With all the talk about breaking up MICROSOFT (the Fedral court has decided that it indeed was a monopoly), I am wondering why the legal industry gets away with its own monopolistic behavior. For example: the state bar associations limit competition in that industry, and it is a “closed shop”-meaning you must be a bar member to operate.The (legal) monopoly also limits competition for alternative modes of resolution, as the courts hold sway over many areas (eg land disputes, probate, etc.)
So how come the government hasn’t taken on the “last” great monopoly?
Smartass answer: Because most legislators are lawyers.
Real answer: “The Legal Profession” is in fact competitive. They just compete against each other. That’s not monopolistic, nor is it even unusual. State certification is required for a variety of professions, including barber in New York State.
One might see the legal profession as uncompetitive because attorneys are so expensive and becoming one is so arduous. But in fact, when the economy is weak large clients are often able to negotiate fees downward, get guarantees on the maximum number of hours to be spent on a matter or gain other price-type concessions from a law firm.
Regarding government and the legal profession: which is the hand and which is the glove? Not all lawyers are in government and not all politicians are lawyers. But enough are that the monopoly you see is unlikely to be “broken up.”