171–180 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think lawyers from other countries know US law? I don't think so. You will pretty much have to start over in US.
You realize there are huge outsourcing industries (in the legal and accounting sector among others) where workers in India, China, etc. are trained to learn American standards, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think lawyers from other countries know US law? I don't think so. You will pretty much have to start over in US.
Do accountants in other countries know US tax law? According to this source [0] at least some do. I don't see how general law would be much different. [0] http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2005/605/essentials/p54.ht...
Why? Because I'm liable for malpractice if I get it wrong. Unless I'm willing to religiously follow the legal developments of X other nations, I would not be willing to take the risk of the law having changed since I last check it. And if I were the kind of person anal enough to follow legal developments in other countries, my skills would be in such demand that only megacorporations could afford my services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The market dynamics and model are entirely different with these sorts of emergency industries. Would you call auto-repair an emergency industry? After all, if you break down on the side of the road, you need assistance immediately? The vast majority of medical care is NOT given in an emergency situation. The same is true of legal services. And yes, auto repair as well.
So to answer your own question, when you are sick, need legal help, or stuck by the side of the road, do you comparison shop for best price or do you go to first available?
In other news, shopping for food while hungry is more expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You risk your life getting into your car every day. You don't pick the most expensive car? Choosing air travel is commonly an exercise in finding the lowest price, despite the inherent risks/fear of traveling 4 miles up at 500mph. Why are these commodities while preparing a will is not? That's easy. The expense of a car or plane doesn't indicate it's safety, infact it's usually the opposite, the more expensive the…
> That's easy. The expense of a car or plane doesn't indicate it's safety, infact it's usually the opposite, the more expensive the car or plane the faster it goes and less safe it can make your trip. > With a doctor or lawyer more often than not the more you pay the better the service/advice you get. Do you know this, or do you just believe / hope this? I'd argue that the actual quality of service delivered (not jus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
It doesn't make sense to concede that there is a high supply of lawyers and still argue that cost is driving up prices. The price of a service depends on the supply of the service and the demand curve. At a given level of supply, it is irrelevant what the cost of providing the service is, that will not change the cost. It's valid to make the "guild" argument and say that the education requirement is driving up prices…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 lawyer…
There is an excess of lawyers in certain areas; an excess of IP lawyers doesn't map to an excess of divorce attorneys. >if you're a lawyer, do you charge the amount that covers your loans, or the amount that nets you the most profit? If all lawyers were interchangeable, your argument might hold, but the artificially high price of legal education leads to a misallocation of resources--The increased cost of student loa…
This is circular. You're arguing that shortages in some areas are causing higher prices, but then arguing that lawyers are leaving certain areas for the areas that pay higher salaries. You can't say that prices are high for corporate legal services because supply is restricted while saying that the high cost of legal education causes a surplus of lawyers in areas where salaries (i.e. prices) are the highest.
You can't make sense of the legal market by thinking of it in terms of regulation cutting off supply leading to higher prices. That is not the major operative force in the legal field.
The major operative force is branding, and that drives everything else. Companies pay substantial fees to hire firms with brands. Firms with brands pay substantial salaries to hire attorneys with brands.
There are 200+ ABA-accredited law schools, with 45,000 graduates each year. Only about 10-15% get a job working with a big firm that does corporate work. This is because at a big New York firm, fully a quarter of the new hires might come from Harvard and Yale, and 90% from the top 15 schools. Even with the high cost of legal education there is a huge untapped supply of attorneys who would jump at the chance to work for half as much as Harvard grads to do corporate work. There are no ABA restrictions to hiring these people to do corporate work. What there is is a lack of demand for lower-price lower with lesser credentials in that particular subset of the market.
> Associate salaries are not an efficient, free market.
That is probably true, but the evidence supplied in the article supports an inference the opposite of the one made by the author. If everybody in New York pays $160k as an informal arrangement, that suggests artificially low salaries, not artificially high ones. Why would a bunch of firms act informally in concert to artificially drive up their costs?
And associate salaries, of course, have only an indirect effect on legal fees. The price of a good is directly influenced only by supply and the demand curve. The costs of making the good are irrelevant except to the extent they influence supply. Clients, of course, don't care what associates make. The amount they will pay for services is entirely a function of their demand and the supply of law firms willing to do the work.
This may not apply to the world of corporate lawyers the answer seems to be about, but at a smaller level, there are enormous switching costs involved in moving away from, and training a new lawyer. And it's not a free market. In a free market, the consumer can walk away from a purchase. Most times individuals or small businesses need a lawyer, they are in no position from walking away. They need a lawyer. And they n…
You're conflating two different concepts. You're talking about transaction costs (not being able to walk away once you've hired a lawyer). Markets with high transaction costs can still be free, in the sense you can choose whatever lawyer you want and supply and demand aren't artificially restricted.[1] Markets with high transaction costs are, on the other hand, not efficient.
[1] Supply in the legal field is regulated, but I'd argue it's supply in corporate law is not artificially restricted to any substantial degree.
I believe this is mandated by bar associations on ethical grounds, though I find it absurd. This artificially inflates the cost of legal services.