Quick question about legal services for the poor

[timotheeeee]

I'm in a legal profession class, and one of the most compelling statistics my professor mentioned was that 70%-85% of legal services go unmet in the United States. In the next sentence, my professor said that this was a problem that the market isn't fixing, which is one justification for the existence of movements for further regulations of lawyers, including mandatory pro bono (not adopted in any states) and mandatory reporting of pro bono hours (adopted in 3 states).

I thought it was interesting that my professor claim this is a problem the market isn't fixing, when he seemed to admit that it is a problem caused by the high barriers to entry that the bar creates. Summarized, he phrased it closely to "Lawyers are cadillacs. What if the client only needs a Kia?"

So he seems to recognized that the short supply problem is (at least somewhat) created by regulations (justified, in the eyes of the bar, by the creating highly competent lawyers and making the profession better overall), but then denounces the market as not fixing this problem. While comments on this would be appreciated, this isn't my larger point.

Is this a microcosm for all of (or a lot of) regulations of the market? Do regulations create problems for the poor (the regulations being justified for whatever reasons), with those problems being the impetus for further market intermeddling?

I'm not an ACer, I don't quite have my mind made up about this, yada yada, disclamer disclaimer. I'm just struggling with the rationales lawyers come up with for justifing self-regulation, while at the same time lamenting statistics such as the one above. The vast majority of lawyers, and law students, believe that without these regulations the profession is doomed into a downward spiral that ends up with every lawyer being an ambulance chasing, crooked, corrupt, incompetent shyster, and I just don't buy it. To me it just seems like a reason to cling to the financial advantage the monopoly brings.

Thoughts? I know there are some lawyers around this forum--your thoughts would be the most helpful, especially if you're feeling the same struggle.

[WordWhiz]

Lawyer and libertarian here. Licensing does make the average lawyer/doctor/plumber/etc better than if there were no licensing. But it does so at the cost of having fewer of them. There might be some level at which legal or medical services are so bad that it's actually harmful, but it's probably pretty low--certainly lower than it is now. Lowering licensing standards to allow thousands of more lawyers every year would allow the poor access to below average, but still useful, representation.

I should note one important difference between lawyers and most other professions: cost to others. Filing a lawsuit costs taxpayers a fair amount of money, only a small % of which is recouped through court filing fees. In a system which does not force its participants to pay the entire cost of their actions, some form of licensing and restriction is probably necessary.

[bobman0330]

I'm just a law student, but my instinct is that the barriers to entry in the legal profession aren't really that high. El Cheapo law school + self-study for the bar takes some time, but isn't really expensive. To start a grain farm, you'd need tens of millions of dollars, and that industry is perfectly competitive. In addition, even in a free market, starting an effective legal practice would presumably require some sort of 3rd party certification that would likely mimic a lot of bar requirements.

I'd guess the true source of the problem is that most pro bono-type cases simply aren't worth a lawyer's time. My gf worked in a clinic last year, and a lot of her cases involved tenants who were being evicted because they just couldn't afford their rent, and a guy who was defending a civil suit on the grounds that a guy whose name he didn't know had been driving his car at the time of the accident and then fled the scene. Those sort of defenses just aren't going to worth paying a lawyer to carry them out, no matter what. And, of course, poor people are unable to afford a lot of things they would like, not because of market failure, but because they just can't afford them.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just a law student, but my instinct is that the barriers to entry in the legal profession aren't really that high. El Cheapo law school + self-study for the bar takes some time, but isn't really expensive. To start a grain farm, you'd need tens of millions of dollars, and that industry is perfectly competitive. In addition, even in a free market, starting an effective legal practice would presumably require some sort of 3rd party certification that would likely mimic a lot of bar requirements.

I'd guess the true source of the problem is that most pro bono-type cases simply aren't worth a lawyer's time. My gf worked in a clinic last year, and a lot of her cases involved tenants who were being evicted because they just couldn't afford their rent, and a guy who was defending a civil suit on the grounds that a guy whose name he didn't know had been driving his car at the time of the accident and then fled the scene. Those sort of defenses just aren't going to worth paying a lawyer to carry them out, no matter what. And, of course, poor people are unable to afford a lot of things they would like, not because of market failure, but because they just can't afford them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you have to get into law school and pass the bar? How many people would never pass the bar exam, even if they tried really really hard?

[ClevelandWasp]

Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, but licensing is a mechanism employed by groups of professionals to keep the price for their labor high. Easier bar = greater supply of lawyers = lower hourly fees. Here in Cleveland rates for many are as low as $150-$175, I wouldn't want to see that go any lower with more competition from less capable lawyers.

[AngusThermopyle]

No only licensing, but 'requiring' that a lot of relatively simple stuff be done by a lawyer instead of a paralegal or by yourself allows them to charge high prices.

See the hassles the lawyer community gave Nolo Press

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
but 'requiring' that a lot of relatively simple stuff be done by a lawyer instead...by yourself


[/ QUOTE ]

There's actually very little that you can't legally do yourself.

[ohiou]

One reason is that the legal profession is a high overhead business. I pay the rent, an assistant, the bills, etc... In short, I don't pocket the full $125 per hour. I don't see the expense of overhead being lessened by more lawyers.

Secondly, I think that the needs of low income people are met. Or at least there are services available should they wish take advantage. In criminal cases there are court appointed lawyers or staffed public defender offices.

In civil cases, there legal clinics all over Ohio. The office here locally charges $50 for any service.

[bobman0330]

Who knew twoplustwo was such a hotbed of Ohio lawyering?

[bkholdem]

Where is the line with respect to 'practicing law without a license'? I'd like to see some examples of what 'is not allowed'