2 ms·

If a case depends on the quality of the legal council, rather than the facts of the case, haven't we already lost? We live in a market based economy, and bette

by spott 10y ago

If a case depends on the quality of the legal council, rather than the facts of the case, haven't we already lost? We live in a market based economy, and better lawyers get more money, so this is the same problem. I'm not sure how to fix this though. Any ideas? It is made all the harder by the "American Association for Justice"[0], a lobbying group made up of trial lawyers. They really don't want any sort of tort reform, which might be able to fix this problem. [0] https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000065 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000065

lordnacho 10y ago
That's exactly right, we have already lost. Can you imagine the outcry if we had a system where lawyers were randomly assigned to cases, and paid according to some fixed schedule (eg seniority)? Yet wouldn't you want a world like that? Where whenever some matter arose, it wouldn't matter whether you were rich or poor, you would get some random lawyer, as would your opponent? As to whether better lawyers get paid more, I need evidence to believe that. I'm no expert, but it seems to me the quality of legal work has a lot to do with how much time is available to do it, which pretty much depends on budget. Whenever I've dealt with a certain class of (suited) professional, I've never gotten the sense that one guy would come up with something that another guy wouldn't, given the time. If there was doubt on an issue (typically tax related) both accountants would say so, and suggest spending time on research. If there was something aggressive (again tax deals) evert accountant seemed to think so. Same with lawyers, I've never come across some line of reasoning that seemed like it wouldn't have been uncovered by every lawyer, given enough time. And also they tend to defer to specialty experts whenever they are at the end of their knowledge, so it all feels pretty standard.
vkou 10y ago
All adversarial cases heavily depend on the quality of legal council. Law is not some deterministic mechanism where you insert the facts in one end, pull a lever, and it spits out a judgement in the other. If you'd like an alternative, you could consider inquisitorial law - but barring a revolution, that will be a pipe dream.

by spott 10y ago

lordnacho 10y ago

That's exactly right, we have already lost. Can you imagine the outcry if we had a system where lawyers were randomly assigned to cases, and paid according to some fixed schedule (eg seniority)? Yet wouldn't you want a world like that? Where whenever some matter arose, it wouldn't matter whether you were rich or poor, you would get some random lawyer, as would your opponent? As to whether better lawyers get paid more, I need evidence to believe that. I'm no expert, but it seems to me the quality of legal work has a lot to do with how much time is available to do it, which pretty much depends on budget. Whenever I've dealt with a certain class of (suited) professional, I've never gotten the sense that one guy would come up with something that another guy wouldn't, given the time. If there was doubt on an issue (typically tax related) both accountants would say so, and suggest spending time on research. If there was something aggressive (again tax deals) evert accountant seemed to think so. Same with lawyers, I've never come across some line of reasoning that seemed like it wouldn't have been uncovered by every lawyer, given enough time. And also they tend to defer to specialty experts whenever they are at the end of their knowledge, so it all feels pretty standard.

vkou 10y ago

All adversarial cases heavily depend on the quality of legal council. Law is not some deterministic mechanism where you insert the facts in one end, pull a lever, and it spits out a judgement in the other. If you'd like an alternative, you could consider inquisitorial law - but barring a revolution, that will be a pipe dream.