

The disgrace of the legal services market - cwan
http://truthonthemarket.com/2010/09/29/the-disgrace-of-the-legal-services-market/

======
nroach
The article was insightful, and describes some of the problems, but is short
on solutions. A seemingly good solution would be to allow limited-scope
representations with more frequency that is common at present. In Texas, this
is permitted by Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 1.02(b)
states, "A lawyer may limit the scope, objectives and general methods of the
representation if the client consents after consultation."

However, many lawyers are still hesitant to "help out" citizens who want to
handle a case themselves but just need pointers. This is in part because many
state bars historically don't condone reduced-fee or "partial" representation.

It's assumed by many that if a lawyer helps someone with a case, no matter how
slightly, they have created an "attorney client relationship" and are then
obligated to provide full representation for that case.

Obviously, a lawyer isn't going to be comfortable doing an hour or two of work
if it means he or she will be committed to being "on the hook" for the entire
rest of that matter.

My 2c is that we need clear-cut rules for the legal profession that allow
limited scope representations without implied obligations of full
representation. You can sort of get there now in some states by being very
clear in your representation agreement, but the fear of the state bar or an
upset client bringing a grievance is a significant concern.

But, with a limited-scope representation you have to think about how that sort
of thing gets explained to a client.

For example, assume

a) the client is defending him/herself against a lawsuit b) a lawyer agrees to
"give" the client four hours of consultation on the case at half their normal
rate c) the client goes into court and loses

Does the client now have the right to come back and sue the lawyer because
they didn't learn everything in the 4 hour consult that they would have if the
lawyer had been on their side full time? Is it malpractice for the lawyer to
cut off the representation when the second hand ticks past 4 hours? What if
the lawyer knew that there were other issues that would take eight hours to
explain? Are they now obligated to provide another four for free?

It's those kind of questions that have led many bar associations to draw
relatively bright lines in the sand, even if they seem to be inefficient and
draconian.

In the end, I think limited scope representation should be allowed, as long as
the expectations are clearly communicated up front. But, that's easier said
than done.

~~~
noonespecial
If you think about it, medical doctors face almost exactly the same problem. I
think medicine has handled things a little better by creating a system of
referrals and domain experts and by training specialized workers (nurses and
paramedics) with clearly defined roles that do a large part of the work under
supervision at lesser cost.

Legal 'nurses' (paralegals with specialized training in certain areas of law)
might help things immensely.

Doctors have a PR advantage though. Most people think of doctors as highly
scrupulous individuals and give them the benefit of the doubt. The way some
lawyers (and whole branches of legal practice) have conducted themselves have
lead to a bit of a PR problem. A law practice has the (often unjustified)
whiff of dishonesty and underhanded dealing to it, not unlike used car
salesman. People just expect to be overcharged and undeserved and are more
than eager to cry foul whenever they don't get the outcome they desire. This
makes lawyers extra (perhaps over-) careful. This will probably need to be
fixed as part of the solution.

Medicine has set up an exceptional system to distribute expertise efficiently
and to diffuse and insure against its outsized liability that the law
profession might do well to investigate.

------
karzeem
Government licensing is a surprisingly pervasive way of driving up wages in a
profession. In my home state of Maryland, you need a license from the state in
order to be _a barber_.

Lawyers have it especially good for a couple reasons. First, they (and thus
their interests) are well-represented in the ranks of people who make laws, so
the laws on who gets to practice law are very restrictive. Second, legal
services are one of a small handful of things that you can be forced to spend
money on. Nobody forces you to buy an iPhone. But getting sued is something
that happens against your will, and when it happens you have little choice but
to spend money on a lawyer.

~~~
tomjen3
Ha you think that is bad - in Florida you have to get a license to be a floral
decorator.

I do wonder how they got that one past the law makers.

~~~
hugh3
It's amazing what you can get people to do by sending them some flowers.

~~~
zackattack
Or sending them an AwesomenessReminder :-)

------
gamble
The most bizarre aspect of law school is that students take on enormous debts
even though they don't actually learn how to _practice_ law. It isn't the sign
of a healthy market when there are a huge number of people who can't afford
representation _and_ a huge group of unemployed lawyers.

------
weel
To give any legal advice, you must be a licensed attorney, which requires that
you pass the bar exam, which requires (in most states) that you attend an ABA
accredited law school. This system limits the supply of lawyers, which drives
up their wages. That's bad. But what is also bad is that it allows the ABA to
impose its priorities on law schools. (<http://goo.gl/tosb> etc.)

And don't even get me started on the restrictions on law firms taking outside
capital.

~~~
rfrey
Are you saying there's a _scarcity_ of lawyers? Last I saw, the ABA said there
were >1.2 million lawyers in the USA, or one for every 255 people.

~~~
ahi
+1, a lot of top tier graduates have been having trouble finding positions the
last couple of years.

------
ahi
I am on the board of housing nonprofit. Despite being real nice, we still have
to take people to court to get an eviction processed occasionally. $250 a pop.
$250 to fill out a form and bring copies of the lease and late notice to the
courthouse.

If I recall correctly we can only recover ~$60 of court/lawyer fees from the
debtor so it is often cheaper for us to ignore a debt.

Part of the problem for us is that our general manager is a lawyer, so he puts
a premium on "building a relationship with a legal professional". I suspect
this is the case for the rest of the market where in house counsel is
reviewing compensation for the firm they just left.

~~~
ahi
This is one of my pet peeves so I need to elaborate a bit.

In our jurisdiction, renters have some decent protections which make it a pain
in the ass to evict them (as it should be). Unfortunately, because of the
ridiculous lawyer fees everybody but the lawyers lose. By the time a renter
reaches eviction they have racked up so many lawyer fees that even if they can
now pay rent they won't be out of the hole. Their credit is going to be ruined
anyway so they skip out and don't bother paying what they owe to the landlord.
So now the renter has screwed up credit and loses their home, and the landlord
has an empty apt, loses out on rent and lawyer fees while the renter could
have paid off the debt!

In other words, the lawyers charge so much they make the law irrelevant. No
one wants to get them involved at all. There are many people in my life I love
who happen to be lawyers, but there are lawyer jokes for a reason.

