MSNBC ran a pretty cool article on me (and another lawyer) and about how an increasing number of young lawyers are starting their own practices.
In general, it was a good article. I hope I didn’t come off as too much of a braggart. People – at least anonymous commenters in the Intertubes – focused on my revenue claims, and not on my basic message which is: 1) anyone can do what I did and 2) State Bars should make it easier for people to do what I did by lowering the costs and barriers to entry.
It’s entirely absurd to me that someone should need to study three years in law school before being able to practice law. That’s not how it is in most other countries, including other countries that follow the common law tradition.
Lawyers in America have built up a frightful monopoly. An ABA executive pooh-poohed my suggestion. That’s fine. He’s part of the establishment. What else would he say?
What is sad to me is that so many other run-of-the-mill lawyers believe that these rules help them – the same rules that saddle them with enormous debt, that prevent them from marketing, the same rules that in the name of the Rules of “Ethics” privilege large firms.
I think people prefer to be secure, rather than free, even if that security is an enormous burden that prevents them from being rich, too.
The wonderful thing about the article is that I’ve been contacted by a couple of dozen entrepreneurial types across the country and am planning a free webinar. That’s pretty cool!
Anyway, thanks also for all the feedback on my website! I have randomly selected a winner who will receive a $100 gift certificate from Amazon. Since feedback was anonymous, I can’t disclose who won the certificate. But, trust me, someone received it. I’m a lawyer, after all!!
Joe says:
“It’s entirely absurd to me that someone should need to study three years in law school before being able to practice law.”
Amen! I would love to specialize and sell a niche like living wills or some other niche, but the preparation for the LSAT, then 3 years of law school, then passing the bar is simply too much.
July 9, 2011 — 11:56 am
Dan Boyle says:
I disagree. I think the bar for entry is too low for lawyers and Realtors alike. Way too many incompetent jackasses taking market share and screwing their own clients.
July 9, 2011 — 5:37 pm
Jim Klein says:
I think Dan’s got a point. I don’t see how incompetents can get a larger market share without more stringent licensing requirements. After all, by definition they can’t gain share by competence. Don’t they deserve the same chance as those who would earn it? Doesn’t passing a test count for just as much as providing the service?
I mean, if you could keep more competents out with more stringent licensing requirements, which is what happens, then won’t more incompetents be able to “split up the pie” with more benefit to each? Seems only fair, except to the unlicensed competents, but who cares about them?
What’s most important, of course, is that the clients themselves shouldn’t decide. They’ve already proven themselves too stupid by being screwed by the licensed incompetents in the first place.
July 9, 2011 — 7:23 pm
Damon Chetson says:
I think there’s a term for these licensing restrictions: “Rotarian socialism”
July 10, 2011 — 1:10 pm
Dan Boyle says:
Damon, congrats on the article. Rotarian socialism? OK, I looked it up and I still disagree. There are 45,000 law school graduates every year. The market can only absorb 40% of them as full-time attorneys. It seems like it will be a long time before any Rotarian socialism outruns the supply and demand curves.
That said, in the face of those numbers, you’ve carved a niche for yourself. Hat’s off.
July 10, 2011 — 4:30 pm
Jim Klein says:
The topic was competence. The problem isn’t the 27,000 licensed lawyers that the market can’t absorb. The problem is the untold numbers of competent lawyers that never get to the market because of the licensing requirements. And it’s exactly the same in virtually every industry in existence, not to mention the untold industries that don’t exist for the same reason.
Lower the bar all the way and you’ll have exactly the right number of lawyers for the market, and every single one of them will be competent. Think about it—what else could possibly happen? Every filthy taxicab you’ve ever seen, was in business because a clean one wasn’t allowed to operate next to him.
July 10, 2011 — 8:03 pm
Dan Boyle says:
Jim, I guess I don’t understand your premise; “the problem is the untold numbers of competent lawyers that never get to the market because of the licensing requirements”.
1. Wouldn’t the licensing requirements be a very low hurdle for any competent lawyer?
2. Doesn’t the fact that the supply exceeds the demand by over 100% suggest that the licensing restrictions are not a barrier?
3. What would happen if we lowered the bar all the way for doctors?
July 11, 2011 — 4:28 am
Al Lorenz says:
I wish I knew more lawyers like Damon. Huh, maybe that’s why he’s so successful…
July 11, 2011 — 1:53 pm
Jim Klein says:
1. Ha. Reminds me of car registration, no big deal to start. I don’t see how 6-7 years mandatory education (uneducation!) is such a low hurdle anyway.
2. No, it tells you nothing about the market; it tells you about a whole bunch of other things. Remove the bars and the market will tell you about the market, with perfect precision.
3. There would be much better, much cheaper health care, and our final years wouldn’t be in the hands of political death panels.
Trust away, Dan. I’m just asking that you not force me to trust.
July 11, 2011 — 3:34 pm
eric says:
you can practice law at any time without any schooling… if you are presenting your own affairs. 🙂 Unfortunately, I have to say that law school should still be mandatory as attorneys mostly deal with other people’s legal affairs. I think more schooling should be required because many attorneys I have met are really bad at what they do.(don’t ask) It doesn’t help that the US is a Sue-happy country where you can sue someone for selling you hot coffee. Additionally, the number of attorneys are going to increase in the coming years(law schools are booming) which should contribute to a decline in quality. I say, screen, screen, and screen your attorneys again and again.
Thank you
July 14, 2011 — 3:16 am
Tom Wolf says:
@JimKlein, although a disciple of free market principles myself, I think the examples given may be a bit utopian. A perfect free market depends on the education and ability of the consumer to effectively separate the wheat from the chaff. This task can be overwhelming for consumers when a)the choices become too numerous (i.e. 40k new professionals flooding the market each year) or b)the complexity of the product or service offered becomes too great. By the way, referencing your example about doctors, I hope the person who has the bad experience with the undereducated MD lives to tell his story to the rest of the prospective marketplace.
July 14, 2011 — 10:22 pm
Jim Klein says:
> @JimKlein, although a disciple of free market principles myself, I think the examples given may be a bit utopian.
Thank you.
> A perfect free market depends on the education and ability of the consumer to effectively separate the wheat from the chaff.
Exactly, which is precisely the point. Interjection of coercive forces, can only serve to diminish this.
> This task can be overwhelming for consumers when a)the choices become too numerous (i.e. 40k new professionals flooding the market each year) or b)the complexity of the product or service offered becomes too great.
You snooze; you lose. Controlling the market insures that everyone loses, in accordance with the hare-brained schemes of bureaucrats.
> By the way, referencing your example about doctors, I hope the person who has the bad experience with the undereducated MD lives to tell his story to the rest of the prospective marketplace.
I understand, but I can’t help but wonder why you’re not concerned with the people who are dying now, owing to an absurd health care system, notable for both an insane financial setup as well as controlled, limited, commonly educated professionals who are taught to treat illnesses and not patients.
Open everything up and not only will the best and brightest be attracted–knowing that they can earn what they deserve–but consumers would have choices they can’t even imagine now, never mind what the bureaucrats can imagine.
Effectively, you are saying this, and you’re not alone…
“I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.”
http://indarchist.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/the-new-dr-death/
As I said to Dan, trust away. I’m just asking that you not force me to trust.
July 17, 2011 — 5:18 pm
clement sadjere says:
Awesome article. I am a civil servant working in a power plant but i am passionate about becoming a full time entrepreneur in few years time. I believe one must follow his/her passion in life. Forget about what the society tend to accept as norms. Rules are there to guide everyone including lawyers.
July 18, 2011 — 3:10 am