Are lawyers' Ethical Obligations the reason they are so hated?

[Richard_Parker]

I agree with some of that. Points of disagreement:

@brickbacon

Which is to be expected with any self-fulfilling prophesy.

The fact that it is self-fulfilling does not make it false. And there are factors that make it not entirely self-fulfilling. If your teacher is the one who invented the concept you’re studying, there is some advantage in that, for example.

@brickbacon

Second, as I said before. Many prospective law students cannot afford to go to an expensive school. For some people that might mean 150k in debt plus time and opportunity costs. It’s becoming harder for anyone to justify that if they know that getting a job where they can command a high salary is a crap-shoot.

Before our present economy, 95% of students at top schools could have stable corporate law jobs if they want them. To the extent that has changed or is changing, so is salary and everything else your citations talk about. Moreover, loan repayment programs make it so loan debt is nearly irrelevant if one wants to do public interest work.

@brickbacon

It does to some extent. Your point obtains, but I think it’s glossing over the fact that the top law schools have astronomical tuition.

And so do many non-top schools. And many top schools have low (relatively-speaking) tuition. I haven’t run the correlation, but I really think it isn’t very strong. If the point is that top schools filter our poorer but stronger students, I see no reason to believe that. One factor you haven’t mentioned is scholarships. Perversely, the biggest scholarships tend to be offered by the best schools because they can afford it.

@brickbacon

Yes, in general, you can finance your education with debt, but that pretty much means you have to get a corporate job to make it worth it.

Not true. Again, at top schools, loan repayment programs make debt an irrelevant consideration for public interest work.

[villa]

@brickbacon

Agreed. But then again, this is why most sports have tried to limit such egregious pay by creating salary caps. And again, people often (correctly) complain that athletes are overpaid in many circumstances. Doesn’t make the criticism less valid.

Cite that “most sports” have salary caps, please.

And by the way, it is the existance of the salary cap in the NFL that leads to rookies being paid more than established veterans. But let’s not let facts get in the way, shall we…

So, lawyers are overpaid and athletes are overpaid. You live, at least to an extent, off said overpayment. Once again, what is it that you do for a living that is so noble, respected and fairly (or under)paid, and how does it qualify you to sit in judgment on everyone else.?

[not_alice]

@villa

Cite that “most sports” have salary caps, please.

And by the way, it is the existance of the salary cap in the NFL that leads to rookies being paid more than established veterans. But let’s not let facts get in the way, shall we…

So, lawyers are overpaid and athletes are overpaid. You live, at least to an extent, off said overpayment. Once again, what is it that you do for a living that is so noble, respected and fairly (or under)paid, and how does it qualify you to sit in judgment on everyone else.?

I wrote a long answer to brickbacon’s post but it went poof I raised the same point about salary caps as well.

Many sports, the players compete for no salary at all. Tennis, golf, bowling, come to mind, I am sure there are others. In those cases, you don’t play well, as in better than others in a tournament, you don’t get paid.

I am pretty sure if you list the sports in the olympics (which are still not “all sports”) you will find most do not have professional options, and of those that do anywhere in the world, very few have salary caps.

In the US, salary caps in sports raise anti-trust issues. The same would be true if employers colluded to limit the salary for a class of employees.

So since brickbacon can’t imagine an alternative system, maybe we can start here.

Imagine if those who employ lawyers, big firms, corporate, government, non-profit, and small firms colluded to limit salaries for lawyers.

What would stop the same and other employers from colluding to limit the salaries of other professions after that?

Is that really the world anyone wants to live in?

BTW, last night I started re-watching the documentary “The Corporation” where similar issues are raised regarding corporate income.

Even if we could roll back the present system, was there a better prior one, or is there a better new one?

If so, let’s discuss those, rather than whining about the existing system.