Barriers to Entry Forum

[Anonymous User]

A Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution has a new journal article out arguing that the ABA should reduce the barriers to entry in the legal field, citing efficiency gains that would eventually reduce the price of legal services.

Quick synopsis of the article: http://www.brookings.edu/research/paper ... aw-winston

Full article: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/resear ... -final.pdf

Any thoughts on this?

[First Offense]

Why the fuck is this anon?

[MKC]

The whole reason I signed up for this job was the advertised high barrier to entry. I should have realized that the barrier is an illusion.

[brendo17]

OP here. Sorry, accidental anon.

[Lemming]

There is already an overabundance of lawyers, I don't see how lowering barriers to entry would do anything when 30-40% of those graduating law school are unemployed 9 months out. There is certainly not a supply problem.

Specifically, prices would fall as competition from incumbent firms and new entrants intensifies

The legal field is really weird in that price competition actually increases the cost of legal services. Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar struck down price fixing by state and local bar associations, which one would assume creates decreasing prices, but it had the opposite effect and legal fees have skyrocketed since.

Maybe if states only required high school diploma we could staff a law firm with inept lawyers who merely rubber stamp copyright registrations for minimum wage. The issue with the legal market at the higher levels is that there is not price competition between lawyers for the best cases. You don't see Supreme Court litigation firms cutting their fees (with the exception of pro bono) just so they can be on a certain case. Instead it's a bidding war for the most talented lawyers. If Paul Clement can only argue x amount of cases, but x+5 companies want him to represent them, they're going to have a bidding war where 5 companies lose.

Legal services are not a fungible commodity, prices are relative to quality of service provided. Decreasing barriers to entry would only increase the availability of low quality legal services. But I still do not think that's true because you have 30-40% of graduates unemployed and they're not all going out and starting their own firm to compete against incumbent firms. Practicing law is a difficult task that takes experience before you can even reach the level of competency.

[pancakes3]

there are so many bad arguments that it really makes you wonder why this guy decided to write tihs. extra confusing when it's just a rehash of a book he published back in 2011.

[tyroneslothrop1]

False. Barriers to entry should not be reduced. I am now an attorney. They should be raised.

[WhiteCollarBlueShirt]

I'm a practicing attorney, and I do not think there should be any barrier to entry. Corporate, compliance, risk management, tax, etc. should not require law school and there should be more flexibility to try different careers to find what most suits one's own interests rather than forcing 3 years and tuition on people and pigeonholing the whole field.

On the flipside, I have zero idea how courts work despite having gone to law school. There probably should be some sort of vocational training or entry exams for judicial proceedings.

[unlicensedpotato]

You should be able to work as a lawyer as soon as you (i) pass a state bar (which should be reformed into a nationwide bar) or (ii) graduate from an ABA-accredited law school.

It baffles me that a law school graduate who hasn't passed the bar yet isn't "qualified" to represent a person in a divorce, but that person is qualified to represent herself pro se (i.e., no counsel is provided) if she just "reads up on the law."

If you can pass a state bar, you could give literally life-changing representation to a lot of individuals who are pro se right now. If you can pass the bar right out of high school or UG, you could provide those services very affordably.

[joeyc328]

False. The justice gap is being filled by LegalZoom, Modria, and these other technology companies

[unlicensedpotato]

False. The justice gap is being filled by LegalZoom, Modria, and these other technology companies

Works for corp, like forming an LLC. Those pre-printed forms don't work particularly well for lit where the opposing side has paid counsel. This isn't even because those litigators are filing things that deviate dramatically from the form. It's because they know what the legal standards are and how a claim will be evaluated by a judge. How can you negotiate against them when you're pro se?

[joeyc328]

These two issues are unrelated. If one side of an issue has a financial incentive to hire counsel then it is valuable enough where these technologyu services are not needed. Also if you are the defendant pro se in say a torts issue and you cannot afford counsel there is no point in suing you because you can't pay the plaintiff anyway.

[1styearlateral]

You should be able to work as a lawyer as soon as you (i) pass a state bar (which should be reformed into a nationwide bar) or (ii) graduate from an ABA-accredited law school.

I actually like this. One or the other, not both.