<p>Lawyer’s primary job is to perpetuate their existance and earnings (that’s all profession’s primary jobs). Of course, with a profession like engineering that actually means creating <em>value</em>, which in turn benefits society and all around productivity. This makes us a wealthier society. For lawyers it basically means increasing the volume of work. That doesn’t neccessarily correlate with increasing the wealth of that society. Many times it means taking the value that other people generate and transferring it to yourself.</p>
<p>For a normal closing in a new housing tract, it is NOT reasonable. Heck, the developer has already performed the title search to the beginning of time, researched by big-time, expensive lawyers and their paralegals (see below). Why pay to have it redone? Why pay a lawyer’s rates to re-do it?</p>
<p>Again, the largest state in the Union, California does not require lawyers to close residential RE deals. They are rarely used. </p>
<p>Thus, the issue is that some/many states REQUIRE a lawyer at a RE close when they are not necessary – a licensed, bonded escrow agent can do it inexpensively. Essentially, the state legislature (made up of lawyers) created its own cash cow.</p>
<p>Considering that our entire legal system is one based upon codified laws and regulations, which are then interpreted by the judiciary, you may have some difficulty with your theory.</p>
<p>Do you presume, then, that every transaction looks alike and that standardization would be possible? Do you presume that the words that appear on the page, whether written in legalese or in plain English, have exactly the meaning that you interpret or expect them to have? What about your counterparty’s interpretation of or expectation based upon those words? How might a court likely interpret the words on the page should a dispute arise over their meaning? What about the generally accepted implications of chosen words on a page? Do you presume that everyone can understand the implications of common contractual phrases like “time is of the essence” and “the party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party”? Do you presume that everyone can understand the implications of neglecting to include common contractual phrases like “neither party shall be liable to the other for incidental, consequential, punitive or indirect damages of any kind” or “neither party shall assign this contract without the written consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonable withheld or delayed”? Do you understand the Uniform Commercial Code Article 2, for example, which applies when a contract is silent as to commercial sales terms between the parties?</p>
<p>Lawyers are hired to help their clients successfully navigate through these waters. Generally, the most expensive lawyers are hired to help guide their clients through the grey areas, the novel areas and the areas where the laws on the books are unclear/have not been sufficiently tested.</p>
<p>Personally, I wouldn’t begin to negotiate a contract for a business transaction without a knowledgeable attorney at my side. For the record, I am an attorney, and even I hired a knowledgeable real estate attorney (I do not specialize in real estate) to guide me through the negotiation and closing of my home purchase. I wouldn’t have it any other way.</p>
<p>I would say it depends on the situation. What if you are at the closing and it comes out that the seller is a foreign citizen. What will you do? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a lawyer sitting next to you to explain the the proper procedure? What if a storm hit the night before the closing, breaking some windows and causing some water damage. How will you handle it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even assuming that’s true, my question was not limited to “a normal closing in a new housing tract.” Can I take it you agree it’s reasonable to engage an attorney if you are buying a house which has been around for 40, 50, or 100 years?</p>
<p>
[quoteHeck, the developer has already done the title search to the beginning of time, done by big-time, expensive lawyers (see below). Why pay to have it redone?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So if you were buying a new house, you would not purchase title insurance?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, would you agree that a large percentage of the 90% of lawyers who are claimed to be a “waste” are retained on the free market?</p>
<p>This topic calls to mind the pro sports syndrome, where a significant percentage of young students imagine that they will play basketball or football in high school, be recruited by a top college program, and then be drafted by the pros. This expectation flies in the face of all logic and statistical probability, but surveys show it persists.</p>
<p>No doubt many would-be law students expect they will get into a top law school or, if not, will excel at a second-tier school; either way, they hope to be recruited by a top firm and don’t have a plan for the likely outcome: a degree and no job offers.</p>
<p>No you cannot “take it.” The vast majority of California real estate closings do not engage an attorney. With millions of transactions successfully completed each year, it’s hard to infer an attorney is necessary. And, I would GUESS that we have plenty of transactions with foreign parties out here. :)</p>
<p>btw: title insurance is another reason that an attorney is not necessary!</p>
<p>This isn’t out of the question if false promises of placement were made, or if job prospects were grossly mischaracterized. I couldn’t find a link, but I believe some years ago this happened in the liberal arts degree area and schools began to paint a more realistic picture for their applicants.</p>
<p>Ok, just so we are clear, your position is that – generally speaking – it’s not reasonable to hire an attorney if one is buying a house, old or new, in the United States California or elsewhere. </p>
<p>Is that your position?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand.</p>
<p>If you were buying a new house straight from the developer, would you forego title insurance? It’s a simple yes or no question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s very simple. One of the posters is claiming that 90% of lawyers are a “90% of lawyers are a waste of life, public resources and energy” and that the system needs to be overhauled, presumable to get rid of these wasteful lawyers.</p>
<p>At the same time, you seem to agree that it should be permissible for people to hire lawyers with their own money. Presumably, most of these “waste of life” lawyers are being hired be people who are spending their own money. </p>
<p>If that’s the case, then what exactly is the problem? If somebody would rather hire a lawyer than hire an artist, it’s their choice right?</p>
<p>No, my “position” is that is not necessary to hire an attorney if one is buying a house – generally speaking. And, further, since it is my position that it is not necessary to have an attorney at closing, it should not be mandated by law. If folks want to hire an attorney – for whatever reason, its their money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since title insurance is required by lenders, and I dont’ have the cash to pay out of pocket for a home, it’s a moot point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure I concur with the other poster. 90% seems high.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure I’d concur with your presumption, either. A LOT of cases are brought by folks seeking “free” money from a (forced) settlement to avoid the cost of a trial. (See Millberg Weiss) Heck, my company is defending a wrongful term suit right now as a result of a 10% across the board layoff last year. The plaintiff’s attorney is clearly not spending her own money - just hoping that I’ll cave and settle and cough up some cash to make it go away.</p>
<p>I wish I could sit around a table with peers, make up stuff, employ the power of the state to require people to comply with our collective fantasies, and then charge people to tell them how to deal with said fantasies.</p>
<p>The problem with legal practice is that there is no downside to filing a suit. Lawyers file lots of suits, settle many for some cash.Clients that deserved a large settlement get less than they deserve. Clients that deserve nothing get something.</p>
<p>My questions was about whether it’s reasonable. Why do you keep evading the question?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And again you evade my question. So I will answer it. You would be a fool not to purchase title insurance, even though the developer claims to be giving you good title. And any title insurance company will double check to make sure the title is clear.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure I understand your point. If somebody hires an attorney to sue their former employer, generally either they are paying money directly to the attorney or they are assigning the attorney a percentage of any potential recovery. Either way, it’s their own money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what your point is. Do you believe that most employment lawsuits are meritless attempts to extract nuisance settlements?</p>
<p>I get 20 or 30 calls a week from people who feel they’ve been wronged somehow – wrongfully fired; wrongfully evicted; wrongfully arrested, whatever. If I could file suit on behalf of each one and extract a $5000 nuisance settlement, that means I would be making well over a million dollars a year and I’d be driving a Ferrari to work every day. Guess what, last time I looked in my driveway there was no Ferrari there.</p>
<p>If you don’t believe me, try calling an employment lawyer and asking him if he’s willing to take a case on contingency where someone got fired from their job; they believe it was due to unlawful discrimination; but they have no decent evidence of discrimination.</p>
Wouldn’t you have to put a “time value” on the $5000 settlement? If it took 40 hours of work to achieve that I’m not sure how that would get you a Ferrari.</p>
<p>sorry, skinner. I am not evading your question. How people spend their own money is up to them. Thus, I cannot opine on what is reasonable. Since I don’t think it necessary, I would not hire an attorney for a simple house closing – perhaps bcos its not reasonable for me – but doesn’t mean that I would project my thinking onto someone else, however. I may not think that spending $70k on a car for simple commuting is reasonable, but many others do (obviously). But what I do find UNreasonable is a state mandate that requires the attendance of an attorney at close – something YOU keep evading. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ONLY if they win or extract a (nuisance?) settlement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no idea about “most” suits. But many lawsuits in general – not just employment law suits – are attempts to extract nuisance settlements. (again, see Millberg Weiss for millions upon millions) And, they cost the plaintiff ZERO. If you deny that, I give up.</p>
<p>Well that’s part of the point. The claim is that there is no disincentive to filing suit. The fact is that if you file a suit, meritless or not, there is a pretty good chance you will have to put a lot of time into it. That’s a big disincentive.</p>
<p>Then surely you don’t object to a large number of attorneys in the US, the vast majority of whom get hired because someone felt that for them it was reasonable to do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t evade anything – as far as I remember you did not ask my what I thought about that. Anyway, which states require that someone buying a house have an attorney at the closing? I would like to look into this and then I will tell you my opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you mean by “many.” Surely there are at least 20 or 30 true strike suits filed in a year. I doubt that it happens that often, relatively speaking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that some attorneys file suits on contingency if that’s what you are claiming. And I agree that it happens sometimes that such suits are true strike suits. I doubt it’s that common.</p>
<p>Why don’t you give me an example or three of these meritless suits of which you are complaining?</p>