<p>
</p>
<p>Wait, I actually do this all the time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You clearly have a valid point about conflict-of-interest, but I don’t see any reason why this has to be an attorney. A third-party realtor could serve that function just as well, couldn’t they? (Krugman and Warren are advocating a government bureau that fills in this gap, which might work if that happens to fit into your worldview.)</p>
<p>^^Of course, that assumes that law schools teach things about compound interest, debt, and other financial planning, right???</p>
<p>Law school actually does teach a lot about debt. (Okay, via firsthand experience, but still.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well I don’t. My assumption is that most of the complexity of modern cars is necessary complexity, but in any event I wouldn’t insist that cars should be simpler unless I could point to specific changes and defend those changes.</p>
<p>No-Fault Auto Insurace: You want a big settlement for an accident, buy your own big policy. No need to pay 50% to an attorney.</p>
<p>Loser pays court costs (but not the winners attorney’s fee).</p>
<p>The Federal Government guarantees all land titles (isn’t that part of being “soverign”, you get to say who owns what?).</p>
<p>All Laws expire after a finite term.</p>
<p>Lying by an “officier of the court” should be a felony.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How exactly would that work? Suppose the limit on your policy is $100k. A drunk truck driver runs a red light, kills your spouse, and puts you in a wheelchair for the rest of your life. So all you get is $100k and you can’t sue the trucking company?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, how exactly would this work? You wouldn’t allow an employee who gets screwed out of his last month’s pay to get attorneys’ fees if he has to sue his former employer?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you would create a whole new federal agency, bureaucracy and insurance system which people are forced to buy into if they want to buy land? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’re sorry sir, we can’t do anything about the squatters on your land – the law against tresspassing expired last week and the legistature is too busy between getting a budget passed and renewing the law against murder.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So if an attorney tells his wife that he never ogles other women, he goes to jail?</p>
<p>
At the end of the day it comes down to one thing:</p>
<p>The percentage of GDP spent on legal services.</p>
<p>I have not found any data relating to this - but I suspect it’s higher in the US than other first world countries.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely. I’ve actually studied the law and kinda know what I’m talking about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually agree with this, but (1) I doubt it’s a lot higher; and (2) as far as I know, most of the difference is because as a country we put a higher value on fairness and righting wrongs.</p>
<p>For example, in the United States, if you are denied just about any kind of government benefit, you have the right to challenge that denial and have a hearing before a judge (who is often an attorney). Usually you have the right to hire an attorney to represent you.</p>
<p>We could easily reduce the amount of legal services by quite a lot if we abandoned this principle and simply required people to accept the decisions of government bureaucrats as final. </p>
<p>It’s ironic that an earlier poster said that we need more liberals and fewer attorneys, because liberals have been behind the dramatic expansion of government regulation in the last 50 years which has resulted in lots of additional employment for attorneys.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mean having competing realtors advise their competitors’ clients? I don’t see how they wouldn’t have a strong self-interest that conflicted with their clients’. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…which would be immediately captured by lobbyists and end up achieving the opposite of its intended purpose.</p>
<p>I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t have realtors whose job was to serve as third-party advisors for an additional commission. They’d certainly be cheaper than the attorneys suggested earlier.</p>
<p>“It’s ironic that an earlier poster said that we need more liberals and fewer attorneys, because liberals have been behind the dramatic expansion of government regulation in the last 50 years which has resulted in lots of additional employment for attorneys.”</p>
<p>Liberals are not necessarily democrats. You misunderstood me. I still mean liberal… social liberals.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So who do you sue if the drunk driver is out of work, had his license suspended, and has no insurance (a more likely scenario than above)? That’s why tort reform is necessary; jury awards, settlements, and especially contingency fees shouldn’t be dependent on the depth of the defendant’s pockets.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Emphasis on “kinda”. We could always find another lawyer and pay them to take an opposite position :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe I did misunderstand you. In your view, would “social liberals” support or oppose workplace anti-discrimination laws? In your view, would “social liberals” support a system where someone who is denied welfare benefits is entitled to a hearing?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe it should and maybe it shouldn’t, but I’m not the one who is making specific proposals with the aim of reducing the amount of lawyers. My position is that it’s very difficult to make the system simpler without compromising other things which society values. So feel free to make a specific proposal and we will discuss it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:shrug: I’m trying to be polite. But if you think I don’t know what I’m talking about, why not just point out where my claims or assumptions are wrong?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I’m just trying to be funny. Carry on, counselor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may be so, but it’s just the Japan issue. i.e. there would be fewer actual lawyers running around but the total amount of legal services in the economy is essentially unchanged.</p>
<p>And indeed, one can imagine that a lot of legal services could be performed by non-lawyers. What if we allowed people to file lawsuits through non-attorney representatives? Most likely there would be fewer lawyers but a lot more lawsuits. I’m not sure this is such a good idea.</p>
<p>
I think that’s the difference though. It didn’t used to be like that in the US. I believe prior to the 1970’s there was significantly less spent on legal services (as a percentage of GDP) than currently. I have a problem with the massive expansion in legal services in the past 40 years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe you have a problem with it, but the point is that the problem does not exist in a vacuum. The reality is that there has been a big push to make products safer; to make buildings safer; to fight discrimination; to give criminal defendants plenty of due process rights; to clean up the air, water, and soil; and hundreds of other things. All of these efforts require lots of legal services.</p>
<p>Even building basic infrastructure requires legal services. When you look at a massive suspension bridge, it’s easy to think of the engineers, ironworkers, and so on required to build and maintain it. But it also requires a lot of legal services too. For example, acquiring the needed land and making sure the owners are properly compensated; preparing and negotiating the bond issues to finance the project; preparing the contracts with vendors so that they can deliver materials to spec and be assured of proper payment; and so on.</p>
<p>It’s not just steel which holds up our cities – it’s also rule of law. Which requires a lot of legal services.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In most states with no-fault systems it all goes out the window if the guilty driver is driving under the influence. Then you are free to take the other party out to the cleaners for all they’re worth.</p>