
randomdata wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to have the choice, yes. I still can choose to pay more for someone with a demonstrable history, but if I want to take the risk on an unknown and save some money in the process, why shouldn't I be able to?

Because it results in uncontrollable externalities. Take the electrician example: what happens if an unlicensed electrician kills himself when performing work? Does his family get to collect from your homeowner's insurance? Can they sue you? Are you criminally liable? What about when you sell the house? Should you have to disclose that someone unlicensed did the wiring? What if you don't and the house ignites in a fi…

@learc83: the difference between professions requiring and not requiring licensure is the foreseeability of the risks. A reasonable person should be able to foresee the risk that a painter might fall from a ladder. A reasonable person might not be able to foresee the risks associated with installation of wiring by an unlicensed electrician.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#130

Post by thinkcomp »

law wrote: post #110
thinkcomp wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really cannot be serious.

Read the rules. They're taken very seriously. Your opinion that a Wachtell attorney isn't worth >$1,000/hour is immaterial. As a matter of law, what they're charging is not unreasonable, because you're paying for more than the amount of time an attorney spends typing on a word processor. You're paying for the firm 's experience and reputation. Moreover, many lawyers would have actual knowledge of the firm's fraud, we…

I am not convinced by your use of italics.
Post reply on HN