Because legal talent has a power distribution. Here are words litigants will hear: "get the best attorney you can afford, this isn't an area where you want to cut costs. A great attorney can save you money." Get the picture?
The huge oversupply of lawyers is coming from lower-tier law schools.
> The huge oversupply of lawyers is coming from lower-tier law schools.
Is there a relationship/correlation between a lawyer's capability and the school they come from? I'm sure informally it's something people assume but I have no practical experience dealing with or knowing about the quality of lawyers' work.
In my experience, there's only a weak correlation. You're much better off looking at their repeat clients. If they serve sophisticated parties on a repeat basis, it's about the best indicator you'll get.
It is driving legal costs down for the simple tasks.
The average salary for a lawyer in the UK is well below the national average salary. For the average UK lawyer, starting at the floor at McDonalds and working your way up is more profitable when factoring in the cost of law school.
But when you're facing a lawsuit, people tend to not look for "the cheapest that'll do", but "the best you can afford". If supply increases and prices drop, then that means you hire a better lawyer, not a cheaper one, and the worse ones end up doing simpler tasks.
It is. Just not on stated rates. Clients negotiate for lower budgets/rates more successfully now that a few years ago. Many firms keep their nominal rates high to maintain the appearance of demand and prestige.
