<p>It is all a matter of degree. A little bit of alcohol can be a good party. Too much alcohol can be a very bad drunk or even alcohol poisoning. A certain number of lawyers is essential to a free and efficient society and economy. Too many lawyers is counterproductive. We are closer to having too many lawyers than too few. </p>
<p>Law was once a noble profession; it is no longer. It is now a business. Lawyers who are good at business do well; those who aren’t don’t do so well.</p>
<p>
Ok. Lawyers are merely the best at extracting rents.</p>
<p>1) Requiring a graduate degree to sit at the bar.
2) Allowing only a lawyer to give legal advice (probably one of the poorest rules ever devised).
3) Absolutely ludicrous tort system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Life is more complex now than in the past. For example, it wasn’t so long ago that it was perfectly legal for various institutions to practice racial discrimination. Passage of civil rights laws has created a demand for many lawyers who spend much of their time prosecuting and defending racial discrimination disputes.</p>
<p>In the past, an administrative agency could deny some government benefit to you, and that was basically that. Nowadays you are usually entitled to a hearing before an administrative law judge. Again, this creates new opportunities and demands for lawyers.</p>
<p>I realize that there is a lot of nostalgia for when life was simpler at the turn of the last century. But life was also a lot worse in many ways back then.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you give cites and specific examples for this? Thanks in advance!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you give cites and specific examples for this? Thanks in advance!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you are actually wrong on this point. It looks to me like your own jurisdiction (California), as well as some others (including New York) allow people to practice law through apprenticeship and without having any graduate degree.</p>
<p>cites: <a href=“http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/2cbj/96dec/3art1.htm[/url]”>http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/2cbj/96dec/3art1.htm</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=781886[/url]”>http://www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=781886</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see how lawyers are particularly special in this regard. Can non-doctors give medical advice?</p>
<p>Anyway, it may be, in part, a barrier to competition, but it’s also, in part, to protect the public. For example, I gather you are a non-lawyer. I’ve noticed that a lot of non-lawyers have a tendency to think that they know the law a lot better than they really do. You asserted that one needs a graduate degree to practice law. This was false. Any time a legal issue comes up on an internet discussion board, there is a decent chance that a few non-lawyers will chime in with some really ill-informed statements or advice. Lawyers are not perfect, but getting through a few years of law school/training and the bar exam really helps.</p>
<p>It’s not outrageous to protect the public (to some extent) from non-lawyers who think they know as much as lawyers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would you care to provide specifics? i.e. what specific aspects of the tort system make it “absolutely ludicrous”?</p>
<p>Another reason for the higher number of attorneys now versus before, is the fact that attorney inhabit an expanded number of positions that do not require legal degrees, but for which extensive legal knowledge is valued. For instance, we now see more attorneys as sports agents, insurance claims adjusters for insurers and brokers, reporters (a la Greta Van Susteren), etc. This is a result of having a pool of lawyers to employ, but also because, as society grows more complex, there are more rules to enforce and to understand, as lskinner has pointed out. </p>
<p>As for “allowing only a lawyer to give legal advice (probably one of the poorest rules ever devised)” : anyone can give advice. But if you want to charge for it, and be accountable for its accuracy, then you would be wise to learn the subject. If I as a consumer want to buy legal advice I want someone I can be relatively comfortable has learned the subject matter and has “been there, done that”. I probably will want a third party to help me certify that the person I’m paying is in fact qualified to give me the advice I need. And voila, you’re back to law schools and passing the bar. Amazing how that works out!</p>
<p>Tax accountants give tax law advice. Real estate settlement agents give real estate legal advice. Real estate sales agents give contract law advise. Patent agents give patent law advice. There are just some of the examples of others who practice law but are allowed to do so in many states.</p>
<p>
If</a> anything it’s mixed. The only across the board case I’m familiar with is Patent Bar, which is how it should be. One doesn’t even need to be an apprentice for that. One simply has to know the material.</p>
<p>
Anyone can give medical advice.</p>
<p>
I don’t want to be protected.</p>
<p>
Yep.</p>
<p>
That statement means nothing without relevant statistics.</p>
<p>
And? In 42 states you do. It’s more the rule than the exception. In fact, it’s such a small minority of people that go this route I’d reckon most lawyers don’t even know about this!</p>
<p>
Ok.</p>
<p>
I’m sure a few lawyers wouldn’t have known that as well, so I’m failing to see the point.</p>
<p>
Obviously. However, by making it illegal one is creating a situation where one has to become an apprentice or get a graduate degree. Basically, they are outlawing possible solutions before they are available. It just restricts the amount of people who can give legal advice. </p>
<p>
This statement is meaningless. Is it outrageous to give the bar a 1% pass rate? Many would think it is, but like UCLAri said, it’s done in Japan. And I bet the quality of lawyers there is way higher than in the US on a pure knowledge basis.</p>
<p>
Ludicrious to the point that lawyers claim the tort system needs to be reformed. I’ll follow their lead on this one.</p>
<p>
I don’t have a problem with people going to school for the hell of it.</p>
<p>
Yes.</p>
<p>
This is different from the previous two sentences. And what about Japan? It’s obvious there are multiple ways the problem can be solved.</p>
<p>
Incorrect. They can give advice, but they do so illegally.</p>
<p>
Of course, but I don’t think going to school four 3 years (in the vast majority of situations) and then passing the bar needs to be the requirement. It’s called the 1st amendment.</p>
<p>
Good for you. Not everyone wants that.</p>
<p>
1st amendment. I have no problem with a non-lawyer giving legal advice.</p>
<p>
I actually don’t have a problem with the Bar that much. I think it’s way to easy to pass. </p>
<p>Law schools are probably the bigger issue. Law is a graduate degree within the US. Why? There is no reason for that. This is a requirement created by the Bar and only serves in creating wealth transfer to universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you unfamiliar with the definition of rent seeking behavior?</p>
<p>From the Wiki:</p>
<p>In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization, or firm seeks to make money by manipulating the economic environment rather than by making a profit through trade and production of wealth. The term comes from the notion of economic rent, but in modern use of the term, rent-seeking is more often associated with government regulation than with land rents.</p>
<p>Rent seeking generally implies the extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity, such as by gaining control of land and other pre-existing natural resources, or by imposing burdensome regulations or other government decisions that may affect consumers or businesses. While there may be few people in modern industrialized countries who do not gain something, directly or indirectly, through some form or another of rent seeking, rent seeking in the aggregate may impose substantial losses on society.</p>
<p>
‘Unauthorized practice of law’ laws would be the premier example of this.</p>
<p>
That is your response? Many feel that discrimination shouldn’t be illegal. Hell, I guess I could file this under things that are immoral or unneeded regulation (I mean, unless someone wants to make laws that people need to be equal opportunity daters or shoppers - one can’t have it both ways).</p>
<p>
Yeah. There generally is a correlation in the amount of lawyering when the government gets bigger.</p>
<p>
No nostalgia here. Life “back then” was horrid. What makes it better is related mainly to technology, not the government getting bigger.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not so sure about that. For example, many times I have heard nurses say something like “I’m not allowed to answer that question – you need to talk to the doctor.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again you are wrong. There are specific education and/or training requirements required to sit for the patent bar.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I don’t want to pay taxes. So what? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see why. Some things are obvious enough without doing a study. It’s obvious that men are generally taller than women. And it’s obvious that lawyers are generally more knowledgeable about the law than non-lawyers.</p>
<p>You yourself are a good example. In your last 2 or 3 posts you made two false statements about the law. It’s not outrageous to try to protect the public from this sort of incompetence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Licensed attorneys are less likely to shoot their mouths off if they don’t know something. That’s the point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. And the authorities have also restricted the amount of people who can write drug prescriptions. Or who can inspect a boiler. Or operate a truck.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Possibly. It’s up to the legislature to strike a balance. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s see if I understand your argument. You are saying (1) there exist lawyers who believe that the tort system needs to be modified; and therefore (2) based on this understanding you conclude that the current system is ludicrous.</p>
<p>Do I have you right? Or am I missing something?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope, I’m well aware of it. In fact I learned all about it in law school.</p>
<p>Now can you please give examples of the “many lawyers” who practice rent seeking behavior and create very little value?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems to me that many many professions and jobs have education and licensing requirements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that’s my response. The question was about why we have more lawyers today than in the past. Which I answered (in part). You may not like the answer, but there it is.</p>
<p>And yes, it would probably be more efficient, from an economic standpoint, to let employers discriminate as much as they please.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Technology creates opportunities that require rule of law (and lawyers) to exploit. Not to mention government regulation.</p>
<p>For example, the invention of radio made us all better off. If you are on a vessel that founders, it’s great to be able to call for help. It’s great to be able to get weather reports, traffic information and to listen to music. </p>
<p>But the invention of radio also required the government to get bigger. We needed an FCC to regulate the airwaves and to set up rules of competition for cell phone carriers. It also costs a lot of money to build a cellular network. How do you line up the billions of dollars in capital necessary to do it? You need hundreds of pages of contracts. You need lawyers.</p>
<p>It is definitely illegal to give medical advice if you present yourself in any way as a medical practitioner not licensed for that level of advice. As lskinner points out, nurses cannot diagnose and they cannot prescribe. </p>
<p>Society has a stake in making sure that people are what they present themselves to be, with appropriate training that goes with their position. Mr P, you are perfectly welcome to disagree with both points. You can reject the whole concept of rule of law, for that matter. But the rest of us tend to want plumbers who really know how to fix pipes, and physicians who didn’t just hang out a shingle after watching ER, or attorneys who do more than guess.</p>
<p>Certainly allowing people to lie is never good. But there’s a market question involved here: what if it’s okay with Payne that I’ve only finished my first year of medical school and he’s willing to pay me a greatly reduced rate to see him?</p>
<p>Obviously no society would ever want nurses pretending to be doctors – but there are some people who might benefit a great deal from nurses who were permitted to diagnose or prescribe drugs.</p>
<p>bluedevil - There are plenty of nurses diagnosing and prescribing drugs already. My elderly parents live in a very rural area with too few doctors. My mother’s cardiologist has so many patients, he rarely gets around to actually seeing them - except in the emergency room. She sees the nurse practitioner regularly, discusses her drug regimen with her and the nurse makes recommendations. My mother is told that the doctor reviews everything but who knows.</p>
<p>ah, cartera, you are getting specific. When I said “nurses” I probably should have said “rn’s”, but I didn’t want to get too far off the point. You’re referring to nurse practitioners, which is a different license entirely. There are many, many levels of licenses, with different activities permitted at each level (CRNA’s, LPN’s, nurse midwives, etc.). Nurse practitioners are indeed allowed to prescribe and diagnose within certain ranges, just as physician assistants may legally do close to what MD’s can do. </p>
<p>bluedevilmike: okay, let’s say Mr P pays you a greatly reduced rate to see him. For this reduced rate, are you willing to tell him that you can treat his cold, but that if he happens to have leukemia, you won’t notice it? The informed consent form would have to be a real doozy.</p>
<p>Again, it’s a market question. As long as he’s fully aware of what I am and am not capable of, then Payne, I believe, is arguing that he should be permitted to decide what my services are worth – and I think his position is that he should be permitted to pay me that rate in exchange for my (limited) services.*</p>
<p>Rather than a first-year medical student (i.e. basically useless), let’s pretend I’m an R.N. In practice, what would happen is that I’d either say he does or doesn’t have a problem and roughly decide how severe it is. I’d tell him to go home and give it time, or I’d prescribe a couple things to try, or I’d refer him onwards. Such a system would not be perfect, but, then again, neither are physicians – and at least this might be faster and cheaper for those who wanted to see if their sore throat was streptococcus (should be treated) or not.</p>
<p>There would be serious, serious disadvantages to such a plan – the biggest one being that you’re never really sure what kind of informational symmetry a patient is working with, or whether a large HMO with monopoly power might start cramming such an arrangement down people’s throats. Or even the externalities inflicted by infectious diseases that might not be caught – in this case, it might be wise to force citizens to be more careful than they’d independently want to be.</p>
<p>But there would be some advantages, too.</p>
<p>And it’s not like doctors are infallible, either. (McGlynn E.A. et al., 2003.)</p>
<p>*In this particular case, my services would be worth basically nothing unless he has an extremely rare disease. (Ironic, isn’t it, that that’s what we start off with?)</p>
<p>
A good question, no doubt. I think it’s actually self-imposed though.</p>
<p>
You don’t need a graduate degree or be an apprentice to sit at the bar. </p>
<p>
I don’t want to be protected from speech. That’s what we’re arguing.</p>
<p>
In the previous statement you said “a lot” twice. It makes the sentence virtually meaningless from an empirical perspective.</p>
<p>Also, your meaning changed between the two posts. I’m not arguing that non-lawyers know more than lawyers. I was skeptical that “a lot” of non-lawyers actually think they know “a lot” about the law. Damn, talk about vague.</p>
<p>
Bar statement wasn’t even false. I’m an engineer and looked at becoming a patent agent! I was simply stating the fact that one doesn’t need to be an apprentice or have a JD to sit before the bar. Now, if you really want to count the ridiculous minority “apprentice” rule against me - whatever.</p>
<p>
On that specific point, I’m not so sure. I will be polling some friends.</p>
<p>
Apparently you aren’t understanding the argument. I disagree with ‘unauthorized practice of law’ laws because it restricts free speech. Nothing you described restricts free speech.</p>
<p>
Possibly the balance sucks?</p>
<p>
Tort reform is a decent sized political issue in the US. If an issue gets to that size, generally there is a reason for it. If you have a problem with the word “ludicrous” then take it out of the sentence.</p>