| | |
|
AlejandroMercadoFirstPaper 4 - 19 Oct 2011 - Main.AustinKlar
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Rethinking the Future of Law | | | -- DevinMcDougall - 17 Oct 2011
I wrote a paper last year on discovery abuse. This doesn't make me an expert obviously, but I'd like to point out that whether or not discovery has become more disproportionately expensive over the years, especially as a result of E-discovery, is up for debate. I am not at all saying that it isn't a problem, but I spent 8 weeks in a class last year talking to judges and practitioners on this topic, none of whom were of the same mind on this. Moreover, every empirical study on the cost of discovery (that I know of) has concluded that the overall cost of discovery is not problematic. I point this out only to say you may want to be careful before you rely on a survey as proof that the discovery rules and the current paradigm should be amended.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | -- AustinKlar - 19 Oct 2011
I think its a supply vs. demand issue as well. While companies like Amazon and Google might be using these new versions of law firms, Amazon and Google are also using the traditional big law firms as well that you describe as becoming outdated. One of the firms you mentioned is a shop of 20 lawyers. There is an access problem with a firm that has only 20 lawyers. Many many cases will be turned away because there simply are not enough lawyers to handle every case that people might want litigated at a given time. This is why the big law firms that use the traditional methods are still doing well, and still continue to grow, even in a down economy. A firm that has 1500 lawyers can more readily take on a breadth of legal work than can a boutique firm. All firms pick and choose their cases but when you have a massive firm, you can choose more cases. Thus, if the option is not having your case litigated at all, or paying high fees to lawyers of the traditional firms, unless the fees outweigh what you plan on getting through litigation (which is doubtful), you are going to litigate, and you are going to pay because you demand a service and there is not sufficient supply with these smaller firms employing new technological methods.
Morrison & Foerster represents UPS. Its actually kind of funny. UPS wants to let people know not to try and steal from them, or to cheat them in any way. Junior associates at MoFo? actually go to court representing UPS and argue over claims that are worth only a couple hundred dollars or a couple thousand dollars (in small claims). MoFo? wants lawyers to get experience, and UPS wants people to know that they are serious about not messing with them. In many of these cases, 1 hour of lawyer fees is greater than the money UPS receives in judgment. But its not about the money, its about the principle of the matter. So money doesnt always matter (especially when it comes to seeking only injunctive relief), and the demand for legal services vastly outnumbers the supply provided by these new boutique firms of 20 lawyers using newer technology that are cheaper. No one is going to have an incentive to switch to these new versions of firms if people are still in need of the traditional law firm.
-- AustinKlar - 19 Oct 2011 |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |