6 ms·

The high rates that top lawyers get paid are simply market rates. We pay them too. Cheap lawyers are not a bargain. Decency and propriety? What do you even m

by pg 14y ago

The high rates that top lawyers get paid are simply market rates. We pay them too. Cheap lawyers are not a bargain. Decency and propriety? What do you even mean by that? That you think the proper rate for legal work should be lower than the current market rate? What basis do you have for such a claim?

coderdude 14y ago
To the casual observer it seems the same as when you pay a hair under $5/gallon at the gas pump in California. (Way too much.) I'd imagine that is his basis. I doubt anyone walks away saying "man, I totally just paid my lawyer a fair amount for his services."
- DanWaterworth 14y ago
  If you think $5/gallon is a lot then you've obviously never visited the UK where it's currently about $8.50/gallon.
  - coderdude 14y ago
    I made sure to note the location because I'm aware that in the UK you guys have a bunch of taxes shoved into the price of your gas. We don't. We're paying all those lovely taxes and the expensive gas prices. Maybe it comes out to being about the same? I don't really know that answer. But the gas companies are reporting "record profits" while we're paying $50-$80 to fill our tanks each time (in California). I'm just using this to illustrate most people's perception of what they pay lawyers -- way too much.
  - Domenic_S 14y ago
    And the UK has how many more miles/kms of roads than the US, again?
    - onetwothreefour 14y ago
      And that's relevant because?
      - Domenic_S 14y ago
        Because $10/gallon doesn't matter much if you're filling up your tank once a month.
smallblacksun 14y ago
>The high rates that top lawyers get paid are simply market rates Market rates propped up by having the ability to restrict entry into the market controlled by other lawyers.
- djloche 14y ago
  I would argue that hiring lawyers is like hiring developers in SV. There are many developers but if you want to hire A class developers, you have to pay A class rates and compete with everyone else trying to hire A class developers. Lawyers are no different. If you want to hire A class lawyers, you're going to pay A class rates.
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    The "A class rates" for developers rarely approach the minimum rates for legal services. The highest rate I've received from a consultancy was $200/hr, and they were working in an extremely specialized area with literally the best developers money could buy -- the only fundamental builders of that technology that weren't on board at that company were those who refuse to take a job. I know that Percona lists $300/hr as their rate, and we have the same story here; extremely specialized field, developers that are and have been deeply involved in the development of the technology for most of its lifetime. Generalized high-powered development help typically maxes out in the $100-$150/hr range, at least in my experience, and even that is difficult to get outside of California. $250+/hr is the common baseline rate in my area for real commercial legal services (that is, more than emailing a template for a contract), not the "A class rate", and I would guess areas with higher cost of living are worse off. I have associates that pay $450-$500+/hr for their legal help. I know of lawyers that charge $750+/hr; that, you may say, is the "A class" rate for lawyership. Note the disparity between development consultancies and legal firms -- we max out near a law firm's minimum rate. Comparison to other highly-skilled professionals, like developers, is indeed valuable, but only further demonstrates the exorbitance of legal pricing.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      Another way to think about it would be how high would A class programming rates be if programmers had to be members of an official organisation and if the education for skills at the high end was only accessible to those who were already members.
SwellJoe 14y ago
I had it brought to my attention recently, by a recently bar-certified attorney who has ethical qualms about it, that members of the American Bar Association and its state franchises have a monopoly on legal representation services in the US. You cannot be represented in court by someone not certified by the bar. Lawyers are the only privately licensed group that receive this level of market protection; doctors are similarly protected, but it is by a governmental entity (and one might argue that it's in even worse shape because of it). One could very easily argue that these barriers to entry lead to pricing pressure and artificial scarcity that has no direct relationship to the "current market rate". I'm only recently becoming familiar with this topic, as it's one of those things that Just Is. But, the more I learn about it, the more hesitant I become to just write off high legal fees as a result of a free market. And, the more I wonder why it is that lawyers, of all people, receive such a strong defense against competition...it couldn't possibly be that the majority of politicians are also lawyers, many of whom will return to practice after holding office, could it? Note that I'm not arguing against the idea that a great attorney is deserving of high rates, merely the idea that attorneys fees represent anything like an actual free market rate.
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  The "barriers" you describe amount to nearly nothing. The salary a lawyer commands fresh after passing the Bar is not significant enough to be relevant to this conversation. Just like most other industries, it's experience, deep knowledge of their field and skill that commands the high prices. It's market driven because, despite $500/hour rates, you can still find a lawyer for $50. Both of whom passed the Bar but they're massively different in terms of their knowledge and experience. Edit: one more thing, if you're looking for professional legal help from someone who couldn't pass the "barrier" of the Bar exam, you're probably going to get poor legal advice.
  - pi18n 14y ago
    But you cannot represent a company of which you are the owner and sole employee. So when a patent lawsuit appears, you can choose to try and fight it with a $50/hour lawyer... or pay the demands.
cookiecaper 14y ago
>The high rates that top lawyers get paid are simply market rates. We pay them too. Cheap lawyers are not a bargain. I wasn't arguing that Google should've used cheaper lawyers -- I believe the costs across the entire legal industry are ridiculously inflated, for multiple reasons. Like health care, there are a lot of elements in play and it's hard to pin any single thing down and say "this is the magic bullet", even though, also like the medical industry, there are a handful of major, easily identifiable "indecencies" in the legal industry. Note also that one can say the current costs of medicine simply represent "the current market rate" and that these services are worth what people are paying for them (and in medicine, that's more likely to be true than legal services, though the exorbitance there isn't justified either). By "decency and propriety", I guess I mean "someone whose perspective is such that a fair analysis of the real value of the services provided by lawyers can be assessed", i.e., from the perspective of a basic decent person. I understand this perspective can become foggy as one accustoms to the rates commonly charged by legal professionals, or worse, becomes a legal professional themselves, without necessarily losing decency in the general sense -- it is just that this person's "decency gland" (as it pertains to the price of lawyers) has been forced into submission in order to retain and/or provide a significant amount of legal services. Yes, I think a "proper rate" for legal work would be less than the $250/hr baseline that all of the attorneys in my area charge, just as I think a proper rate for the stitch-up of a cut should be less than the $3,300 an uninsured friend was recently charged (for him, over a month of wages. He spent less than two hours in the ER).
- Cushman 14y ago
  You haven't answered the question, though: Why does the market continue to bear what you see as exorbitant rates? Consider that we have an oversupply of bar-certified lawyers, there is no conspiracy or collusion going on. What is preventing those unemployed graduates from entering your $250/hr market, charging $150/hr, and eating the other guys' lunches?
  - cookiecaper 14y ago
    I don't have time to get too deeply into it. I addressed this point lightly and I think "there are a handful of major, easily identifiable 'indecencies' in the legal industry". A few among these: the general requirement to obtain a classical JD from an accredited law school (a few states have partial exceptions to this) in order to sit for the bar, which places a debt burden upon the new lawyer usually at least equivalent to a mortgage, rigidity and verbosity of the court system, including rules that specifically exclude self-representation and impose needlessly onerous paperwork requirements, paywalls imposed by legal references if not by the court system itself (variable by state), and of course, the realization among lawyers that people rarely have a realistic option not to pay you or one of your direct competitors, so even if explicit collusion does not occur, there is an implicit price floor that no one is willing to break lest they invoke a "race to the bottom" (a function of the serious prohibitive barriers to entry that prevent new blood from coming and breaking this floor). Why can't the loads of unemployed recent JDs swoop in and take over the market? Because like most recent grads in other fields, these JDs don't have any idea what they're doing and can't supply seriously meaningful services at any rate.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ramanujan 14y ago
The law should be expressed in code and evaluated on a computer, with all dispute confined to the values of the inputs (e.g. time of commission of a crime, geolocation of violation). It is currently written in legalese and executed by a judge. This does not consistently produce the same result for the same inputs at different locations in spacetime. If it did produce the same results, we would not need lawyers or judges to determine what was legal; we could simply make API calls and evaluate functions. You could only realize a vision like this in a new country, but that is what seasteading is for.
- binarymax 14y ago
  While it would be nice to think of law as pure enough to be calculable by machines and algorithms, the reality is that the law is subjective...the inputs you speak of are too many and the situations that occur result in problems that are NP-hard.
  - Dn_Ab 14y ago
    While I do not disagree with you, implicit in your post is an assumption that humans can solve these NP-hard problems. More likely, most examples are either not NP-hard, the average case is easy, easily approximated or we simply don't do well in handling legal cases at all. I would offer Strong AI-complete as a counter suggestion.
olalonde 14y ago
> The high rates that top lawyers get paid are simply market rates. It isn't a free market however. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_bar_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_bar_in_the_Uni...
michaelt 14y ago
Of course, within the current justice system it will often make sense to hire an expensive lawyer. You are in a spending arms race with your opponent. The problem is this is a fault of the system. We want a system that produces the fairest outcomes possible, and there's more than one way unfair outcomes can be produced. Under the current system, if I had a patent and Oracle infringed upon it, I would be denied justice because I don't have $100M of cash to pay to litigate. If we had a German-style fixed fee system where any patent dispute could be resolved for a flat fee of (say) $20,000 I would not be denied justice. The rich would not have an advantage over the poor in court. On the other hand, this would deny Google and Oracle the opportunity to spend 5,000 times as much to get the dispute analyzed in (what was presumably) a great deal of detail. Is that a bigger injustice than the fact I couldn't receive justice at all? Personally I see this Oracle/Google dispute as like Bastiat's parable of the broken window - this case represents a net loss to society of $100,000,000+ as surely as if Oracle and Google had broken one another's office windows to the value of a hundred million dollars.
eliasmacpherson 14y ago
You have to pay the market rate because you are competing for justice, and if you can't afford the market rate, you can't afford justice. Is this concept decent and proper?

by pg 14y ago

coderdude 14y ago

To the casual observer it seems the same as when you pay a hair under $5/gallon at the gas pump in California. (Way too much.) I'd imagine that is his basis. I doubt anyone walks away saying "man, I totally just paid my lawyer a fair amount for his services."

DanWaterworth 14y ago
If you think $5/gallon is a lot then you've obviously never visited the UK where it's currently about $8.50/gallon.
- coderdude 14y ago
  I made sure to note the location because I'm aware that in the UK you guys have a bunch of taxes shoved into the price of your gas. We don't. We're paying all those lovely taxes and the expensive gas prices. Maybe it comes out to being about the same? I don't really know that answer. But the gas companies are reporting "record profits" while we're paying $50-$80 to fill our tanks each time (in California). I'm just using this to illustrate most people's perception of what they pay lawyers -- way too much.
- Domenic_S 14y ago
  And the UK has how many more miles/kms of roads than the US, again?
  - onetwothreefour 14y ago
    And that's relevant because?
    - Domenic_S 14y ago
      Because $10/gallon doesn't matter much if you're filling up your tank once a month.

smallblacksun 14y ago

>The high rates that top lawyers get paid are simply market rates Market rates propped up by having the ability to restrict entry into the market controlled by other lawyers.

djloche 14y ago
I would argue that hiring lawyers is like hiring developers in SV. There are many developers but if you want to hire A class developers, you have to pay A class rates and compete with everyone else trying to hire A class developers. Lawyers are no different. If you want to hire A class lawyers, you're going to pay A class rates.
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  The "A class rates" for developers rarely approach the minimum rates for legal services. The highest rate I've received from a consultancy was $200/hr, and they were working in an extremely specialized area with literally the best developers money could buy -- the only fundamental builders of that technology that weren't on board at that company were those who refuse to take a job. I know that Percona lists $300/hr as their rate, and we have the same story here; extremely specialized field, developers that are and have been deeply involved in the development of the technology for most of its lifetime. Generalized high-powered development help typically maxes out in the $100-$150/hr range, at least in my experience, and even that is difficult to get outside of California. $250+/hr is the common baseline rate in my area for real commercial legal services (that is, more than emailing a template for a contract), not the "A class rate", and I would guess areas with higher cost of living are worse off. I have associates that pay $450-$500+/hr for their legal help. I know of lawyers that charge $750+/hr; that, you may say, is the "A class" rate for lawyership. Note the disparity between development consultancies and legal firms -- we max out near a law firm's minimum rate. Comparison to other highly-skilled professionals, like developers, is indeed valuable, but only further demonstrates the exorbitance of legal pricing.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Another way to think about it would be how high would A class programming rates be if programmers had to be members of an official organisation and if the education for skills at the high end was only accessible to those who were already members.

SwellJoe 14y ago

I had it brought to my attention recently, by a recently bar-certified attorney who has ethical qualms about it, that members of the American Bar Association and its state franchises have a monopoly on legal representation services in the US. You cannot be represented in court by someone not certified by the bar. Lawyers are the only privately licensed group that receive this level of market protection; doctors are similarly protected, but it is by a governmental entity (and one might argue that it's in even worse shape because of it). One could very easily argue that these barriers to entry lead to pricing pressure and artificial scarcity that has no direct relationship to the "current market rate". I'm only recently becoming familiar with this topic, as it's one of those things that Just Is. But, the more I learn about it, the more hesitant I become to just write off high legal fees as a result of a free market. And, the more I wonder why it is that lawyers, of all people, receive such a strong defense against competition...it couldn't possibly be that the majority of politicians are also lawyers, many of whom will return to practice after holding office, could it? Note that I'm not arguing against the idea that a great attorney is deserving of high rates, merely the idea that attorneys fees represent anything like an actual free market rate.

MichaelApproved 14y ago
The "barriers" you describe amount to nearly nothing. The salary a lawyer commands fresh after passing the Bar is not significant enough to be relevant to this conversation. Just like most other industries, it's experience, deep knowledge of their field and skill that commands the high prices. It's market driven because, despite $500/hour rates, you can still find a lawyer for $50. Both of whom passed the Bar but they're massively different in terms of their knowledge and experience. Edit: one more thing, if you're looking for professional legal help from someone who couldn't pass the "barrier" of the Bar exam, you're probably going to get poor legal advice.
- pi18n 14y ago
  But you cannot represent a company of which you are the owner and sole employee. So when a patent lawsuit appears, you can choose to try and fight it with a $50/hour lawyer... or pay the demands.

cookiecaper 14y ago

>The high rates that top lawyers get paid are simply market rates. We pay them too. Cheap lawyers are not a bargain. I wasn't arguing that Google should've used cheaper lawyers -- I believe the costs across the entire legal industry are ridiculously inflated, for multiple reasons. Like health care, there are a lot of elements in play and it's hard to pin any single thing down and say "this is the magic bullet", even though, also like the medical industry, there are a handful of major, easily identifiable "indecencies" in the legal industry. Note also that one can say the current costs of medicine simply represent "the current market rate" and that these services are worth what people are paying for them (and in medicine, that's more likely to be true than legal services, though the exorbitance there isn't justified either). By "decency and propriety", I guess I mean "someone whose perspective is such that a fair analysis of the real value of the services provided by lawyers can be assessed", i.e., from the perspective of a basic decent person. I understand this perspective can become foggy as one accustoms to the rates commonly charged by legal professionals, or worse, becomes a legal professional themselves, without necessarily losing decency in the general sense -- it is just that this person's "decency gland" (as it pertains to the price of lawyers) has been forced into submission in order to retain and/or provide a significant amount of legal services. Yes, I think a "proper rate" for legal work would be less than the $250/hr baseline that all of the attorneys in my area charge, just as I think a proper rate for the stitch-up of a cut should be less than the $3,300 an uninsured friend was recently charged (for him, over a month of wages. He spent less than two hours in the ER).

Cushman 14y ago
You haven't answered the question, though: Why does the market continue to bear what you see as exorbitant rates? Consider that we have an oversupply of bar-certified lawyers, there is no conspiracy or collusion going on. What is preventing those unemployed graduates from entering your $250/hr market, charging $150/hr, and eating the other guys' lunches?
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  I don't have time to get too deeply into it. I addressed this point lightly and I think "there are a handful of major, easily identifiable 'indecencies' in the legal industry". A few among these: the general requirement to obtain a classical JD from an accredited law school (a few states have partial exceptions to this) in order to sit for the bar, which places a debt burden upon the new lawyer usually at least equivalent to a mortgage, rigidity and verbosity of the court system, including rules that specifically exclude self-representation and impose needlessly onerous paperwork requirements, paywalls imposed by legal references if not by the court system itself (variable by state), and of course, the realization among lawyers that people rarely have a realistic option not to pay you or one of your direct competitors, so even if explicit collusion does not occur, there is an implicit price floor that no one is willing to break lest they invoke a "race to the bottom" (a function of the serious prohibitive barriers to entry that prevent new blood from coming and breaking this floor). Why can't the loads of unemployed recent JDs swoop in and take over the market? Because like most recent grads in other fields, these JDs don't have any idea what they're doing and can't supply seriously meaningful services at any rate.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ramanujan 14y ago

The law should be expressed in code and evaluated on a computer, with all dispute confined to the values of the inputs (e.g. time of commission of a crime, geolocation of violation). It is currently written in legalese and executed by a judge. This does not consistently produce the same result for the same inputs at different locations in spacetime. If it did produce the same results, we would not need lawyers or judges to determine what was legal; we could simply make API calls and evaluate functions. You could only realize a vision like this in a new country, but that is what seasteading is for.

binarymax 14y ago
While it would be nice to think of law as pure enough to be calculable by machines and algorithms, the reality is that the law is subjective...the inputs you speak of are too many and the situations that occur result in problems that are NP-hard.
- Dn_Ab 14y ago
  While I do not disagree with you, implicit in your post is an assumption that humans can solve these NP-hard problems. More likely, most examples are either not NP-hard, the average case is easy, easily approximated or we simply don't do well in handling legal cases at all. I would offer Strong AI-complete as a counter suggestion.

olalonde 14y ago

> The high rates that top lawyers get paid are simply market rates. It isn't a free market however. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_bar_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_bar_in_the_Uni...

michaelt 14y ago

Of course, within the current justice system it will often make sense to hire an expensive lawyer. You are in a spending arms race with your opponent. The problem is this is a fault of the system. We want a system that produces the fairest outcomes possible, and there's more than one way unfair outcomes can be produced. Under the current system, if I had a patent and Oracle infringed upon it, I would be denied justice because I don't have $100M of cash to pay to litigate. If we had a German-style fixed fee system where any patent dispute could be resolved for a flat fee of (say) $20,000 I would not be denied justice. The rich would not have an advantage over the poor in court. On the other hand, this would deny Google and Oracle the opportunity to spend 5,000 times as much to get the dispute analyzed in (what was presumably) a great deal of detail. Is that a bigger injustice than the fact I couldn't receive justice at all? Personally I see this Oracle/Google dispute as like Bastiat's parable of the broken window - this case represents a net loss to society of $100,000,000+ as surely as if Oracle and Google had broken one another's office windows to the value of a hundred million dollars.

eliasmacpherson 14y ago

You have to pay the market rate because you are competing for justice, and if you can't afford the market rate, you can't afford justice. Is this concept decent and proper?