Heh, clearly not the best description, gotta stop HNing at 4am. ;) His main point was that legal costs are out of control. One of the mentioned factors was tha

Heh, clearly not the best description, gotta stop HNing at 4am. ;) His main point was that legal costs are out of control. One of the mentioned factors was that in the U.S., law school is 3 years, unlike most international law schools which are 2, and how it's sad that most law school graduates are unable to afford their own services. He discusses how the attorneys' self-imposed ethical rules contribute to the expense and prevent things that would improve the accessibility of legal services. I'll post a transcript of his answer when I get back to my workstation. On phone now. EDIT: Video link from the hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWRzx3gZK7M&start=14409 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWRzx3gZK7M&start=14409 Here's the transcript of his entire response to the question posed by Senator Cornyn according to C-SPAN's closed captioning (which is the only place I could find it recorded; lines and capitalization quickly corrected, please excuse any errors): > I really appreciate this opportunity to be talking about > these things. Because I -- these I care about and can talk > about as a judge. I wrote that article in conjunction with > some input from a lot of wonderful people, so I can't take > total credit for it. And I thanked them. My point there was > three fold. Starting with the fact that too few people can > get to court with legitimate grievances today. That's a > fact. Too few people can get lawyers to help them with their > problem. I teach young folks law, who leave law school > unable to afford their own services. Think about that. > think about that. And hundreds of thousands of dollars in > debt. How do they go be "Main Street" lawyers? How do they > help people who need legal services? And I pointed to three > potential sources of problems where we lawyers maybe should > look internally rather than blame others for the problem. > there is plenty of blame to go around. I'm not a big blame > guy. I am a look inside guy. What do I see in my profession. > three thing I pointed to, first, our own ethical rules. It > is a very unusual profession where we're allowed to regulate > ourselves. It is quite an extraordinary privilegefvilege > privilege, usually the legislature. Lawyers regulate > themselves. And do all of our rules help clients or do some > of them help us more than they help our clients? And i > point to some that for instance in regarding the > unauthorized practice of law, why is it you have to be a > lawyer to help parents with disabled children and > administrative proceedings to seek relief under idea? Was it > an example I pointed to. Why is it that every time certain > companies that provide online legal services for basic > things get sued every time they move into a new state? Why > is it I can go to walmart and get my hair, teeth, eyes, > taken care of, but I can't get a landlord tenant contract > drawn up. Those are all results of our ethical rules. I'm > not sure whether they're worth the price that we pay for > them. It is estimated I heard I can't verify it that our > ethical rules result in $10 billion a year surplus to > lawyers and clients every year. That was one. Number two > was our own rules and procedure which yield cases like the > one we talked about, took 25 years to resolve. That's > wrong. That's wrong. Should be able to resolve cases in > less time than it takes from my law clerks to be born, > raised and get through law school. And the third thing i > pointed to was our legal educational system. Where we have > three years of post graduate education for everybody who > wants to -- who have anything to do with lawyering. The > best lawyer in the country in this history came from your > state, senator durbin, he didn't ever go to law school. And > he always said the best way to become a lawyer, read the > books. Still true. And other countries around the world > don't have three years of post graduate legal education. > this is where justice scalia and I -- a disagreement, he > thought three years was necessary for everybody. I'm not > convinced. In england where I studied, you could become a > lawyer through three years of an undergraduate degree or one > year as a post graduate degree followed by a lot of on the > job practical training. I wonder whether all that debt is > worth it. Whether it induces people to pick jobs they have > to pick to pay their debt ranger than serve the people they > like to serve. Those are the problems I talk about in that > article.