[nucklepunche]

In general I am not supportive of government caps on things, it reeks mildly of communism. One area where I would be willing to accept such a cap is in the area of lawyers. There are too many lawyers and I can think of a few reasons an arbitrary cap on the number of lawyers might be a good idea.

1) Too many bright young people simply settle for law school. Lawyers don't produce anything, they just manipulate words. If we shut the doors to a legal career maybe these bright people will actually produce something.

2) Lawyers breed more lawyers. There are too many lawyers in Congress and they write complex laws that only lawyers can understand meaning there is a need for more lawyers. If we put a cap on lawyers maybe there would be fewer in politics.

3) I don't think I need to explain how a fear of lawsuits harms the entrepreneurial spirit. The reason there are so many lawyers is the appeal of high pay.

Anyway, I am not sure where that cap ought to be but at this point I'd set it in relation to the population.

[redcarpet]

It would probably serve the interests of those whose clients are wealthiest though. Outcomes like that are usually automatic. It might work against the poor as it were, be used for elitists' benefit; they can afford the lawyers least. And given how much they can charge client or their law firms charge, it may affect 'justice' more broadly.

[Suska]

I'd set the cap at about 4 foot 6, just chop there, anyone still alive can be a lawyer.

[dudekebm]

Well, we could do what they do for wildlife population control? Extend lawyer hunting season by a month on each side and increase the bag limit accordingly for the various variations of lawyers you have out there. Of course, the ambulance chasing variety has no limit since there are so many of them.

But in all seriousness, I would think the problem will correct itself. You have too many graduates going into one profession, the work opportunities dwindle. When work opportunities dwindle, folks tend to not make as much money and the profession becomes less attractive to young adults coming up. This could be a bit of a naive take on it however.

[Potemkin]

Should there be a cap on the number of lawyers?

Yes, and any excess population should be humanely culled.

[Cookie Monster]

And how do we determine who is among this excess population?

[Suska]

I already explained that cookie.

[Verv]

Nucklepunch has explained himself well on this topic.

I think that he has a point but I do not fully agree...

I think that perhaps the standards for the 'bar exam' should be lowered, and laws should be made more obvious for everyone while maintaining their specifics.

This way we would get lawyers to be, well, frankly, more like us and less separate and "elite."

The fact that lawyers establish themselves as above the regular people is really one of the problems.

[Suska]

I don't wanna be a fucking lawyer Verv, what's the point of specializing if you can't trust them? Yeah it needs to be easier to understand, but the problem is the level of competition - yeah capitalists call it a feature, but the rest of us call it corruption. If we're going to have specialists they need to see where they are a part of civil society, it's their job to be of service, not torture the process for personal gain.

[redcarpet]

Nucklepunch has explained himself well on this topic.

I think that he has a point but I do not fully agree...

I think that perhaps the standards for the 'bar exam' should be lowered, and laws should be made more obvious for everyone while maintaining their specifics.

This way we would get lawyers to be, well, frankly, more like us and less separate and "elite."

The fact that lawyers establish themselves as above the regular people is really one of the problems.

Or a sub-course of the law of some-kind that's less restrictive. So you can do jobs that assist them. Be it for just domestic criminal justice area or international law as well.

[Potemkin]

I think that perhaps the standards for the 'bar exam' should be lowered, and laws should be made more obvious for everyone while maintaining their specifics.

Most lawyers are already crappy enough as it is; lowering standards would just make things worse. And laws are written in tortuous, complex language for a reason - they must be precisely framed to avoid loopholes and to restrict the range of possible (mis)interpretations.

This way we would get lawyers to be, well, frankly, more like us and less separate and "elite."

The fact that lawyers establish themselves as above the regular people is really one of the problems.

It may be a problem for you personally, but so what? A qualified lawyer is probably smarter than you are, face it. You're basically just whining that people who are smarter than you are should behave as though they aren't. What are you, some kind of Commie bastard who thinks everyone should be equal and wear Mao suits all the time?

[Eran]

OP touched on an excellent point when discussing the complexity (as well as sheer volume) of legislation and regulatory rules. The numbers are mind-boggling. Companies need many lawyers to help them navigate through this endless (and ever-growing) jungle.

Another problem is liability law-suits. Manufacturers are limited in their ability to give consumers alternatives that represent lower cost together with lower caps on liability awards. The trial lawyer lobby is fiercely defending its turf under the guise of "consumer protection".

At the end of the day, and with the exception of government-employed and trial-law lobbyists, lawyers are not to blame. We have many lawyers because many people have such needs for them that they are willing to pay their costs.

[Annatar]

The major reason why there is an over-supply of lawyers is in my opinion the idea that legal education will offer a guaranteed and well-paid job for every graduate, while in reality this only applies to top lawyers. As far as I know American colleges even advertise on the basis of legal education providing excellent job chances even though they clearly must know that this is not the case. So instead of establishing a quota for lawyers it would probably be best to just educate young people about the realities of the job chances that legal education offers and if that does not help restrict access to legal education.

[Suska]

to a point; lawyers are many in direct proportion to the lowness of civility. They fight our battles when it's not about what's right, but who wins. The alternative is violence.

[Potemkin]

[youtube]0u9JAt6gFqM[/youtube]

[Fasces]

Lawyers are vital to the functioning of the democratic system. To give an example few could disagree with, how many public defenders does each city alone need to have on call, in case they are needed? Is the best solution really to give each defender more clients, and through that, less time to devote to the defense of the poor in the criminal justice system [knowing that the rich can pay for their own lawyer]?

Nucklepunch - Why do you support class war?

[Verv]

Most lawyers are already crappy enough as it is; lowering standards would just make things worse. And laws are written in tortuous, complex language for a reason - they must be precisely framed to avoid loopholes and to restrict the range of possible (mis)interpretations.

That is not as dynamic thinking as I would expect from you -- the fact of the matter is that nearly everyone can see a loophole for what it is.

In the US Army it would have been possible for me to come up with loopholes if I ever had the courage to try. However, even though it is an institution that cannot be claimed to do things in the most intelligent of manners, it can be said that there is a naked, layman's logic to the whole situation where if you are violating the spirit of the law or using some sort of loophole someone will merely shake their head and get you for it.

We do not need a society where legal loopholes even exist as a concept...

In a truly logical society, abuse of languages wouldn't be allowed, and utterly ridiculous legalese would have no purpose to exist.

[Potemkin]

We do not need a society where legal loopholes even exist as a concept...

In a truly logical society, abuse of languages wouldn't be allowed, and utterly ridiculous legalese would have no purpose to exist.

We are a fallen, sinful species, Verv, and as such we need lawyers....

[Donna]

Lawyers are vital to the functioning of the democratic system.

[myrmeleo]

No -- but instead, law schools should be coerced to publish legitimate data on the employment statistics and earnings potentials for those pursuing a law degree. There are not enough well-paying jobs for law students. This is caused primarily by the assumption that, as Annatar noted, anyone who can get through law school is automatically awarded a high-paying job.

Most lawyers are already crappy enough as it is; lowering standards would just make things worse. And laws are written in tortuous, complex language for a reason - they must be precisely framed to avoid loopholes and to restrict the range of possible (mis)interpretations.

I agree. We certainly don't want more bad lawyers but rather the correct amount of good ones.

Lawyers are vital to the functioning of the democratic system. To give an example few could disagree with, how many public defenders does each city alone need to have on call, in case they are needed?

At best, you're offering a band-aid solution. If the over-abundance of law graduates continues, yes, some may instead take lower-paying jobs in PD positions. Yet there is already competition for such jobs -- and, in this example, it is still the lower-quality lawyers (that cannot find a private, high-paying BigLaw job) that would filter into the PD system. Attacking the root of the problem would be to increase funding and opportunities for those interested in such public service. A cap on lawyers is not a class war issue.