The issues these lawyers get pulled into don’t use boilerplate (at least not generic) anymore than you’d get random cut-n-paste from stackoverflow from a good software engineer.
Additionally, a high end lawyer has made a name for themselves avoiding problems, and successfully navigating cases, in some very difficult corner of the field.
That means they have their pick of junior associates and legal help, which also helps them be the best in the area, and a reputation which means opponents are much less likely to do stupid BS which wastes your time and money.
The difference is easily 10x in likelihood you’ll prevail (or never need to litigate at all) vs a random other attorney.
Just like your chances your end product will actually work is easily 10x if you hire a good software engineer vs a random ‘cut-n-paste from stack overflow with no clue what they’re doing’ software engineer.
The article is primarily about Wall Street, but I can answer in the tax space. Law firms pay big money for lawyers with experience inside government tax offices. The ability to make a single call or knowing who to negotiate with can easily be worth seven figures to the client.
Keep in mind that billable hours is what the law firm cares about. The good lawyer brings in more billable hours, even if the client isn't paying a premium on an hourly basis (which is also happening).
Law can be less about the raw skills and more about who X has partnered with, clerked for, vacationed with, etc.
A good lawyer with the right position to achieve a desired result can sometimes cost as much as a top of the line RV bus and an all expenses paid for two private yacht cruise.
one possible explanation is that the truly top lawyers could be a lot more creative in their interpretation of the law, and are capable of convincing a judge or jury that his/her unconventional argument is right in the eyes of the law, so they can achieve their desired outcome even when the odds are against their favor.
of course, the other factors that others have mentioned are probably also true regarding stuff like your network, your connections, etc.
Brand image and advertising. If you're that lawyer who solved that one famous case you can charge to the moon for stuff any other law grad can handle because some well off customers will only want "the best" no matter how basic the task.
Good lawyers actually represent their clients, boilerplate lawyers spit out the boilerplate and are happy that it probably covers their client enough for them to defend their work to their professional body.
The legal system is akin to an api with a codebase centuries long in many different languages. Good lawyers know which function calls are effective in this web of chaos.
Law firms are the right-arm of the shadow government. Non-profit super-pacs are probably the left arm. The legs would def be the internet.
K&L Gates for example builds sophisticated social networks graphs of people in and outside of it's immediate community. Purchase as much data as you'd imagine an org like palantir would. They do their own "market research". Equal access to software based tools doesn't exist here or anywhere.
Some people are just really good at negotiating things. You get paid well if you are superior in getting things out of the other side, be it for example insurance company. Those situations can net lot of money. And on other side, if you are effective in brining in, that is selling your firm, to less price sensitive customers that is also a huge thing.
I have family that are lawyers, some that are 'high up' in their respective areas.
The answer is 'networking'. Very well paid lawyers are very good at being lawyers. Meaning that yes, they placed well in their law schools and that they really truly do know their stuff. In the US, common law systems are not an easy thing to master [0]. If they go to trial, they know how to run one and how not to run one, depending on circumstances.
But the real thing that makes a very well paid lawyer as such is the 'networking' element. They know which judges will rule what way, what other lawyers in the local system are like, who the right secretaries to talk to are. And they know how to determine such things with little information. Most importantly, they know who not to talk to and get information from. And they know how to 'work the refs' to their advantage and how to ditch clients too.
Is this scummy? Oh, absolutely, no questions. But the law in our system is not about the truth, it's about winning. That's why we pay lawyers to begin with: to win. If we want to change that, sure, fine, most lawyers do too. But you have to play the cards you're dealt.
[0] Life tip: If you ever meet a Louisiana lawyer, you've met a very very smart person. Having to master two different law systems interacting at once is blindingly difficult. Louisiana's legal system is based on Napoleonic era civil law and the rest of the US's common law.
I would guess that are paying for connections. Which when you are dealing with your freedom in criminal cases or in business. That can be worth a lot to you.
I wish there was a study done on lawyers to determine if there's some truth to it being beneficial but I imagine it would be hard to conduct.
Much of the article is about private equity firms in particular — their need for good lawyers, their ability to pay them, and the focus of law firms on attracting them. It seems as much about private equity as it does law practice, and makes me wonder how much of the article applies to other areas of law.
Because it results in revenue from broadcasting deals, apparel sales, and other transactions.
Better question is why do people pay so much to watch someone run back and forth with a ball in a medium packed to the gills with annoying advertising.
Yeah I think your question gets much closer to the point. And the answer probably also applies to lawyers. Their work is valuable enough that people pay for it, even if it does look really stupid.
Capitalism gonna make that happen. Have a rare skill? Guess you get paid a ton for it.
I don't understand why this is surprising enough to warrant an NYT article. (Except that the NYT seems to regularly post things that are aimed at disrupting solidarity. Wealthy workers are still workers. We should be looking for ways to get them to have solidarity with us, not villainizing them. )
Readit News
Like, versus another qualified lawyer with equal access to boilerplates and command of the English language, what distinguishes them?
Additionally, a high end lawyer has made a name for themselves avoiding problems, and successfully navigating cases, in some very difficult corner of the field.
That means they have their pick of junior associates and legal help, which also helps them be the best in the area, and a reputation which means opponents are much less likely to do stupid BS which wastes your time and money.
The difference is easily 10x in likelihood you’ll prevail (or never need to litigate at all) vs a random other attorney.
Just like your chances your end product will actually work is easily 10x if you hire a good software engineer vs a random ‘cut-n-paste from stack overflow with no clue what they’re doing’ software engineer.
Keep in mind that billable hours is what the law firm cares about. The good lawyer brings in more billable hours, even if the client isn't paying a premium on an hourly basis (which is also happening).
It's like what is the difference between your average doctor and the best doctors in their field.
Or the average developer vs a very skilled one (why pay 500k for a top developer when you can get a cheap average one for 10% of the cost).
Law can be less about the raw skills and more about who X has partnered with, clerked for, vacationed with, etc.
A good lawyer with the right position to achieve a desired result can sometimes cost as much as a top of the line RV bus and an all expenses paid for two private yacht cruise.
of course, the other factors that others have mentioned are probably also true regarding stuff like your network, your connections, etc.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
K&L Gates for example builds sophisticated social networks graphs of people in and outside of it's immediate community. Purchase as much data as you'd imagine an org like palantir would. They do their own "market research". Equal access to software based tools doesn't exist here or anywhere.
The answer is 'networking'. Very well paid lawyers are very good at being lawyers. Meaning that yes, they placed well in their law schools and that they really truly do know their stuff. In the US, common law systems are not an easy thing to master [0]. If they go to trial, they know how to run one and how not to run one, depending on circumstances.
But the real thing that makes a very well paid lawyer as such is the 'networking' element. They know which judges will rule what way, what other lawyers in the local system are like, who the right secretaries to talk to are. And they know how to determine such things with little information. Most importantly, they know who not to talk to and get information from. And they know how to 'work the refs' to their advantage and how to ditch clients too.
Is this scummy? Oh, absolutely, no questions. But the law in our system is not about the truth, it's about winning. That's why we pay lawyers to begin with: to win. If we want to change that, sure, fine, most lawyers do too. But you have to play the cards you're dealt.
[0] Life tip: If you ever meet a Louisiana lawyer, you've met a very very smart person. Having to master two different law systems interacting at once is blindingly difficult. Louisiana's legal system is based on Napoleonic era civil law and the rest of the US's common law.
I wish there was a study done on lawyers to determine if there's some truth to it being beneficial but I imagine it would be hard to conduct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-paid_NBA_playe...
Better question is why do people pay so much to watch someone run back and forth with a ball in a medium packed to the gills with annoying advertising.
I don't understand why this is surprising enough to warrant an NYT article. (Except that the NYT seems to regularly post things that are aimed at disrupting solidarity. Wealthy workers are still workers. We should be looking for ways to get them to have solidarity with us, not villainizing them. )
Dead Comment
What's a lawyer's goal? To make partner. That's not the kind of goal that moves you toward solidarity with the masses.