Milum, I have to say: you’re singularly unconvincing. Your grumpy old folk-sense persona may win you fans in Alabama, but I’ve seen nothing in your posts so far to make me reconsider my position. Sua’s doing a better job of arguing your position than you’ve even hinted at.
Clever anecdotes and rhetorical flourishes do not a killer argument make. Less sauce, more meat.
Actually, no, it’s not. Malpractice is a negligence standard; it is the very same as not acting in accordance with the standards of the industry. The bar has nothing to do with setting said standard; the standard is set by best practice. Malpratice is merely the term we apply to negligence by professionals - it is not a different standard.
McDonald’s was successfully sued because it deviated from industry standards when it brewed its coffee at 180 degrees, while the industry norm was 150-160. McDonald’s and its employees did not have to take a coffee-makers test and receive a license for a jury to be able to determine whether they acted negligently.
A standard of industry norms can certainly be established without the bar examination.
Milum, pipe down. Don’t “interpret” what I am writing. Your interpretation is wholly incorrect.
I freely acknowledge that fraud and abuse is likely to increase without a required law degree and bar examination. I consider it to be a fair trade-off for the benefits of opening the bar.
Consider: if a friend came to me and told me that they were out any amount less than, say, $50,000, I would tell them to eat the loss rather than initiate suit. Given the average fees charged by attorneys, and that it is very unlikely that an attorney will take on a case for such a small amount on contingency (and even if they would, contingency attorneys don’t take cases unless there is a near-certainty of success), it is extremely unlikely that my friend will make any meaningful recovery, and may well end up owing more in legal fees than the $50k.
What, to a large extent, both causes and justifies the high rates charged by attorneys? The cost of a legal education. Law school tuition rates and starting salaries for attorneys have marched in lockstep for the past 30 years.
To most of us, $50,000 is a hell of a lot of money. To most of us, $5,000-10,000 is a hit we can hardly afford. In the system as it stands, if you lose these amounts, you are SOL. But you could get representation on these types of cases if your attorney didn’t have law school loans to pay off.
So you would get more fraud and abuse. You would also get more clients represented. An appropriate trade-off, IMO.
Sua
Well, I did go to law school…
Flees.
SuaSponte
Now, now, Sua Sponte, calm down; your imperative manner is unbecoming. Besides I know much more about your meaning than you do, or ever will. You should thank me.
I am quite calm. My imperative manner in this regard is most becoming; you misconstrued my statements, and my directive to you to cease and desist is quite proper.
As for your claim that you know more about my meaning that I do, that is known as “magical thinking,” a symptom of schizophrenia. I recommend that you see a mental health care professional immediately.
Sua
Whether the mental health care professional is licensed, I leave to your discretion.
Sua
Sua: your example simply doesn’t comport with reality. I have a good friend who got a lawyer to take his case on a contingency basis after injury in an automobile accident. His recovery? $23,000, only a couple thousand less than the attorney’s estimate. I also recall being driven by a car service whose driver, upon learning I was an attorney, shared with me the $12,000 recovery his lawyer got him in a similar accident. If your case is sound, your estimated recovery would have to be much, much less before it’s too cheap for a lawyer to take on.
Attorneys are not all well-heeled big-firm lawyers wearing expensive suits and charging an arm and a leg. There are plenty of solo practitioners out there who hang their shingle and make their living on exactly the kind of (relatively) small-stakes disputes you describe.
I’m also floored by the notion, implicit in your posts, that what society really needs is more litigation rather than less, especially over relatively small amounts. De minimis non curat lex, dude.
De minimus non curat lex? When you make $25,000 a year, $5,000 is not de minimus. I’m all in favor of more litigation.
I overstated my case. I acknowledge that attorneys will take on smaller cases. But I maintain that attorneys will not take on such cases unless two conditions apply: (1) that success is all but assured, and (2) that a case will not consume much of the attorney’s time. Recovering $12,000 from an insurance company where the facts are clear and the insurance company doesn’t want to waste its time or incur attorney’s fees is far different from a case where investigation and discovery is needed and the client only has a 60% chance of winning. An attorney with student loans to pay off ain’t going to take that case, but, IMO, that client should have the ability to pursue that claim.
FTR, I don’t wear expensive suits (though I do charge an arm and a leg). I generally go to work wearing shorts and a polo shirt - there are benefits to having a predominately European clientele. 
Sua
Sua, when you start getting into sub-$5,000 territory, you’re getting into small claims court territory. Most states provide relaxed fora to handle these sorts of disputes without lawyers precisely because it would be a waste of time to bring forth the full machinery of the legal process to adjudicate such a small claim. Claims of this sort belong in front of your local Judge Wapner, not in a “real” courtroom.
I also think that when you get down to this kind of small-potatoes litigation, the limiting factor isn’t the costs of licensing (student loans and the like), but rather the simple day-to-day costs of running a law office. I suspect most practitioners handling this kind of work didn’t exactly go to Harvard Law, and aren’t carrying the kind of onerous debt that drives people to big firms.
Also FTR: when I was with a big firm, I was a khakis-and-button-down man, unless clients were present, and I too was billed at the proverbial arm and leg rate. I’m doing in-house work on a contract basis now; hopefully I’ll eventually find my way back to private practice, and hopefully I can retain that uniform. 
I feel the need to respond to this, since I’m a solo practitioner who does take smaller cases. And yeah, I’ll take a claim as small as $2500 if I have a reasonable shot of winning and there’s not a lot of work involved. As someone else pointed out, claims under $3k can be brought in small claims court and are frequently resolved in one evening. Do the math – there’s a lot of money to be made on small cases.
Last month, I settled one case for $2100, one case for $2500, and one case for $10,500. Frequently you can get this sort of money just by writing a letter.
One thing that’s nice is that a lot of the statutes I make use of – the overtime laws; consumer laws; etc., contain fee-shifting and multiple damage provisions which let me put a lot of pressure on the defendant to pay.
I suppose it’s true that if the bar were open, more meritorious cases would be pursued. But I honestly don’t believe there’s a serious problem with good or decent cases that no lawyer is willing to take.
And to the extent that there is such a problem, opening the bar isn’t the only solution. For example, a few years ago in New Jersey, the State Supreme Court endorsed a $50,000 attorney fee award against a car dealership that had screwed a customer on a consumer fraud claim that was much smaller. After that decision, I’m sure it’s not too hard in New Jersey for consumers who have been legitimately wronged to find adequate representation.
For what it’s worth, I went to a top five law school. My revenue goal is $250,000.00 per year (we’ll see if I make it or not!!) But think about the math – there’s a LOT of money to be made in small cases.
I meant no offense to solos with my Harvard line, luc; I was just pointing out that there are lower-tier law schools offering night programs and the like, and which aren’t that expensive to begin with. Lawyers graduating from such programs have to earn a living somehow, and by and large they don’t end up at big firms. Thus, I suspect most of 'em end up at small shops handling smaller claims (and as you point out, many of 'em do pretty well, too!). My point was meant to address the notion that all lawyers have onerous student debt, and not as a shot at solos.
Heck, I went to Texas Law, a top 15 school, but thanks to my then-in-state-resident status paid next to nothing for tuition (~$8,000 a year, if you can believe that). Berkeley’s similar for California residents. Even a great law school doesn’t have to cost an obnoxious sum.
Ah! For those who have ears please listen, the last few masturbating comments by the lawyers above make my point. Count the times that these attorneys said “I”. Count the times that they said “we”. Then forgive them; they know not well what they do.
Again…
“… From his youth upwards he has been a slave and that has deprived him of growth, straightforwardness, and independence; dangers and fears, which were too much for his truth and honesty, came upon him in early years, when the tenderness of youth was unequal to them, and he has been driven into crooked ways; from the first he has practiced deception and retaliation, and has become bent and stunted. Consequently, he has passed from youth to manhood with no soundness of mind in him; but he thinks he has become clever and wise. His narrow, keen, pettifogging mind reveals its helplessness when, divorced from its pleas and rejoinders, it is brought to the contemplation of the nature of right and wrong or of human happiness and misery. He can make a fawning speech smartly and neatly, but he cannot discourse intelligently on the meaning of the good life.” - Plato
Shame.
Since no-one else responded to this inquiry from a couple of days ago, I’ll take a shot at it.
That’s not my understanding of how the English system works, paperbackwriter. In the traditional system, the client goes to a solicitor with the problem. If it means going to court, the solicitor picks the barrister that the solicitor wants to handle the file. If the client knows nothing about the law, no prior experience, etc., I would think that the client would just accept the solicitor’s recommendation on the barrister. However, if the client is knowledgeable and experienced, the solicitor may well consult with the client about which barrister should be approached. The client and the solicitor then meet with the barrister to “instruct counsel.” Traditionally, it was a breach of ethics for the barrister to meet with the client without the instructing solicitor present.
I said “traditionally” because the English legal system has changed a bit recently, with solicitors now having the right of audience in some of the courts, so they don’t have to go to a barrister for everything. I don’t know how that is changing the professional dynamic. Last summer I happened to bump into the President of the Law Society at a convention (sidebar: it’s amazing how a kilt and Prince Charlie jacket can help you gatecrash!) and asked him that very question. He said that no-one was quite sure how it would shake out, but commented that was the traditional way to do things in the English legal system - make a change, and then wait and see! )
From your comments, I think you’re confusing two different things. The first is the “dock brief”, where a young barrister just starting out and in seach of experience hangs around in court, in case there are unrepresented accused. When that happens, the court might direct counsel present to take on one of the unrepresented accused and handle the case. That’s an exception to the usual rule that a solicitor is required to retain a barrister; the court fulfills that role. (Technically, any barrister present was liable to be called on by the court, as an officer of the court. The way a barrister could indicate he was not interested in taking dock briefs was to remove his wig until his own matter was called.) I believe that the dock brief system has been largely supplanted in England by publicly funded legal aid plans.
As for the reference to the cab rank - any chance you’ve read the Rumpole series? Rumpole uses that analogy from time to time, not to indicate that cases are assigned randomly, but that he will take any paying customer, just like a taxi cab. That’s the barrister’s duty - to take clients, regardless of how popular or unpopular the cause. (Can’t remember the title, but I know he uses that analogy in the story where he represents a “News of the World” type tabloid in a libel suit. I think it’s used in some of the other stories as well.)
Now we’re starting to get to it, Milum. I thought that in a free enterprise society, “greed is good” - or, in other words, the profit motive is what drives business. So the private practise of law is a commercial business - so what? Why does that make the profit motive bad (almost immoral, it appears from your posts) when applied to lawyers, but good for, say, a plumber?
I don’t see why this should come as a surprise. The private practice of law is a business, as well as a profession, as noted above. In a large market, niche economic activity becomes more important. Finding a cost-effective way to provide legal services through a pre-paid legal plan is an innovative way for a law firm to develop a particular niche with a steady stream of clients. It’s the Wal-Mart principle - volume of clientele allows you to make your profit on relatively small margins. (If I’ve understand lucwarm correctly, his business model seems to be a similar approach.) The clients benefit as well, since by pooling their resources, they get access to legal services that they might not be able to afford individually.
Apologize, Northern Piper, for not recognizing that free market forces are in effect in the United States for all occupations except for medical doctors and money grubbing lawyers. These deluded crusaders and jaded miscreants beleive that by virtue of their noble profession they are exempt from the pedestrian rules of ordinary men. They really do.
So we in America today - despite the fact that all bar assoiations concede that 100 million Americans can’t afford lawyers — continue to to be judged inequally without a fair chance of self representation.
The notion that attorneys are somehow immune to free market forces is preposterous. Pick up a phone book – see all those attorneys listed? They’re competing with one another for business.
And your assertion about bar associations saying “100 million Americans can’t afford lawyers” demands a cite. Put up or shut up.
My fiance and I are planning our wedding. A photographer we are considering charges $825/hour, with the costs of the photograph prints not included.
That is considerably higher than the rate charged by the average big-firm New York City partner. And the photographer does not have a license.
Sua
Dewey Cheatem Undhow
I did,** Dewey**, I did pick up a phone book and you were right, I saw all those attorneys listed there. And I guess, after a fashion, they were competing with one another for business.
Yeah, like Alabama Power Company competes.
Or like your local cable company competes.
Don’t be factitious, Dewey, you know very well that if you pass a law making people eat peaches (the passing of laws that increase litigation), and you limit the planting of peaches ( restricting access to the bar) , people will have to pay more for their peaches. Duh!
Sorry Dewey the proof of my assertion requires a bit more than, as you say, a cite. It requires someone on the recieving end of this post to listen with a ear tuned towards the truth and one who doesn’t pugnate “Put up or shut up!”
Oh well, I’ll try anyway…
Will you agree that there are 100,000,000 americans who can afford to pay out ( for whatever reason) less than you?
I thought so. After all if we count all the folks in famlies with less than $ 40,000 per annum income we get close to 100,000,000.
So can these folks afford out-of-the-budget, out-of-the-blue, legal fees of, oh less say, six hours of a lawyers time or $2000.
Sure many can, they can dip into their savings, sell the car, pull Johnny out of trade school, morgage their home…hey, once you think about it, these people have many options to raise money to pay lawyers. What the hell, these people can afford even more, that is, if they don’t eat, if they sell their clothes, if they get out of those dead end jobs they are in and get into something lucrative, like robbing banks…or lawyering.
Naw…even rich lawyers can’t afford poor lawyers if the reason for paying the poor lawyers is blatantly unnecessary, and is, therefore, a high level legal scam.
Gee, I must have missed the day they taught that consumers in a given area were only allowed to choose one particular lawyer for their legal representation. :rolleyes:
Law firms are not like power companies or cable companies. If you don’t like what law office #1 is offering, you can trot on down to law offices #2, and if you don’t like what you hear there, go on to #3, or #4, or #5 through #1,294. That’s called competition. That’s called the free market. Your assertion that lawyers are insulated from those pressures is silly.
It is true that bar admission requirements act as barriers to entry into the profession. It is also true that such a barrier reduces the number of persons practicing law. However, it is not true that such a barrier transforms the legal profession into a monopoly insulated from free market pressures. There are a ton of lawyers out there practicing and competing with each other for clients. **
No, it really doesn’t. You made a specific assertion: that bar associations had admitted that 100,000 Americans couldn’t afford legal advice. That demands a cite. Please show me one statement by any state’s bar association claiming this, or admit you made it up out of whole cloth. **
No, I will not. Upon what do you base this assertion? **
Why do you assume a billing rate of $333/hour? That’s quite high – it’s not far from what my time was billed at when I worked for a large law firm, and I was representing large multinational corporations with billions in revenue. I assure you, your local ten-man law firm will bill at a substantially lesser rate than what you assume.
And have you bothered to read anything lucwarm has written? He serves precisely the clientele you’re describing. Apparently, his rates are quite affordable for a person making a modest but comfortable income. His presence refutes entirely your notion that average people can’t afford legal advice.