Decency and propriety? What do you even mean by that? That you think the proper rate for legal work should be lower than the current market rate? What basis do you have for such a claim?
Market rates propped up by having the ability to restrict entry into the market controlled by other lawyers.
$250+/hr is the common baseline rate in my area for real commercial legal services (that is, more than emailing a template for a contract), not the "A class rate", and I would guess areas with higher cost of living are worse off. I have associates that pay $450-$500+/hr for their legal help. I know of lawyers that charge $750+/hr; that, you may say, is the "A class" rate for lawyership. Note the disparity between development consultancies and legal firms -- we max out near a law firm's minimum rate.
Comparison to other highly-skilled professionals, like developers, is indeed valuable, but only further demonstrates the exorbitance of legal pricing.
You can start coding for hire right out of high school, if you've done the right prep work. It takes ~7 years before you can start practicing law.
I would argue that at least 50% of programmers out there are not 'highly-skilled professionals,' being neither highly skilled nor professional.
In my opinion the real reason is that some areas of law like patent litigation require highly specialiced knowledge that is almost impossible to acquire outside of a few special firms. An unexperienced law school graduate trying to do patent litigation would be like a med school graduate trying to do brain surgery - it just isn't feasible without years of additional training by someone who is already an expert in the field. But while after medical school this is provided by the residency programs at hospitals, all that exists for lawyers is starting as an associate at specialized for-profit biglaw firms - who have no interest in "teaching" as many people as possible, but raher in maximizing their billing rates...
One could very easily argue that these barriers to entry lead to pricing pressure and artificial scarcity that has no direct relationship to the "current market rate". I'm only recently becoming familiar with this topic, as it's one of those things that Just Is. But, the more I learn about it, the more hesitant I become to just write off high legal fees as a result of a free market. And, the more I wonder why it is that lawyers, of all people, receive such a strong defense against competition...it couldn't possibly be that the majority of politicians are also lawyers, many of whom will return to practice after holding office, could it?
Note that I'm not arguing against the idea that a great attorney is deserving of high rates, merely the idea that attorneys fees represent anything like an actual free market rate.
Just like most other industries, it's experience, deep knowledge of their field and skill that commands the high prices.
It's market driven because, despite $500/hour rates, you can still find a lawyer for $50. Both of whom passed the Bar but they're massively different in terms of their knowledge and experience.
Edit: one more thing, if you're looking for professional legal help from someone who couldn't pass the "barrier" of the Bar exam, you're probably going to get poor legal advice.
I'm genuinely not anti-lawyer. But, I can't help but think the system we have has many unintended consequences, and contributes to a legal system in which only the very wealthy can participate in a meaningful way. This may explain why, for example, polluters always seem to end up in the neighborhoods of poor people. If they set up shop next to a billionaire, they'd be sued out of existence; poor folks simply don't have the funds to fight a big legal battle like that. I'm pretty sure the bar is not the biggest cause of any of this, but it does seem obvious to me that disallowing anyone other than members of the bar from participating directly in the legal process definitely manipulates the market.
I wasn't arguing that Google should've used cheaper lawyers -- I believe the costs across the entire legal industry are ridiculously inflated, for multiple reasons. Like health care, there are a lot of elements in play and it's hard to pin any single thing down and say "this is the magic bullet", even though, also like the medical industry, there are a handful of major, easily identifiable "indecencies" in the legal industry. Note also that one can say the current costs of medicine simply represent "the current market rate" and that these services are worth what people are paying for them (and in medicine, that's more likely to be true than legal services, though the exorbitance there isn't justified either).
By "decency and propriety", I guess I mean "someone whose perspective is such that a fair analysis of the real value of the services provided by lawyers can be assessed", i.e., from the perspective of a basic decent person. I understand this perspective can become foggy as one accustoms to the rates commonly charged by legal professionals, or worse, becomes a legal professional themselves, without necessarily losing decency in the general sense -- it is just that this person's "decency gland" (as it pertains to the price of lawyers) has been forced into submission in order to retain and/or provide a significant amount of legal services.
Yes, I think a "proper rate" for legal work would be less than the $250/hr baseline that all of the attorneys in my area charge, just as I think a proper rate for the stitch-up of a cut should be less than the $3,300 an uninsured friend was recently charged (for him, over a month of wages. He spent less than two hours in the ER).
A few among these: the general requirement to obtain a classical JD from an accredited law school (a few states have partial exceptions to this) in order to sit for the bar, which places a debt burden upon the new lawyer usually at least equivalent to a mortgage, rigidity and verbosity of the court system, including rules that specifically exclude self-representation and impose needlessly onerous paperwork requirements, paywalls imposed by legal references if not by the court system itself (variable by state), and of course, the realization among lawyers that people rarely have a realistic option not to pay you or one of your direct competitors, so even if explicit collusion does not occur, there is an implicit price floor that no one is willing to break lest they invoke a "race to the bottom" (a function of the serious prohibitive barriers to entry that prevent new blood from coming and breaking this floor).
Why can't the loads of unemployed recent JDs swoop in and take over the market? Because like most recent grads in other fields, these JDs don't have any idea what they're doing and can't supply seriously meaningful services at any rate.
It is currently written in legalese and executed by a judge. This does not consistently produce the same result for the same inputs at different locations in spacetime. If it did produce the same results, we would not need lawyers or judges to determine what was legal; we could simply make API calls and evaluate functions.
You could only realize a vision like this in a new country, but that is what seasteading is for.
I would offer Strong AI-complete as a counter suggestion.
It isn't a free market however. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_bar_in_the_Uni...
We want a system that produces the fairest outcomes possible, and there's more than one way unfair outcomes can be produced. Under the current system, if I had a patent and Oracle infringed upon it, I would be denied justice because I don't have $100M of cash to pay to litigate.
If we had a German-style fixed fee system where any patent dispute could be resolved for a flat fee of (say) $20,000 I would not be denied justice. The rich would not have an advantage over the poor in court. On the other hand, this would deny Google and Oracle the opportunity to spend 5,000 times as much to get the dispute analyzed in (what was presumably) a great deal of detail. Is that a bigger injustice than the fact I couldn't receive justice at all?
Personally I see this Oracle/Google dispute as like Bastiat's parable of the broken window - this case represents a net loss to society of $100,000,000+ as surely as if Oracle and Google had broken one another's office windows to the value of a hundred million dollars.
I've heard this sort of statement from just about anyone looking from the outside into any other profession.
Developers, Photographers, Architects, Plumbers, Lawyers whoever don't actually earn their rates. Their services aren't actually worth $$$. They charge exorbitant prices because they can. Sorry - it's all hogwash.
Someone's services are worth something to you, otherwise you wouldn't be paying them. It's a business decision. You can pay to have your car fixed so you can get to work, you can pay to get your stove fixed so you can cook, you can pay to have your toilet fixed so your feces go to the sewage treatment plant instead of spewing all over your floor, you can pay to have a building designed so you can build it or live in it, you can pay for a non-stop flight so you can be there in time for the meeting with PG, and so on.
Google made $2.89B profit on $10.645B revenue in their most recently reported quarter. An additional $14M in legal expenses per quarter is no doubt far less than they normally spend on a regular basis for legal. In fact, Google has no less than 70 openings for legal positions posted on their website.
~$4.5M a month in legal fees is an extraordinary sum to the average HN commenter (including me), it is not an extraordinary sum for a company the size of google, but merely a regular cost of doing business.
"Big Law" is suffering these days. Law firms lined up for this one by the trainload, Google picked the best of the best and paid what they thought it was worth to them.
(Considering that the judge will not take your word for it, how much should you set aside to pay someone else to go through it all and check your work?)
Also, in my uneducated opinion, I think "millions" of documents is probably not really credible in terms of what a normal person thinks of as a document. This may include the entirety of Android's source code, which is thousands of files ("documents") by itself. I'd like to be corrected on this if there is actually a real amount of work for each of those "millions" of documents entered into the case. (If there were millions of unique and independent documents for review, I don't think anyone would believe a court could truly process these in a timeframe of 18-24 months.)
I suppose you can debate the exact figures if you like, but they did spend $2,900,349 on this, and I'm betting they got a good deal.
That is the job of the law firm who would distill the thousands/millions of documents into a single argument for the court. Some documents maybe relevant. Some may not. The point is that it takes someone with skill a great deal of time to review them.
I sure as hell can't imagine many people with the intellectual rigor capable of turning the staggering volume of documents into a single, compelling argument.