4 ms·

>nobody would hire a lawyer who has only academic or theoretical experience in those areas Given the high cost of lawyers, and the general understanding that y

by setr 8y ago

>nobody would hire a lawyer who has only academic or theoretical experience in those areas Given the high cost of lawyers, and the general understanding that you avoid going to court as much as possible, as it can easily bankrupt you before achieving any good, its hard to imagine that's actually true. The current options are to pay a huge amount, or give up entirely; I'm sure there's a market for the middle ground (inexperienced but cheap lawyers), and a reason no one can access (eg regulation)

rayiner 8y ago
> I'm sure there's a market for the middle ground (inexperienced but cheap lawyers), and a reason no one can access (eg regulation) There is no such regulation. A fresh graduate could theoretically argue a case in the Supreme Court--it just requires a pro forma application and payment of a $200 fee to be admitted to the Supreme Court bar. A JD you hire for $20/hour on Craigslist can, legally, represent you in almost any proceeding, as long as she is upfront with you about the fact of her inexperience (and is willing to shoulder the malpractice risk). There is no market for inexperienced but cheap lawyers, at least for business litigation. If you're a plaintiff, you can get experienced lawyers to work on contingency. If you're a defendant, you have huge potential exposure if you lose the case. If you really have no money, the plaintiff will realize it can't get blood from a stone and will settle cheaply. It would be incredibly risky to roll the dice and try to fight with a lawyer who lacks experience.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  > There is no market for inexperienced but cheap lawyers, at least for business litigation. Caveat there - there's room in the boiler room, at least on the bigger cases. Not exactly the kind of work kids dream of when they apply to law school, though.

4 ms·

>nobody would hire a lawyer who has only academic or theoretical experience in those areas Given the high cost of lawyers, and the general understanding that y

by setr 8y ago

rayiner 8y ago
> I'm sure there's a market for the middle ground (inexperienced but cheap lawyers), and a reason no one can access (eg regulation) There is no such regulation. A fresh graduate could theoretically argue a case in the Supreme Court--it just requires a pro forma application and payment of a $200 fee to be admitted to the Supreme Court bar. A JD you hire for $20/hour on Craigslist can, legally, represent you in almost any proceeding, as long as she is upfront with you about the fact of her inexperience (and is willing to shoulder the malpractice risk). There is no market for inexperienced but cheap lawyers, at least for business litigation. If you're a plaintiff, you can get experienced lawyers to work on contingency. If you're a defendant, you have huge potential exposure if you lose the case. If you really have no money, the plaintiff will realize it can't get blood from a stone and will settle cheaply. It would be incredibly risky to roll the dice and try to fight with a lawyer who lacks experience.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  > There is no market for inexperienced but cheap lawyers, at least for business litigation. Caveat there - there's room in the boiler room, at least on the bigger cases. Not exactly the kind of work kids dream of when they apply to law school, though.