What will happen toall the lawyers as the economy continues its collapse?????

[Hendrek]

We'll be going back to the real law in many ways.  Those things immutable.  This "law" we speak of is all just codified rules: arbitrary and mutable, and it will be the latter for certain.

I have a feeling that lawyers will be no worse / better off than the bulk of us in any given profession.  During a massive societal power down, only a small few will get to remain at the top, and though most rulers/politicians are lawyers, most lawyers are not rulers/politicians.

[the Black Hunter]

Yes, we need to get back to our evolutionary roots and dispense with this charade we call society.  The only rule of law we need is the oldest law, survival of the fittest, or, as more eloquently said, "British Rule 303."  Now, let's not be half ass about this.  I'm talking no stop signs, no 911, nada.  I'm sure that Dick Cheney is rootin for this too.  If he weren't inhibited by this thing we call law, the Constitution, enforced by a bunch of paper pushing pencil necked lawyers and judges, he could get real medieval on our collective asses with those contractors of his.  But, like all of you, I'm willing to take that chance.  I'm not really sure why he ever let a "god damn piece of paper" like the Constitution hold him back anyway.  Hell I wouldn't.  I'm waiting for it to happen too, and I'm a lawyer.  And it can't happen a  moment too soon.  Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, stonings and crucifixions, were just more injustice by court systems that didn't work.   I'm talking  rule 303.  I think being a trained Army Ranger and well armed, and having just completed an Iron Man, which for you couch potatoes is a 2.4 mile swim, a 112 mile bike ride, and 26.2 mile run back to back nonstop, I might do alright under Rule 303.  I think Tug and a few other posters would do quite well too.  Happy hunting.  Like I said, not a moment to soon. 

Those who lived through the age of dueling and after it was banned have gone down to comment on how much more polite and well behaved people tended to be before the banning. 

I think what you say is true.  People think it would be terribly grim.  I think it is far less grim than what we have now.  Humans in their natural state are far from perfect, but they are probably far better to each other than they are right now.  Because they have to be.  The point of "survival of the fittest" when it comes to humans being that "fittest" is less important on an individual level (though still very important) as it is on a community level.  We are a social species.  It doesn't mean we like company - it means that for optimum functioning - fitness - "each other" is crucial.  As for laws, they have not worked well for the wrongly accused in our system - nothing has changed (they still work very well for the elite, as they always have.)  But "lawlessness" is a myth, too, except in extreme, aberrant cases which don't have much longevity.  Healthy people - virtually all living things in fact - have an imbedded, hardwired code of "morality" (or call it something else if you like) that works better than any artificial legal system we have designed.  Were this not true, the planet would be devoid of life.  People without this wiring are recognized as sick.  Animals without it just die, usually in their first season.

As for right now?  Right now we eat each other.  We are a culture of cannibals.  We just do it once removed, behind the veil of commerce, is all.

[Hope@ZeroKelvin]

Well, although I am no fan of lawyers and the current cannibalism that passes for the legal profession these days, I am going to take another tack.

Perhaps in a post-collapse world there is going to have to be somebody with some knowledge of the law to help put things back together, even if it is in a small community or a "tribal" setting.

All human societies have evolved a system of laws and the concept of a lawgiver.  Stable societies are governed by the rule of law NOT the rules of men.  The latter construct is called a dictatorship or a banana republic (which is where we are heading, IMHO), and these inevitably fall from the inequality and corruption that ensues.

Just sayin.

[Seahorse]

Those who lived through the age of dueling and after it was banned have gone down to comment on how much more polite and well behaved people tended to be before the banning.

Yes, history proves that in the past, we were more civilized without the Constitution, like when the Catholic Church burned people at the stake for being heretics, or slaughtered infidels in North and South America, when societies accepted slavery, crucifixions, any number of examples.

I think what you say is true.  People think it would be terribly grim.  I think it is far less grim than what we have now.  Humans in their natural state are far from perfect, but they are probably far better to each other than they are right now.

Interestingly, we have places in the world where there are no lawyers, or where lawyers were done away with, to see just what a utopia that would be.  There was the genocide in Rwanda for example, where the rule of law was rightly thrown away for the rule of the machete to your neighbor, his family and kids.  Even Afghanistan today is a shining example.  Instead of trying to democratize that place, we should quit the charade and get tribal here, unleash the rule of law for the rule of religion or men wielding machetes. 

It seems to me, that if we dispensed with the rule of law, most people on this board would be caught between the proverbial rock and a hard spot.  Most would be caught between the "Rodney Kings" on the streets and the "Dick Cheneys" from above.

But, like I said, I'm willing to try it.

[the Black Hunter]

Those who lived through the age of dueling and after it was banned have gone down to comment on how much more polite and well behaved people tended to be before the banning.

Yes, history proves that in the past, we were more civilized without the Constitution, like when the Catholic Church burned people at the stake for being heretics, or slaughtered infidels in North and South America, when societies accepted slavery, crucifixions, any number of examples.

I think what you say is true.  People think it would be terribly grim.  I think it is far less grim than what we have now.  Humans in their natural state are far from perfect, but they are probably far better to each other than they are right now.

Interestingly, we have places in the world where there are no lawyers, or where lawyers were done away with, to see just what a utopia that would be.  There was the genocide in Rwanda for example, where the rule of law was rightly thrown away for the rule of the machete to your neighbor, his family and kids.  Even Afghanistan today is a shining example.  Instead of trying to democratize that place, we should quit the charade and get tribal here, unleash the rule of law for the rule of religion or men wielding machetes. 

It seems to me, that if we dispensed with the rule of law, most people on this board would be caught between the proverbial rock and a hard spot.  Most would be caught between the "Rodney Kings" on the streets and the "Dick Cheneys" from above.

But, like I said, I'm willing to try it.

The scale today is too large.  Keeping things truly civilized means, first and foremost, paying attention to scale.  BIG = chaos requiring central control.  So is that the answer, then?  No.  The answer is to get small and stay small.  Fat chance, you may say.  I would agree, with that, but they are improving.

BIG will always be inhuman, uncivilized, chaotic - with or without laws, recognizing that there are always, and always have been, laws - with or without our help. 

[JurisDoctorOfDoom]

I have a book "The Primitive Law of Man", about the legal systems and traditions used by primitive tribes. Haven't gotten to it yet but the parts I scanned looked damn interesting.

[max_power]

the rule of law is great when you've got PLENTY of "legal tender", otherwise its useless.

[steelmoon]

I'm a lawyer, and my sense is I'm somewhat more ambivalent about the profession than Seahorse.  But his point is a valid one.  Jokes aside, I think when you're criticizing the profession you need to distinguish between the Law as a Business from the Law as an essential public function.  As a business, law is under tremendous pressure like many industries (how I hate that term!) and still in the early stages of a major contraction.  So don't worry, you'll have fewer lawyers to worry about soon.

But as a public function, a sophisticated, equitable and reasonably efficient justice system is absolutely essential for having anything resembling a fair and safe society.  Maybe you don't think we have that here in the USA, but consider the alternative: a society run by gangsters or warlords or religious fanatics, or some combination of the three.  Yeah, I suppose you could argue we are already heading that way, but we are not there yet.  However, there are many examples of such societies around the world, right now, as Seahorse points out.  You really think you wanna live in one?  I'm not saying our system is perfect or that there aren't more than a few scoundrels practicing law, but the notion that we'd be better off without lawyers is ludicrous. And, like Seahorse, I wonder how well some of us would fare in a lawyer-less society.  The Law is the foundation of what we casually refer to as our freedoms, such as they are.  Some of the greatest people this country has produced were lawyers.


Regarding the OP, I don't work in ID (insurance defense) but I hear anecdotally that those firms are under tremendous pressure from the carriers to lower fees.  They may be trying to make up their losses by grabbing a bigger chunk of the awards.  It won't change the fact that the market for lawyers in many specialties is oversaturated, and the days of inflated fees are coming to an end.

[jmhpolar]

What will happen toall the lawyers as the economy continues its collapse??

My guess is your average lawyer is a little tougher than your average banker, but that just means you have to cook them differently.  While you can probably get a tasty, delicate, rare chop or two that just melts in your mouth from a banker, trying that with a lawyer will just get you boot leather.  Low and slow is the way; maybe even soup stock.  Think smoker or crock pot. 

[the Black Hunter]

...a society run by gangsters or warlords or religious fanatics, or some combination of the three.  Yeah, I suppose you could argue we are already heading that way...

In all ironic seriousness, I think this is not where America is headed, but rather exactly what America has been almost since the beginning. 

The gangsters, warlords and religious fanatics who were in position to make the rules, did so in a fashion that lent themselves the appearance of legitimacy.

Which is why there has never been a justice system, but rather just a legal system.

Jackson, Morgan, Jefferson... Bush... you pick 'em.  A gang of cutthroats out for power at any cost.   

[steelmoon]

...a society run by gangsters or warlords or religious fanatics, or some combination of the three.  Yeah, I suppose you could argue we are already heading that way...

In all seriousness, I think this is exactly what America has always been. 

Try living in Somalia or Afghanistan or any number of lawless shitholes around the world.  Your viewpoint might change.

Or China for that matter, where internet speech is censored.

[Hendrek]

...a society run by gangsters or warlords or religious fanatics, or some combination of the three.  Yeah, I suppose you could argue we are already heading that way...

In all seriousness, I think this is exactly what America has always been. 

Try living in Somalia or Afghanistan or any number of lawless shitholes around the world.  Your viewpoint might change.

Or China for that matter, where internet speech is censored.

There is law in all of those places you mentioned, it's just not U.S. law.  Does law in this conversation necessarily imply U.S. and Constitutional law?  I don't think so.  That's just one type of law around today.

[Seahorse]

You guys seriously think the situation in the US is anywhere like Somalia, Rwanda, Afghanistan?  If you believe that, you've either gone crazy or you're being disingenuous.

[the Black Hunter]

...a society run by gangsters or warlords or religious fanatics, or some combination of the three.  Yeah, I suppose you could argue we are already heading that way...

In all seriousness, I think this is exactly what America has always been. 

Try living in Somalia or Afghanistan or any number of lawless shitholes around the world.  Your viewpoint might change.

Or China for that matter, where internet speech is censored.

Try being a little kid hunched over until permanently crippled in one of JP Morgan's mines.  A "nigger" being forced underground at gunpoint to certain lingering death from lung complications in one of Union Carbide's operations.  An indigenous person at the time of Jefferson's "We will kill them all..."  A rancher ruined by EnCana.  Your viewpoint might change, too.  The difference between us and them is we have the incentive to cover up how dirty we are.

At any rate, I suspect I don't have to live in any of those countries.  All I have to do is wait.  The shit has always risen to the top here, too.  We've had plenty of cream to hide our true colours, but that's changing fast.  Again, look at Cheney, look at Blankfein.  The only thing that stands between us and people like this cutting our throats is a general affluence that is fast disappearing.  

[steelmoon]

I was about to say the same thing - would you be as comfortable living under the supposed system of laws in those places as in the USA? I believe this is the relevant question.

That's not to say the system in the USA was perfect.  I never said that.