Re: Lawyers

[andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx>]

There are lots and lots of arguments that lawyers are
parasites, that they do is write and enforce rules
that take rent, that society would be better off
without them. One could (many have) write a book on
the subject. Laywer bashing is very old. Probably
started shortly after the first lawyer asked for his
fee. And certainly lawyers (like all agents) do not
avoid principal-agent problems, or the problem
(identified below) taht if you have a hammereverything
looks like a nail, as well as sheer unscrupulous
rent-taking. But in that they are no different from
anyone else.

The main thing that David and I have been insisting on
is this. In a complex society there are going to be a
lot of rules and many disputes, many of which will
relate to or be governed by those rules. Mastery of
the rules is a full-time job for trained
professionals, not just because we write the
obscurely, but because it is very hard to write them
to cover what is needed. If they are few and general,
they need interpretation and application to the
situation. Think of the Bill of Rights. If they are
precise and specific, they are often mind-numbingly
complex. Think of ERISA or David's beloved Bankruptcy
Code. Therefore it is inescapable that you need folsk
like us to navigate, to tell you what the legal costs
and risks of your activities might be,a nd to help you
enforce or avoid those costs when the law allows. If
you abolished the profession, the need would remain,
and you would do it fae less efficiently than I.

jks


--- Bill Lear <rael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 17, 2003 at 07:23:46 (-0700) andie
> nachgeborenen writes:
> >I should preface this by saying that I do not think
> >that David's and my profession is parasitical,a nd
> >that we do "add value." ...
>
> Haven't been following this too closely, but (though
> my wife is an
> attorney) it appears that there is also an argument
> that lawyers add a
> great deal of cost.  Lawyers on both sides have very
> strong incentives
> to move the solution to polar ends of the "solution
> space", not where
> it "belongs" (i.e., the "point of justice").  Doug
> Henwood has made
> some remarks (perhaps more than that) about the
> problems with such a
> model.  It seems to me that inevitably there is a
> great deal of cost
> associated with the movement to polar ends of the
> solution space and
> that only by examining this can you appreciate the
> true cost (as well
> as value).
>
>
> Bill


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com