Amy,

Let me take a contrary position.

If it was a free market, I would say that lawyers have a right to be paid market prices.

But there are at least two ways it is not a free market.

1. And this may be MY definition of a free market and no one elses: A market is free when buyer and seller are free not to engage in a transaction. So that the buyer and seller can engage in a negotiation and set a price and each player has the ability to walk away and not participate in the transaction. But when the TSA sued you, suddenly you had no choice but to get a lawyer. And that's what happens in most civil cases and all criminal cases.

Lawyers confuse a high demand for their services with a free market. But it's not so. It's not a free market. It's a market where the buyer is being coerced and under great pressure and so does not have an ability to walk away.

That is why legal prices are so high. Not because of the inherent value delivered by the lawyer, but because one player cannot walk away.

So if it's not a free market, it's not a competitive market and they are extracting economic rents, monopoly rents from society, I think it's reasonable for society to demand some payback for that rent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent#Definitions

2. It's not a free market and they have monopoly power. If they want to claim they engage in a free market and a competitive market they need to do away with law school, and even the Bar exam. Here's Ilya Somin of the Volokh conspiracy to explain: http://volokh.com/2011/10/27/clifford-winstons-case-for-abolishing-the-requirement-that-lawyers-must-get-law-school-degrees-and-pass-the-bar-exam/

3. Uh, other reasons too, that I believe everyone should find sufficiently persuasive.

So basically I think society has given lawyer an unfair advantage in the market place, and due to that unfair advantage it has caused legal fees to climb way above what they should be.

One way to counter that is to get rid of the barriers that enable the monopoly, and the other way is to demand pro-bono work to return some of those economic rents to society.

I don't believe that's forced labor. They can choose not to be lawyers, and even choose their pro-bono works. It's simply pay back of the monopoly rents.

Just an itty bitty correction Amy: Chemerinsky is the Dean of UC Irvine's law school, not USC's. :-)

I must disagree, under no circumstances but insanity is anyone "forced" to get a lawyer.

The rest of the time a person is free to represent themselves.

Are people pressured, by fear or concern or a very real threat of loss in court?

Of course.

But being a lawyer is not some mystic power, it is the ability to argue ones point of view regarding events and evidence to persuade another person or a body of the same, that one's version is the truth, and the other's is a lie. Or that one is right, the other wrong, guilty, or innocent, just, or unjust.

But this same pressure exists for medicine, and drugs, and education, driving, credit, buying a home...all of these things have immense pressures of their own, yet we feel free to act without the guidance or overwatch of an advocate, or without one acting for us.

Having a lawyer may be the right decision, but as long as people are free to not engage their services if they so choose, the market remains free, pressures and fears not withstanding.

And demanding anyones time be given for free, is wrong. How it can even be called constitutional is beyond me.

> Chemerinsky is the Dean of UC Irvine's law
> school, not USC's.

Forgivable error: He moved down there from USC. If you called Michael Jordan a Chicago Bull, wouldn't you wanna snap a towel at the guy who said "Actually, he was a Washington Wizard..."?

Robert: "Having a lawyer may be the right decision, but as long as people are free to not engage their services if they so choose, the market remains free, pressures and fears not withstanding."

Not entirely. You may represent yourself, but you may not represent others, if you do not have a license. Likewise, you cannot hire anyone you choose to represent you; that person must have a license.

So, the market is restricted.

I support the professional aspiration that lawyers perform 50 hours per year. I do not think I like the obligatory nature of it. But, I do not mind the rationale for the obligation, part of which is that justice and competent representation should not only be available to those that can afford it.

-Jut

I think Jerry sort of has a point. Last weekend, while watching TV and seeing one solicitation ad after another for jackpot-justice lawyers, it occurred to me that the current situation we have regarding advertising law services is the worst of all possible worlds. Dishonest lawyers can run all kinds of ads full of wild-ass claims, but honest ones cannot run ads with the kind of information that might actually be useful to someone who is shopping for a lawyer: things like rates and retainers, specific services provided, and records in previous cases.

As things stand, you can't comparison-shop for a lawyer because there is no way of getting the info you need. It would be like going to a grocery store where everything is generic and you don't know what the price of an item is until it rings up on the register. Combine that with Jerry's point about how going without representation is not an option (look what happened to Aaron Walker when he tried it, and he's a lawyer himself), and yes, it does start to look like a rigged market.

However, the thing that gets me about these pro-bono mandates is that they are always, always called for in service of left-wing causes. Let's look at this statement in the article that Amy quoted: "The goal is to provide legal services to needy clients, including those facing eviction, foreclosure and domestic abuse." Who are the target defendant groups: Banks, landlords, property owners, and (let's be honest) male spouses. All politically incorrect groups. It's yet another example of lawfare, abusing the legal process to suppress the rights of groups that the Left doesn't like. I want to know when they are going to call for mandatory pro bono work on behalf of business owners who have been shut down on the whim of a regulator.

> you can't comparison-shop for a lawyer
> because there is no way of getting the info

I dunno about that. A week ago some of the Men's Rights weasels were saying the same thing about judges, that somehow this information is never available.

But communication has never been cheaper in the country. If you needed to know this stuff, you could find it out. (I've set aside a couple of attorney phone numbers for different crises which haven't come to pass... Not research, exactly, but I won't be paralyzed if something bad happens, and will at least be able to get more phone numbers to call.

These are the kind of matters that people don't want to have to think about too much... And then something breaks and they can't understand why the best in the world isn't instantly available.

Let me put it this way: Any blogger with the energy and enthusiasm to pull together an Angieslist-dot-com style web site to rate the performance of lawyers and judges is probably someone who's got a LOT of experience with them, and probably has more productive things to do with their time.

Robert: "Having a lawyer may be the right decision, but as long as people are free to not engage their services if they so choose, the market remains free, pressures and fears not withstanding."

In my county, you might be able to bargain down a traffic ticket - if you are a lawyer or hire one. Otherwise, you don't even get to talk to the D.A. before traffic court.

You can, of course, represent yourself in court. Any chance you had of reaching a deal is over at that point.

Shorter Robert: You don't need a lawyer to plead guilty.

I realize we were talking about adults here, but I think this is worth reading anyway. From 1997. It's by Miss Manners.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970610/NEWS/306109915

The letter ends with:........"Now a child who was looking forward to cheerful volunteerism is dreading the enforced hours which will be needed to meet the requirements. Is it any wonder that people do not freely serve?"

Gentle reader: "Like you, Miss Manners remembers when voluntary service was something for which people volunteered, rather than were sentenced to do. But a lot has happened since then, notably the attitude that it is foolish to work for free. It is not only modern greed that created this, but a long-term general dismissal of the value of volunteer work because it was done by unsalaried women.

"Surely the function of a mandatory educational system is to expose the young to ideas, fields, attitudes and information they might not otherwise encounter, or might even take pains to avoid. No doubt many of them do as little as possible for the service requirement and resolve never to return -- but isn't that true of much else they are supposed to be learning?

"Reverse psychology is all very well, but Miss Manners doubts that removing the algebra requirement, for example, would inspire otherwise dilatory students with an interest in algebra. She therefore hopes that in spite of your son's disillusionment, you will stop short of condemning the effort of schools and religious organizations to teach through requiring one to donate services to the community.

"The implementation of this may seem rigid, although can easily imagine why it might be unfeasible for young people to choose their own places of service -- the problem of checking out the organization, for example, or the problem in checking out the child's idea of charity. But suggests you regard this practice charitably because of the worthiness of the idea.

"She assures you that in the etiquette business, we believe it is better for people to do the right thing because they feel coerced into doing it than to allow them to act only as they sincerely wish, and hope for the best."

I'm pretty liberal, but I would be happy doing away with pro-bono requirements AND requirements for law school and passing the bar.

Crid, you can't really comparison shop for a lawyer, because lawyers won't give you a free hour (or 30 minutes) to discuss your case. (That may not be true for a contingency case I guess, but it certainly seems to be the case for Family Law)

So you've been hit with an ex-parte Temporary Restraining Order that was made in your absence, and you need a lawyer immediately.

How many lawyers do you interview when each of those lawyers charges you $300 just to interview them?

I once wrote that down over the Volokh Conspiracy and many of the lawyers there told me that wasn't true, that lawyers will give you that first hour free.

But that has never been my actual experience.

So they charge non-free market rates, and they charge you that from their first hour -- it makes it difficult or impossible when you are over a barrel and have a limited bank account to adequately find the right lawyer for your case.

And wow, I would love to see the legal fees of any blogger/entrepreneur that sets up a site where people can write up their actual experiences of the lawyers they have used.... Talk about painting a huge red target on their backs.

> lawyers won't give you a free hour (or 30
> minutes) to discuss your case.

You can ask around. You can review outcomes in public records. You can watch newspapers etc...

To complain that you don't get 30 free minutes covers my point precisely: When the shit's already hit the fan for you, it's no longer convenient to shop around.

I wasn't trying to pretend to be prepared for legal encounters or necessities. My point is that it's not some sort kind of evil plot that keeps people from being aware of what's going on with courtrooms and lawyers and judges.

Law is mundane and ubiquitous. It doesn't hide from us; it overwhelms. That's our fault, not the law's fault.

(See also, science awareness. You gotta do the reading.)

Jerry, thought I would offer my family law experiences for what it is worth. When I found myself in need of a lawyer I asked my criminal defense lawyer buddy -who I have never had to use but carry his card in my wallet- for a recommendation. I also asked my buddy who used to sell pot. They both charged 150 on a sliding scale for the consult. Both saw me next day. Both offered me advice that was worth the money. I went with the pot dealer's lawyer. I found the market to be accessible and reasonable for something that we all know is an expensive item.

Snide aside: If you have a restraining order against you, quit drinking.

This actually ties into Amy's column the other day about the "young snot" wanting advice for free. Why should a lawyer have to give away the information we spent a lot of time and money to learn? Sadly, my experience is that most calls that start out with a request for a free consult are from people just trying to pick my brains for free ...
As to pro-bono... I did some in law school and it was a win-win situation where I got some great mentoring and the organization got some research help.. I also continue to do some pro-bono with groups I support. What NY is proposing sounds more like enforced work on "pre-approved" activities.

How is it "forced labor" if they're not being forced to work? No one is holding a gun to these peoples' head, if they don't want to do pro-bono work then they're free to drop out and choose another profession.

Forget the definition of forced labor or whatever, what right does a supreme court judge have to order such a thing?

While state legislatures authorize licensing bodies, at what point to those licensing bodies exceed their legal mandate?

Is the New York Bar there to represent lawyers and to define criteria to obtain a law license, or is it a play thing of a tiny minority?

Mike that is moronic.

No its not a "gun to their head" but "Work for free first or you can't work at your profession at all" is certainly coercive. And you might want to keep this in mind...if they can make THAT guy work for free, they can make YOU work for free.

Crap. typed a book & it got dumped because I didn;t log in first. Long story short, many lawyers do free work - voluntarily - from giving a free consult up-front (through lawyer referral services, etc..) to writing off bills for poor / less-well-off clients. They're not all sharks; I've known many fine lawyers genuinely interested in seeking justice for regular folks. Mixed feelings re mandatory pro bono; if you've already spent 3+ years in law school, are you really going to dump it & go into another profession? Fairer if the requirement applied only to future lawyers starting school now.

I'm having trouble understanding why lawyers are be expected to give ANY time for free. They sell billable hours. How much of your working life do you give away to prove your chops to demanding, desperate, speculative customers? If you didn't prepare for the situation from which you expect a convincing promise of relief, how eager should he be to attract your business? Your information will be worthless to him when you walk out in the twenty-ninth minute, while you're brazenly hoping to extract some value from him whether you hire him or not.

What's up with that?

> any of the lawyers there told me that wasn't
> true, that lawyers will give you that first
> hour free.
>
> But that has never been my actual experience.

Did you waste their time? Did you prepare 3 photocopies of a short, coherent, typewritten statement of the facts regarding both your life particulars (name, address, background, and preparedness to pay) as well as a dispassionate description of your case?

Or did you show up late to the office and start moaning that the bee-eye-tee-see-ache done you wrong, but dammit, this first meeting wasn't your problem?

"Or did you show up late to the office and start moaning that the bee-eye-tee-see-ache done you wrong, but dammit, this first meeting wasn't your problem?"

Yes Crid, we are all your dad, now get over it.

Naw, my Dad was a loving guy. Good to women. Knew the score, loved the game.

Your whole implication is demented. But worst of all, it evades the question.

Or are you saying there IS a reason for professional people to drop everything and care about your emergencies at zero cost to you? Are you saying you were courteous and prepared when you went into those guys' offices expecting a freebie?

Crid,

It's clear from your answers you and I have had vastly different legal experiences. Perhaps you've had none, and if so, good for you, try to keep it that way.

What makes you an offensive putz completely unworthy of actual response at this forum is how you always immediately jump assume the worst of people you are somehow trying to communicate with.

Cridmotosis? That describes cell destruction in the Cridmotic brain. It describes your general bad odor and bad breath as cridical brain cells, destroyed, are evacuated from your body.

Just so you know, most people do it the other way around. Amy might consider it, your choosing to not be a rude fuck. But I don't know. Maybe not.

Crid, you're such an arrogant ignorant fuck you just know you can assume the worst of others.

But believe it or not, unlike your Dad, we don't all wander around the world, drunk, cock out our fly, barf on our shirt, demanding others pay attention to us.

So here's how Family Law worked when I got a lawyer, and I think how the experience with many lawyers still work.

I got referrals to half a dozen lawyers and called them up. In a respectful tone of voice, I told them I needed a lawyer to represent me for a divorce.

They told me their rates for the consultation over the phone. None of them offered a free consultation. The going rate was $275 per hour.

I made an appointment with three, get my material ready and organized it as best I could, outlined the major issues (my kids), put on a suit and tie, drove over and arrived on time, was met and introduced to the lawyer, and before I could say two more words they said,

following most legal codes of ethics

Hi, we first need to discuss rates. I charge $275 per hour including for this consultation. You need to pay me now.

They ask for the money upfront for a couple of reasons: 1, because they want to be paid for their time, 2, because that makes them your lawyer and keeps your conversation with them confidential, and 3, it benefits you, it means they can never represent your ex.

So yes, I came prepared, was courteous and organized, did not shit on their desk like you would, and still for ethical reasons that will always elude you, they set their rates and asked for payment upfront.

Or are you saying there IS a reason for professional people to drop everything and care about your emergencies at zero cost to you?

And of course, I've never said anything like this. Had you half an ounce of brains not subject to cridmotosis you would be able to comprehend what I said above about how a lawyers fees are not set in a free market and why that might impact on pro-bono work they might be mandated to do.

Or you could read the professors at the Volokh Conspiracy, lawyers all, who will agree that lawyers are not setting rates in a free market.

And finally you could choose to continue to be an ass and assume the worst of everyone around you.

How is it "forced labor" if they're not being forced to work? No one is holding a gun to these peoples' head, if they don't want to do pro-bono work then they're free to drop out and choose another profession.

Part of me is still holding out the faint hope that maybe you meant this comment as a joke, but alas, something tells me you are saying this with a straight face.