# How do we decrease the number of lawyers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311 "2005-07-26T22:34:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![theamazingluther](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@theamazingluther](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theamazingluther)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311/61 "2005-07-27T23:21:22Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > So, even if I’m in a minority opinion, this is not worthy of debate. I am not calling for harm or anything else to be done to lawyers. I am just asking for a simplified law code and that more young students with the intellectual ability to pass the bar choose other fields. I don’t believe this is nasty. Why would simpler laws be so bad? We strive in technology to make everything easier. Why can’t we simplify the law? > We have one profession that makes the laws, judges the laws and both prosecutes and defends the laws. I really just don’t understand any of this. First, You don’t think that people try to make the law simpler? It’s not easy. And second, what profession should make the laws, judge the laws, and prosecute and defend them? Are you suggesting that the profession be broken up into separate profession? What good would this do? Do you really think that politicians make laws more complicated because they used to be lawyers, and therefore stand to make a bigger profit in the past? This makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2005, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311/62 "2005-07-27T23:48:03Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > I am not calling for harm or anything else to be done to lawyers. > > > [@jrfranchi](#): > > > > I have to hope that they all fail the bar > > I don’t believe this is nasty. > > > [@jrfranchi](#): > > > > go into an honest profession instead. . . . lawyers are the ruination of makind A lawyer might find your statements contradictory and even disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311/63 "2005-07-28T00:40:00Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > No one says we have too many accountants. We’ve got too many accountants. If you don’t believe me, ask Dilbert. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311/64 "2005-07-28T01:55:54Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > If you don’t think law is too complicated, I can’t even communicate with you on the subject. The law is, in fact, complicated. As has been pointed out, however, there are lots of things in this world that are complicated. On this board, I am in awe of some of our scientifically-inclined Dopers, with engineering backgrounds, like yourself. The skills you have – relating to computers, household and auto repair, etc. – I don’t have. I find my computer to be very complicated. On a scale of 1 to 10, I get a 1 for mechanical know-how. My problem with your thesis is that your position seems to be that, since you personally do not understand every single law, the law is too complicated. The unspoken premise of your thesis is that the law is important. It touches every part of our lives, every day (in ways big and small), and so you want to be able to understand the law. I think your unspoken premise is true. I disagree with your thesis. I submit to you that if you spent as much time studying the law as I had, you _would_ understand it better, just as if I had spent as much time working with computers as you had, I would understand them better. But the other reality of modern life is that we can’t all be Renaissance men (and women). We can’t know everything, so people specialize. I specialize in law; you (I believe) in engineering. You have skills I don’t have; and the reverse is true as well. But here’s the other issue: you probably know and understand a lot more about the law than you think you do, or at least have enough understanding to get by. Just as I have a basic enough understanding of engineering that I’ll know when I’m in over my head on an issue and need help. What was offensive about your hijack in a thread wishing people well at a stressful time in their lives, and some of your posts here, is that you blame the perceived problems with the legal system _solely_ on lawyers. I think even the lawyers in this thread would agree that there are problems with the legal system. I think we’d agree that _some_ of those problems lie with lawyers – we cannot deny that there are bad lawyers, just like there are bad engineers, bad plumbers, and bad carpenters. Other problems lie with the judiciary; still others with the legislature (who may be trained as lawyers, but are, in fact, politicians, an entirely different career). But the bulk of the problems with the legal system are due to everyone else – the general populace, who (i) elected the legislature and sometimes the judiciary; and (ii) bring lawsuits. Without clients, lawyers would have a harder time abusing the system. But if your point is that laws are too complicated, again, I don’t think you’ll find too much disagreement with that point. It’s just that saying that is useless. It’s the functional equivalent of saying, look, it’s night time. Why, yes, it is. But what do you do about that? (You’ll notice in this thread a fair number of responses have been, “Yes, the law is complicated and should be rewritten. You start.”) I think your OP would have garnered an entirely different response (and possibly engendered an actual debate) if, instead of taking a swipe at lawyers as the “ruination of mankind,” you would have said: > [@Potential OP](#): > > Laws are too complicated. Many people don’t understand the laws that govern their lives. In fact, many people get sued and because the law can be difficult to understand, they have to hire a lawyer to help them. Sometimes the lawyer helps; sometimes s/he doesn’t. But the laws ought to be made easier for people to understand and the courts ought to be easier for people to navigate, so that they don’t have to hire lawyers to do what ought to be simple things – buy or sell a house, get divorced, adopt a child. Laws are written by lawyers, who have a vested interest in making the laws complicated (because the more complicated the laws are, the more work there is for lawyers). How do we give lawyers an incentive to write laws that are simpler to understand? I bet some people would take you up on that, and you might get some interesting responses. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311/65 "2005-07-28T02:12:31Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > … > > I bet some people would take you up on that, and you might get some interesting responses. I will concede many of your points. You sound very reasonable and defended your position/tore mine very well. A large part of this post was letting off steam. It was a Rant as much as a Debate. Upon reflection, and moderator wagging; I agree that the hijack of the post the other night was wrong, and I will not be guilty of such an act again. I did not understand some of the expected rules of conduct. I still think we have too many laws on the books and that we could systematically reduce them. Maybe start with specific non-criminal areas. My state {NJ} should simplify it house closings. Tax laws are very complicated, seemingly to allow Business interests and the wealthy to continue to find loopholes. (I admit this is my perception and not definitely fact) Personally injury suits could probably be cleaned up, with some strict monetary guidelines codified. This would also go a long way toward decreasing the lawyer jokes. I am going to stop there for now. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311/66 "2005-07-28T02:23:09Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > I am going to stop there for now. Me, too, since it appears we’ve reached an acceptable compromise. ---
**Author:** ![Fredescu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/73ab20/32.png) [@Fredescu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fredescu)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311/67 "2005-07-28T03:21:08Z")
[This](http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/06/1070625578964.html?oneclick=true) might be an interesting article for those debating this topic. The basics are that Bob Carr, premier of NSW (like a Governer in the US), introduced a “Civil Liability (Personal Responsibility) Act” which “introduced caps and thresholds on compensation and shifted the balance towards greater personal responsibility to avoid long and expensive court cases.” According to the NSW Bar Association “a quarter to a third of all barristers would disappear or have their practices adversely affected.” Carr was unapologetic stating that lawyers should “Get retrained and start another job.” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Highwayman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@The\_Highwayman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Highwayman)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311/68 "2005-07-28T03:26:20Z")
I’m still waiting for a simpler automobile; completely modular and requires no special tools or techniques. Then again, I want a simpler computer; completely modular, intuitive, requires no special software, and is cross-platform compatible with every operating software in existence. And while I’m at it, I want to live in candyland and feed on the cool milk of chocolate cows all day long. Systems are complicated for many reasons. Many times, jargon and bureaucracy are invented to make dealing with the system more efficient for those who have to deal with it. The unpleasant side effect is that this then makes that system less accessible to outsiders. **My question is, if you feel this way about the legal system, do you also feel the same way about the medical field?** I mean talk about a racket. Some of the posts in this thread are typical bellyaching of those who haven’t given much thought to their argument and simply blame lawyers for all the woes of society. That would be like me blaming the medical profession because I do not have the same access to medical care that someone like Bill Gates has. Personally, I think that most people who complain about lawyers are the same type who complained about politicians until their party took over (which as it turns out is business as usual). Now the scapegoats are all these lawyers who chase ambulances and the like. Even if this were true and most lawyers did engage in such practices, how are the people that hire them less culpable? Furthermore, I hope you aren’t like my brother-in-law and spew the typical republican “trial lawyers are bad” bullshit and then goes and sues the city because someone had hidden their pit-bull from the dog licensing authorities and the dog was unlicensed when it attacked his mother. **Finally, let us summarize the argument:** 1. Inaccessibility to the law is bad and it requires a lawyer to navigate. 2. Frivolous lawsuits are also bad. 3. Access to the law in order to sue someone requires a lawyer (see no.1). 4. Making the law more accessible to “regular joes” is good and would mean less lawyers. 5. Therefore, more access to the law means more frivolous lawsuits and less lawyers. Is this your reasoning because this is what it looks like to me? ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311/69 "2005-07-28T06:52:13Z")
Can I ask for some clarification? It’s been said repeatedly in this thread that the law is complicated. But it’s also been said that a reasonably intelligent person can read and understand it. Am I the only one who sees a _possible_ conflict between these two statements? The way I see it, either: 1. The law is complicated. Meaning, in order to understand more than the basics, you’d have to have special training in the subject. (Just like, in order to be a doctor, you have to do more than read a few medical thrillers and watch “ER”.) 2. The law is not complicated. It can be understood, at least mostly, by non-idiots. No extensive training is required, although such training can of course increase ones understanding of the law. Granted, “complicated” isn’t a word that’s easy to pin down. What seems complicated to me might not seem complicated to somebody else. Still, it seems unfair to say that the law is complicated because it has to be, but also say that it isn’t really that complicated at all. What am I missing? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311/70 "2005-07-28T07:38:39Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > No, just two. (Rule 1: All laws shall carry a sunset date not more than twenty years from the date on which they take effect. Rule 2: All current laws shall sunset twenty years after the adoption of Rule 2.) > . This has exactly two paths, and both of them bad: 1. Every 19 years and a few months, they pass an Omnibus bill which simply resets ALL the laws at once. or 2. They screw up, and the law against murder or something slides off the books for a week or something. If you think there is a stupid law on the books, find it and petition that legislature to repeal it. Most laws are there becuase a significant and influential body of citizens wanted that law passed. We call this system “democracy”. Oddly, the same system that got the laws onto the books can get them off. How many letters and petitions have you done up? Now sure- there are times and places where the lawyers have gotten out of hand, and gotten lawsuit happy. CA for a while was one of them- and to some extent it still is. So now I am going to ask for “CITE” from any and all dudes that claim we have too many laws. Find us a significant law that shouldn’t be on the books- with a cite and a link. Don’t get me wrong- I know there are some obsolete laws out there- which are also not enforced. There are also a few laws passed which benefit only a very small group- but which don’t really impact the vast majority either. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311/71 "2005-07-28T10:00:18Z")
I don’t see **BackKnight’s** conflict, at least in contract law, which is what I’ve run into. In the consultations over the course of the year we were involved with the suit, the attorneys would expain the various factors involved. These factors included such things as how much would be reasonably considered damage and what would not be. Also, things which were key to our case, such as when faxes were evidence to a contract. I rarely ran into anything which I couldn’t readily understand when explained. (And it’s cheaper when you pick up fast on what they’re telling you. 😉 )Now, I did have one course in engineering law (mostly basic contract law) so it wasn’t out of the blue, but still, it didn’t seem as difficult to comprehend for me as, say, some of the upper division mathmatic classes. However, doing it ourselves would have been completely out of the question. Sure, it’s fairly easy to undestand when someone says “This is X therefore law Y applies.” It an entirely different kettle of fish to _look_ at X and know that law Y applies. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311/72 "2005-07-28T11:50:21Z")
> [@BlackKnight](#): > > What am I missing? Volume and integration. Most individual concepts and rules are simple. The challenge comes in keeping track of a great many simple concepts and rules, and being able to know which ones to apply when, and how to handle conflicts between them. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311/73 "2005-07-28T11:54:06Z")
Social planning, poli-sci, legal theory, tort reform, etc. are all first rate topics of discussion. A rant about how law is a dishonourable profession is a non-starter, and is very offensive. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2005, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311/74 "2005-07-28T13:57:09Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > **jrfranchi** > I’m sorry, but computer programmers and analysts are the ruination of mankind. I plead with all aspiring computer programmers and analysts, please go into an honest profession instead. It is not too late. I have to hope that all programmers and analysts fail their certifications. I wish we could do away with the profession. Interestingly, my job involves writing computer programs AND working directly with lawyers on legal matters and I don’t have any formal education in either field. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-we-decrease-the-number-of-lawyers/314311.md?page=3)