IN THE PUBLIC GOOD
LIMITS ON LAWYERS
AND OTHER ISSUES
I. INTRODUCTION
There has been a public movement to limit the number of lawyers practicing law.
Tort reformers have discussed the issue in open forums.
The Wall Street Journal has editorialized on the topic. This follows show casing, on and off for the last years, the work of Stphen Magee, Finance Professor at the University of Texas whose econometric models predict the appropriate number of attorneys in a population and the cost to society of an excess.
While the Bar has discussed the issues, on and off, since the Depression in the 1930s, the current excess of lawyers (including in Texas over 10,000 unemployed lawyers with at least 20,000 by the year 2000) has started to invite public action.
II. ISSUES
There are several issues that are essential to address in any movement to limit the number of attorneys admitted to practice.
A. Anti-Trust Considerations.
B. Pro-Bono regardless of the definition.
C. Equal Access to Enter the Profession regardless of the three Constitutional standards of Race, Religion and National Origin and the three current political standards of Sex, Sexual Orientation, Disability.
D. Correct Economic Models Focused on Society, not on the benefit or loss to the profession.
E. Impact on Current Institutions including law schools (and their universities), law firms, and the Texas Bar Association.
III. ANTI-TRUST CONSIDERATIONS
Reducing the number of attorneys can be attacked as an anti-trust violation only if the reason for reducing the number of attorneys is to make them richer. To prevent that, Texas needs to add several things into the law of Texas.
A. Hourly limits
Both the American Bar Association and any good economist can tell you that except for short term situations and extremely rare individuals, on the long term it is impossible for people to do more than 35 to 40 real hours of work a week.
Working more hours a week results in more hours billed to clients, but less actual work done. When attorneys bill more than 40 hours a week year after year, what is happening is that clients are paying more, for less.
As many legal scholars have concluded, when a lawyer bills more than 2000 hours in a year, the "hours" are just billing units.
So, as a part of limiting the number of attorneys, attorneys should also be limited to 2000 billable hours a year.
B. Special Taxes
Those professions that have created monopoly benefits or that benefit from a publicly created monopoly owe to the public, not themselves, the excess of profit.
The State of Texas should tax, at 50%, all income made by lawyers (from the practice of law) that averages more than $200,000.00 a year in order to off-set any profit the legal profession receives from its public monopoly or regulation.
To allow for uneven income, lawyers should be allowed a five year income averaging period.
C. Other Limits
Other limits may also be appropriate, some of which are addressed below.
IV. PRO-BONO
"Pro-bono" means lawyers working for free for the public good in return for being allowed to practice law as a part of a limited public monopoly.
If the State of Texas reduces the number of attorneys admitted to practice law to 250 persons a year until the State of Texas reaches equilibrium, it would be fair and equitable for the State to require that lawyers provide two pro bono hours for every thousand dollars the lawyer makes, four pro bono hours for every thousand dollars a lawyer makes more than the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
At least half of the pro bono time should be in donated legal services to the needy and the rest should be in community service or donated services.
That way lawyers are charged in time to help those who may be restricted or harmed by the legal monopoly in order to counter-balance the effects and harm that the legal monopoly causes, until such time as equilibrium is reached.
V. EQUAL ACCESS TO ENTER THE PROFESSION
There are the following categories that make claims for equal access.
A. Race
The hottest topic in America today.
B. Religion
This was one of the first types of discrimination, where people were denied employment, and often their lives, or such religious differences such as whether or not normal people should be allowed Bibles in their homes.
C. National Origin
Italians and Greeks have fewer graduates from professional programs, per capita, than Blacks or Hispanics. This category is included in all constitutional law.
D. Sex
The "fourth" protected category.
E. Sexual Orientation
The newest rage of the hour.
F. Disability
Some states have had challenges to policies that stop psychotics and alcoholics from taking the bar exam.
G. Income Disadvantage
Many have suggested that those from handicapped incomes -- the poor -- should have an increased access to law school (sometimes with the flip side also insisted on, which is that children of lawyers or law school alumni should not be granted access to publicly funded law schools).
Income related initiatives cross the boundaries of race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, etc. to reach those who have suffered actual economic consequences in society. It is the driving force behind "needs based" scholarships and educational aid, and an old tradition.
H. Other
The list of categories is endless, depending on who wants something on the basis of the privilege of birth (sort of a reverse nobility -- which the Constitution prohibits).
I. Solutions I have no solutions to these issues. It seems the fairest solution is to either admit people to the bar on some sort of morass of statistical categories, quotas and set-asides or to not take any of that into account and admit people to the bar based on ethical standards and test scores.
Some think the bar needs more ethics and less morass, others see a need to use all public monopolies for social engineering and improvement. You may differ.
VI. CORRECT ECONOMIC MODELS
There are models that look at what is best for society, not what is best for lawyers. All reform should be focused on what is best for society.
Those are the economic models we should consult and use in setting the appropriate number of lawyers for Texas and in deciding when the number of people admitted to practice law each year should go above 250.
VII. IMPACT ON CURRENT INSTITUTIONS
A. Law Schools
Law Schools need to change. They need to properly educate their students as to morality, ethics and how to practice law. Law Schools should not exist as diploma mills or to feed the egos of those who are employed there.
B. Law Firms
Most changes can fit the legitimate needs of law firms and make it easier for them to hire properly trained and educated employees to work for them.
C. The Texas Bar Association
The Texas Bar Association is swamped by the ethics problems and complications that are caused by the excess of lawyers. Reducing the number of lawyers will allow it to do its job properly.
VIII. CONCLUSION
For the good of society, business and the people, the State of Texas needs to pass legislation that will drastically reduce the number of lawyers admitted to practice every year.
At the same time, the State of Texas should guard against giving an unearned monopolistic benefit to those who are lawyers now.
The only people with the integrity and will to work to make these changes are reformers, who can make the changes to society that society needs only after they have succeeded in halting the flood of newly licensed attorneys that is drowning the legal system today.
|
|
|