Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers? • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by puppop » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 11:18 PM UTC

isocpprar wrote: post #56

puppop wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, some company offer that. Cheap, but you lose the case with cheap lawyers. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Why do you think you automatically lose a case with cheap lawyers? If you are bringing a weak case against someone, then perhaps using high priced lawyers will be able to bully them into submission, but if the facts are with you, then a competent lawyer should be fine. If some are so bad that you will trivially lose, then perhaps the ABA/Bar has misrepresented their qualifications?

You get what you paid for.

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

#102

Post by msluyter » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 11:18 PM UTC

jonnathanson wrote: post #30

To some extent, lawyers (or, more accurately, law firms) are Veblen goods -- meaning that their services are perceived as being better if they're more highly priced and exclusive. There's a general perception that a high-priced lawyer is a top-notch lawyer, and that skimping on such lawyers carries a huge deal of legal risk. This dynamic plays out particularly in the BigCorp world, and especially if there's ever a pe…

My girlfriend (a lawyer) tells me that if I ever need a lawyer I should get the most expensive one I can afford, because price does roughly reflect quality.

And, I'd note that we have little else to go on. After all, we can't discern the quality of a given lawyer by the outcome of our particular case. Say your lawyer lost. Were they a bad lawyer, or was it simply that your case was poor? As a non-lawyer, you don't have the expertise to judge. Furthermore, lawyers won't discuss the qualifications of other lawyers for various reasons, so it's difficult to get any sort of objective ranking.

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

#103

Post by dctoedt » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 11:19 PM UTC

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…

> But what actually happens is that an attorney might do 45 minutes of work and round it up to an hour--even though that work is formatting in Microsoft Word that the client could have done; or printing out a Word document in order to scan it in as a PDF. Still seem worth $500 per hour?

I might charge $X00 per hour as a "blended" rate, taking into account that:

A) some of my $X00 time might be spent doing $15 per hour clerical tasks, but then I won't have to spend as much $X00 time instructing a $15 per hour person, then reviewing his work to be sure he got it right; and

B) some of my time will be spent doing work that's worth $1,000 per hour or more. (Cue Hedley Lamarr in Blazing Saddles: "My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.")

So it averages out, or at least that's the rationale. (Of course, that doesn't justify time-sheet padding.)

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

#104

Post by repsilat » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 11:25 PM UTC

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…

The article "The Myth of the Rule of Law"[1] has been linked a few times on HN, and I think it sums up this idea pretty well. It basically says that in many (most?) cases the law is subject to interpretation that depends on the politics of the interpreter (be they a lawyer, judge or member of a jury). The "letter of the law" isn't nearly as simple as people believe, ambiguity is the name of the game.

1: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

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

#105

Post by law » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 11:26 PM UTC

law wrote: post #100

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…

I appreciate the passion with which you advocate for decreased barriers to legal information. In many respects, I could not agree more; U.S. jurisprudence is synonymous with hyper-technical mutability, and the public is kept in the dark because of pay walls. But, that marks the full extent to which you and I agree on this matter. In terms of "institutionalized fraud," you are totally wrong. The legal profession is on…

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.

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

#106

Post by thinkcomp » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 11:27 PM UTC

law wrote: post #100

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…

I appreciate the passion with which you advocate for decreased barriers to legal information. In many respects, I could not agree more; U.S. jurisprudence is synonymous with hyper-technical mutability, and the public is kept in the dark because of pay walls. But, that marks the full extent to which you and I agree on this matter. In terms of "institutionalized fraud," you are totally wrong. The legal profession is on…

As much text as might exist around the subject, it looks like the "blanket prohibitions" aren't working and everyone knows it. There's a small loophole in the rule you describe--what happens if a non-attorney learns of an attorney's misconduct? Nothing, that's what!

It's not ridiculous for me to want to represent my company without having taken the bar exam--you're using a legal fiction to argue that even though I pay my company's taxes, I should not be allowed to represent its interests in court if I so choose. But even if I didn't pay my company's taxes, I would still want that option because the fictitious entity you describe is a creation of my capital and my labor and in every other respect its Board of Directors has the ability to guide its direction.

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

#107

Post by gte910h » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 11:29 PM UTC

thinkcomp wrote: post #59

rodyancy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without a regulatory body it would be too easy for an unqualified person to pose as an electrician, doctor, dentist or lawyer. Do you really want someone with no experience or training wiring your house, pulling your teeth, operating on your knee, or defending you at trial?

If I want to represent myself or my company at trial, I should have that right.

You do?

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

#108

Post by thinkcomp » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 11:30 PM UTC

law wrote: post #105

law wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the passion with which you advocate for decreased barriers to legal information. In many respects, I could not agree more; U.S. jurisprudence is synonymous with hyper-technical mutability, and the public is kept in the dark because of pay walls. But, that marks the full extent to which you and I agree on this matter. In terms of "institutionalized fraud," you are totally wrong. The legal profession is on…

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.

You really cannot be serious.

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

#109

Post by law » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 11:35 PM UTC

thinkcomp wrote: post #106

law wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the passion with which you advocate for decreased barriers to legal information. In many respects, I could not agree more; U.S. jurisprudence is synonymous with hyper-technical mutability, and the public is kept in the dark because of pay walls. But, that marks the full extent to which you and I agree on this matter. In terms of "institutionalized fraud," you are totally wrong. The legal profession is on…

As much text as might exist around the subject, it looks like the "blanket prohibitions" aren't working and everyone knows it. There's a small loophole in the rule you describe--what happens if a non-attorney learns of an attorney's misconduct? Nothing, that's what! It's not ridiculous for me to want to represent my company without having taken the bar exam--you're using a legal fiction to argue that even though I pa…

I don't understand your first point. Nothing precludes a non-lawyer from reporting an attorney's misconduct. However, the fact that they cannot be compelled to by statute irrefutably proves my point: that the practice of law must be (self-)regulated.

Regarding your second, the fact that you pay your company's taxes is irrelevant. "You" can be substituted by any other shareholder or partner; the shareholders/partners are not the corporation. The corporation is its own, independent legal entity. Because it's fictitious, it cannot make decisions, which means (as a matter of law) it's incompetent to stand trial.

Some jurisdictions may have rules deviating from this to allow corporate pro se representation by 100% shareholders in small claims matters, but they would be the exception.

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

#110

Post by law » Tue, Mar 06, 2012, 11:49 PM UTC

thinkcomp wrote: post #108

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.

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, were it to occur. By not reporting this information, they risk being disbarred and losing their livelihood. I don't generally like to endorse the efficient-market hypothesis, but it appears highly unlikely that there's a giant conspiracy that results in systemic under-reporting and non-enforcement of the rules...