The idea is that a lawyer that hasn't gone to law school or passed the bar is a worse lawyer. If true, then they would presumably be the cheapest lawyers too. This means the quality gap between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer will be larger than it ever has been.
The skill gap between a very good lawyer and a worse than average lawyer is already huge. The impact of this gap is highlighted by the O.J. Simpson quote "In America, you get as much justice as you can afford."
as a lawyer who's practiced what you might consider 'everyman's law'—from petty and felony crime to real estate transactions, estate planning, drafting, and settlement, and even simple dispute resolution, i don't buy your premise or your conclusion.
someone with the wherewithal to get out there practicing competently enough to continue retaining clients at a profit is just as skilled as any other lawyer from any other pedigree up yonder. apples to oranges.
any 'quality' or 'skill' gap between legal representation is a relative thing. there's shitty doctors, lawyers, accountants, and everything else everywhere.
and the type of law O.J. Simpson was ostensibly referring to is like the .009% of law practice.
My understanding is that people that choose public defender instead of private lawyer in criminal cases have statistically worse outcomes. From my perspective it seems blatant that people with deep pockets are more likely to have better outcomes in lawsuits. I agree that it's an open question on if the new standards for practicing law leads to an increase in poor lawyers.
you're blending practice areas again, so i can't coherently respond. but...
My understanding is that people that choose public defender instead of private lawyer in criminal cases have statistically worse outcomes.
that's an intimidatingly fraught claim to address. what i can say i know for sure is that sometimes it's true, and sometimes it's not. it's a seemingly impossible statistical comparison to make when you consider the ambiguity of a 'better outcome' versus a 'worse outcome' alone.
From my perspective it seems blatant that people with deep pockets are more likely to have better outcomes in lawsuits.
would you be surprised to learn that there are litigants with pockets so deep, they actually file "strategic" suits they know they can't win against poorer defendants? but they file anyway knowing the cost will effectively ruin whoever or whatever they're suing, even if it never makes it out of the most preliminary of phases. again, what's the 'better outcome' in a situation like that? withdrawing, and therefore 'losing' the suit, but bankrupting your opponent in the process? to me that's the antithesis of a legal remedy.
so yeah, criminal defense, litigation, and any other practice area for that matter is often quite a bit more nuanced than 'expensive lawyer good, cheap lawyer bad.'
any 'quality' or 'skill' gap between legal representation is a relative thing
Yes, so if you add new shittier people that relative difference gets larger, that is what the person above you said. This doesn't reduce the level uniformly.
i think you're missing the point that "new shittier people" are admitted to practice every admission cycle regardless. i have considerable doubt that this'll lead to any material increase to that figure.
Comments
Yeah... won't this make the wealth of each party an even larger factor than it already is in how good of a lawyer they get?
how so?
The idea is that a lawyer that hasn't gone to law school or passed the bar is a worse lawyer. If true, then they would presumably be the cheapest lawyers too. This means the quality gap between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer will be larger than it ever has been.
The skill gap between a very good lawyer and a worse than average lawyer is already huge. The impact of this gap is highlighted by the O.J. Simpson quote "In America, you get as much justice as you can afford."
as a lawyer who's practiced what you might consider 'everyman's law'—from petty and felony crime to real estate transactions, estate planning, drafting, and settlement, and even simple dispute resolution, i don't buy your premise or your conclusion.
someone with the wherewithal to get out there practicing competently enough to continue retaining clients at a profit is just as skilled as any other lawyer from any other pedigree up yonder. apples to oranges.
any 'quality' or 'skill' gap between legal representation is a relative thing. there's shitty doctors, lawyers, accountants, and everything else everywhere.
and the type of law O.J. Simpson was ostensibly referring to is like the .009% of law practice.
My understanding is that people that choose public defender instead of private lawyer in criminal cases have statistically worse outcomes. From my perspective it seems blatant that people with deep pockets are more likely to have better outcomes in lawsuits. I agree that it's an open question on if the new standards for practicing law leads to an increase in poor lawyers.
you're blending practice areas again, so i can't coherently respond. but...
that's an intimidatingly fraught claim to address. what i can say i know for sure is that sometimes it's true, and sometimes it's not. it's a seemingly impossible statistical comparison to make when you consider the ambiguity of a 'better outcome' versus a 'worse outcome' alone. would you be surprised to learn that there are litigants with pockets so deep, they actually file "strategic" suits they know they can't win against poorer defendants? but they file anyway knowing the cost will effectively ruin whoever or whatever they're suing, even if it never makes it out of the most preliminary of phases. again, what's the 'better outcome' in a situation like that? withdrawing, and therefore 'losing' the suit, but bankrupting your opponent in the process? to me that's the antithesis of a legal remedy.so yeah, criminal defense, litigation, and any other practice area for that matter is often quite a bit more nuanced than 'expensive lawyer good, cheap lawyer bad.'
Yes, so if you add new shittier people that relative difference gets larger, that is what the person above you said. This doesn't reduce the level uniformly.
i think you're missing the point that "new shittier people" are admitted to practice every admission cycle regardless. i have considerable doubt that this'll lead to any material increase to that figure.