5 ms·

I hope you don't take this as a flippant comment, because it isn't meant to be, but the answer to your latter question is - it's what the market bears (or did b

I hope you don't take this as a flippant comment, because it isn't meant to be, but the answer to your latter question is - it's what the market bears (or did bear). There's plenty of lawyers out there - but, like in programming, there are a lot fewer good ones. In general, people are willing to pay $500 / hour because they can't find one of similar quality for a lower price.

sunchild 15y ago
Quality is very, very difficult to measure in this context. It's a bit like measuring the quality of a doctor or other professional whose advice you need to trust beyond a shadow of a doubt. In the end, law firms tend to trade on longstanding reputation, which is a fine, but imperfect, way of handling this problem. These days, there is no reason to assume that high rates == quality, or vice versa. The market will sort this out eventually: right now clients are making pricing demands on big law firms that are cutting their margins significantly. As a result, firms are ditching costs in a kind of emergency sale. My own opinion is that many firms are gutting their best assets (their new, young lawyers) in order to preserve the partner profits, and that will be their downfall. Meanwhile, the next generation of lawyers will be free to charge much less, and will actually make more money.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  In re bloat - if our unit testing took 15 years and millions of dollars and could even end up involving the Supreme Court, I think any of us would tend towards bloat just to be on the safe side. Code and the law kind of do the same thing (which is why we use the same word for it) but the platforms are vastly different.
  - Confusion 15y ago
    Hmmm, I usually argue this the other way around: if you could be sued for bugs in your software, many software products would probably be better designed, better tested and more usable.
    - Vivtek 15y ago
      Ha! I guess that could go either way, yeah!
- swampthing 15y ago
  You're right - but the point still remains, they can't find anyone of insert heuristic for quality for the same price. Completely agree that this is all just the market working itself out.
noonespecial 15y ago
Oh, I know the market bore it and then some. The question is why? And more importantly, was it an isolated fluke of an economy/politic gone crazy? If so, its about to correct fiercely and get a little extra kick from a frustrated populace who rightly felt that access to justice was snatched from them. There's plenty of lawyers out there - but, like in programming, there are a lot fewer good ones. In general, people are willing to pay $500 / hour because they can't find one of similar quality for a lower price. We still find people representing themselves because they can't "scrape together a retainer". They're not trying to hire $500/hour guys. They'd hire anyone that'd take their case for what they had. The law has become so twisted that its genuinely long, hard work just to get a case together and get in the door. There's a minimum barrier to entry that the average joe just can't meet and the most inexpensive of lawyers can't make a living doing. The work is too much and the people have too little. Its not the lawyers. The whole system is failing. Its just failing from the bottom up. Its only just now effecting the $500/hour level. If a few poor people here and there end up representing themselves its no big deal. They just operate at a huge disadvantage and get screwed. If most people are forced to represent themselves or go with an overworked public defender the whole system will crack into to very distinct parts.
OstiaAntica 15y ago
Most legal work isn't a market, it is a racket. Lawyers in Congress and state houses write deliberately complex, yet often vague, "laws" in order to create business for their pals in the legal guild (where they typically join them after the law passes). They also design various malpractice laws and penalties to generate huge payouts to the legal suits. From health care to IP to shareholder issues, "Lawyer up!" is the intentional purpose of U.S. public policy.
- ronp 15y ago
  I'm sorry to disagree with you, but a huge problem in state legislatures is that the congressmembers are NOT lawyers and write legislation that is really costly to sort out when it gets litigated.
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
    As a rule, legislators don't actually write the laws. Professional draftsmen are usually employed for this purpose.
geebee 15y ago
One huge difference is that the practice of law is still controlled by a professional association that many people feel behaves like a cartel. Anyone is free to read an online python book, install mysql, and hang out a shingle as a web programmer. In my opinion, that's a really good thing. There's a lot of disagreement around "scope" - some people are actually opposed to almost any restriction of practice, even in areas like medicine and law. Other people want to see similar associations/cartels (depending on your point of view) set up for software development. There's also a big middle ground, people who do see a justification for credentialing and licensing in some cases, but who think that the scope of what requires a license has expanded far beyond what was reasonable and needed to protect the public. I tend to fall in the middle group, but with a high degree of suspicion of cartels. There's also some funny business on the demand side for law. America's truly byzantine tax code, for instance, provides lots of employment for $500/hr lawyers. Imagine if programmers could mandate that all code had to be written in the most bloated enterprise java possible, and had to be written by people with three year graduate degrees from programs largely inaccessible to international students. This would include many tasks that could otherwise have been handled by smart people with no degree who read the book. Anyone who didn't comply could be prevented by legal force from practicing, or even sent to prison. Now you'd have something comparable to the legal profession.

sunchild 15y ago

Quality is very, very difficult to measure in this context. It's a bit like measuring the quality of a doctor or other professional whose advice you need to trust beyond a shadow of a doubt. In the end, law firms tend to trade on longstanding reputation, which is a fine, but imperfect, way of handling this problem. These days, there is no reason to assume that high rates == quality, or vice versa. The market will sort this out eventually: right now clients are making pricing demands on big law firms that are cutting their margins significantly. As a result, firms are ditching costs in a kind of emergency sale. My own opinion is that many firms are gutting their best assets (their new, young lawyers) in order to preserve the partner profits, and that will be their downfall. Meanwhile, the next generation of lawyers will be free to charge much less, and will actually make more money.

Vivtek 15y ago
In re bloat - if our unit testing took 15 years and millions of dollars and could even end up involving the Supreme Court, I think any of us would tend towards bloat just to be on the safe side. Code and the law kind of do the same thing (which is why we use the same word for it) but the platforms are vastly different.
- Confusion 15y ago
  Hmmm, I usually argue this the other way around: if you could be sued for bugs in your software, many software products would probably be better designed, better tested and more usable.
  - Vivtek 15y ago
    Ha! I guess that could go either way, yeah!
swampthing 15y ago
You're right - but the point still remains, they can't find anyone of insert heuristic for quality for the same price. Completely agree that this is all just the market working itself out.

noonespecial 15y ago

Oh, I know the market bore it and then some. The question is why? And more importantly, was it an isolated fluke of an economy/politic gone crazy? If so, its about to correct fiercely and get a little extra kick from a frustrated populace who rightly felt that access to justice was snatched from them. There's plenty of lawyers out there - but, like in programming, there are a lot fewer good ones. In general, people are willing to pay $500 / hour because they can't find one of similar quality for a lower price. We still find people representing themselves because they can't "scrape together a retainer". They're not trying to hire $500/hour guys. They'd hire anyone that'd take their case for what they had. The law has become so twisted that its genuinely long, hard work just to get a case together and get in the door. There's a minimum barrier to entry that the average joe just can't meet and the most inexpensive of lawyers can't make a living doing. The work is too much and the people have too little. Its not the lawyers. The whole system is failing. Its just failing from the bottom up. Its only just now effecting the $500/hour level. If a few poor people here and there end up representing themselves its no big deal. They just operate at a huge disadvantage and get screwed. If most people are forced to represent themselves or go with an overworked public defender the whole system will crack into to very distinct parts.

OstiaAntica 15y ago

Most legal work isn't a market, it is a racket. Lawyers in Congress and state houses write deliberately complex, yet often vague, "laws" in order to create business for their pals in the legal guild (where they typically join them after the law passes). They also design various malpractice laws and penalties to generate huge payouts to the legal suits. From health care to IP to shareholder issues, "Lawyer up!" is the intentional purpose of U.S. public policy.

ronp 15y ago
I'm sorry to disagree with you, but a huge problem in state legislatures is that the congressmembers are NOT lawyers and write legislation that is really costly to sort out when it gets litigated.
- jacques_chester 15y ago
  As a rule, legislators don't actually write the laws. Professional draftsmen are usually employed for this purpose.

geebee 15y ago

One huge difference is that the practice of law is still controlled by a professional association that many people feel behaves like a cartel. Anyone is free to read an online python book, install mysql, and hang out a shingle as a web programmer. In my opinion, that's a really good thing. There's a lot of disagreement around "scope" - some people are actually opposed to almost any restriction of practice, even in areas like medicine and law. Other people want to see similar associations/cartels (depending on your point of view) set up for software development. There's also a big middle ground, people who do see a justification for credentialing and licensing in some cases, but who think that the scope of what requires a license has expanded far beyond what was reasonable and needed to protect the public. I tend to fall in the middle group, but with a high degree of suspicion of cartels. There's also some funny business on the demand side for law. America's truly byzantine tax code, for instance, provides lots of employment for $500/hr lawyers. Imagine if programmers could mandate that all code had to be written in the most bloated enterprise java possible, and had to be written by people with three year graduate degrees from programs largely inaccessible to international students. This would include many tasks that could otherwise have been handled by smart people with no degree who read the book. Anyone who didn't comply could be prevented by legal force from practicing, or even sent to prison. Now you'd have something comparable to the legal profession.