3 ms·

These lawyers are literally killing us with the mess they invented; making us pay for maintenance of the same. I know this is a topic in itself. But why are we

These lawyers are literally killing us with the mess they invented; making us pay for maintenance of the same. I know this is a topic in itself. But why are we paying them?

swampthing 3y ago
Just to clarify, are you referring to a specific situation you're in, or are you referring to lawyers / messes in general?
- betimsl 3y ago
  I mean in general. If one takes a look at the operating system of, let's say the US; what would one see? A large part of it, is the mess I'm talking about. Or maybe I'm wrong, because at the end of the day, someone has to pay the salaries: money circulation yade-yada, but on the other hand, big lawyers are filthy rich; what do we make out of that?
  - swampthing 3y ago
    Hmm, I think there are probably areas where something like what you describe is true, but I don't think something like that is going on re startups in the US. From an attorney's perspective, most of the legal aspects to startups are pretty smooth and ironed out. Startup law is probably one of the more pleasant areas of law to deal with. And some startup lawyers do pretty well, but aside from the ability to invest in your clients (or join them as a GC), it's not known for being particularly lucrative. I.e. if you were a lawyer and your sole concern was making money from your practice, startup law is not the most obvious choice. But there is inherent complexity just because the system has to be able handle all the different types of scenarios that might come up. That said, I have no doubt that there may be other areas of law or life that are the way they are due to factors like what you describe!
    - betimsl 3y ago
      Thank you for understanding what I was on about. > From an attorney's perspective, most of the legal aspects to startups are pretty smooth and ironed out. This is where the system is doing some balancing; it's giving something now to gain much more later so it remains relevant.
      - jabradoodle 3y ago
        The legal system is not a single entity acting in unison and deciding not to milk something now so they can milk it later.
paddw 3y ago
These engineers are literally killing us with the mess they invented; making us pay for maintenance of the same. I know this is a topic in itself. But why are we paying them?
- betimsl 3y ago
  Except engineers put a man on the moon.
memefrog 3y ago
Nobody is forcing you to form a company. You can operate a business under your own name. Here in NZ it is called a 'sole proprietorship'. I'm sure it has its own name in the United States, but the fact remains. You can form a partnership with your other founders and operate as a partnership without forming a company. That's still how most law firms are structured, I believe. Doesn't require you to file anything or form anything or pay any fees, at least here and I expect also in the US. You want to go a step further, and take advantage of special legal rules. Those rules have a cost: you have to register a company. Companies are creatures of statute. They do not come from the common law, or from custom. They didn't evolve naturally over time. They were invented. You can choose to form a company if you want the benefits that entails. But forming a company isn't free or completely painless. Still, it's a choice you get to make. Nobody can force you to form a company. That being said, it does sound like it is a lot more complicated in the United States than it is here in New Zealand. Here the government tells you clearly how to do it, and it's pretty cheap and easy. https://www.business.govt.nz/getting-started/choosing-the-right-business-structure/starting-a-company/ https://www.business.govt.nz/getting-started/choosing-the-ri...
- swampthing 3y ago
  Same name here, re "sole proprietorship" :) I imagine it's from our shared common law background. I don't know anything about New Zealand law, but incorporating is also not a complex process in the U.S. Hopefully our handbook didn't make it sound like it was! It's more that there are various decisions to make in doing it, and different types of businesses might make different decisions. Perhaps in other countries, there is less variability around that though.
talkingtab 3y ago
We need another thread about law. We, speaking about the US, are a people who have decided to be governed by laws not by people. In order for that to work there must be a mechanism for citizens to enact the laws. And there must be a mechanism for people to use the law. In my opinion neither of these is true at this time. I see a vast number of laws enacted for the benefit of corporations compared to the benefit of people. We bail out banks. We add more work requirements to people who need food. We enact laws that are not the will of the people. As to access to the law. Many people face evictions by landlords and corporations who can afford lawyers. If you cannot afford a lawyer you lose. So landlords can file a frivolous suit and you will almost certainly be evicted. There is no downside for the landlord. There are legal services to help, but they are overwhelmed by need. If Apple for example, decides to cripple your phone battery, what is the real downside for them? At the worst they face a class action suit which will pay a law firm enough to make it worth the law firm's while and sell some batteries at cost to users. But the question is whether the punishment will stop them from the same kind of thing again. In my opinion "nope". These are two examples but the problem is systematic. This asymmetry in the ability to use the law denies common citizens access to the law. I have nothing against (most) lawyers, this is a problem with our system. We need to enact laws to change this. The real problem is that we are unable to do that. In my opinion.

These lawyers are literally killing us with the mess they invented; making us pay for maintenance of the same. I know this is a topic in itself. But why are we paying them?

swampthing 3y ago

Just to clarify, are you referring to a specific situation you're in, or are you referring to lawyers / messes in general?

betimsl 3y ago
I mean in general. If one takes a look at the operating system of, let's say the US; what would one see? A large part of it, is the mess I'm talking about. Or maybe I'm wrong, because at the end of the day, someone has to pay the salaries: money circulation yade-yada, but on the other hand, big lawyers are filthy rich; what do we make out of that?
- swampthing 3y ago
  Hmm, I think there are probably areas where something like what you describe is true, but I don't think something like that is going on re startups in the US. From an attorney's perspective, most of the legal aspects to startups are pretty smooth and ironed out. Startup law is probably one of the more pleasant areas of law to deal with. And some startup lawyers do pretty well, but aside from the ability to invest in your clients (or join them as a GC), it's not known for being particularly lucrative. I.e. if you were a lawyer and your sole concern was making money from your practice, startup law is not the most obvious choice. But there is inherent complexity just because the system has to be able handle all the different types of scenarios that might come up. That said, I have no doubt that there may be other areas of law or life that are the way they are due to factors like what you describe!
  - betimsl 3y ago
    Thank you for understanding what I was on about. > From an attorney's perspective, most of the legal aspects to startups are pretty smooth and ironed out. This is where the system is doing some balancing; it's giving something now to gain much more later so it remains relevant.
    - jabradoodle 3y ago
      The legal system is not a single entity acting in unison and deciding not to milk something now so they can milk it later.

paddw 3y ago

These engineers are literally killing us with the mess they invented; making us pay for maintenance of the same. I know this is a topic in itself. But why are we paying them?

betimsl 3y ago
Except engineers put a man on the moon.

memefrog 3y ago

Nobody is forcing you to form a company. You can operate a business under your own name. Here in NZ it is called a 'sole proprietorship'. I'm sure it has its own name in the United States, but the fact remains. You can form a partnership with your other founders and operate as a partnership without forming a company. That's still how most law firms are structured, I believe. Doesn't require you to file anything or form anything or pay any fees, at least here and I expect also in the US. You want to go a step further, and take advantage of special legal rules. Those rules have a cost: you have to register a company. Companies are creatures of statute. They do not come from the common law, or from custom. They didn't evolve naturally over time. They were invented. You can choose to form a company if you want the benefits that entails. But forming a company isn't free or completely painless. Still, it's a choice you get to make. Nobody can force you to form a company. That being said, it does sound like it is a lot more complicated in the United States than it is here in New Zealand. Here the government tells you clearly how to do it, and it's pretty cheap and easy. https://www.business.govt.nz/getting-started/choosing-the-right-business-structure/starting-a-company/ https://www.business.govt.nz/getting-started/choosing-the-ri...

swampthing 3y ago
Same name here, re "sole proprietorship" :) I imagine it's from our shared common law background. I don't know anything about New Zealand law, but incorporating is also not a complex process in the U.S. Hopefully our handbook didn't make it sound like it was! It's more that there are various decisions to make in doing it, and different types of businesses might make different decisions. Perhaps in other countries, there is less variability around that though.

talkingtab 3y ago

We need another thread about law. We, speaking about the US, are a people who have decided to be governed by laws not by people. In order for that to work there must be a mechanism for citizens to enact the laws. And there must be a mechanism for people to use the law. In my opinion neither of these is true at this time. I see a vast number of laws enacted for the benefit of corporations compared to the benefit of people. We bail out banks. We add more work requirements to people who need food. We enact laws that are not the will of the people. As to access to the law. Many people face evictions by landlords and corporations who can afford lawyers. If you cannot afford a lawyer you lose. So landlords can file a frivolous suit and you will almost certainly be evicted. There is no downside for the landlord. There are legal services to help, but they are overwhelmed by need. If Apple for example, decides to cripple your phone battery, what is the real downside for them? At the worst they face a class action suit which will pay a law firm enough to make it worth the law firm's while and sell some batteries at cost to users. But the question is whether the punishment will stop them from the same kind of thing again. In my opinion "nope". These are two examples but the problem is systematic. This asymmetry in the ability to use the law denies common citizens access to the law. I have nothing against (most) lawyers, this is a problem with our system. We need to enact laws to change this. The real problem is that we are unable to do that. In my opinion.