Do Well-Intentioned Regulations Price Necessities Out of Reach? (employment, ethics, legal)

[jbgusa]

On another thread (on which I am OP), Should You Violate Legal Code of Ethics to Satisfy Of Counsel Contractor?, I agonize over my possible responsibility to report some apparent legal professional violations to a local bar association. The target of my complaint will include a Florida-based firm that represents buyers of defective cars. The firm doesn't charge much but provides minimal and in my opinion inadequate services to customers. For example they don't prepare clients for depositions. They engage "of counsel" attorneys nationwide to "represent" their clients at depositions. Their responses to discovery requests are apparently mass-produced.

I am torn on report also because as much as the Plaintiff's law firm are apparently (and backed up by a Better Business Bureau and Google search total lowlives) there is a real problem of access to legal services for people of limited means. These people cannot afford attorneys such as myself that bill out at roughly $400 per hour, or even the $200 per hour I charge when my firm doesn't want to be involved.

Many regulations and laws are well-intentioned but put necessities out of reach. Examples outside of legal services may be automobiles. Things such as airbags, requirements of safety in crashes and the like and environmental requirements have raised car prices measurably. A mid-level car costing $3000 in 1972, an example being a Ford Mustang (inflation adjusted at $17,400 now) obviously costs a lot more than then.

I believe that a careful balancing of costs against benefits of regulations should be required. I do not believe that we should adopt the mentality that "we have to start somewhere" or "we have to do something." I want to make sure that the cure isn't worse than the disease.

[KaraG]

I think health insurance is another example. The basic policies of years ago are long gone because now all polices must include more items. Many of us who previously had basic catastrophic insurance are now priced out.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by KaraG

I think health insurance is another example. The basic policies of years ago are long gone because now all polices must include more items. Many of us who previously had basic catastrophic insurance are now priced out.

That is one of the items at the heart of the health care insurance debate. Someone who, for example feels that they are healthy and have no pre-existing conditions should be able to buy insurance on that basis.

[ncole1]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

On another thread (on which I am OP), Should You Violate Legal Code of Ethics to Satisfy Of Counsel Contractor?, I agonize over my possible responsibility to report some apparent legal professional violations to a local bar association. The target of my complaint will include a Florida-based firm that represents buyers of defective cars. The firm doesn't charge much but provides minimal and in my opinion inadequate services to customers. For example they don't prepare clients for depositions. They engage "of counsel" attorneys nationwide to "represent" their clients at depositions. Their responses to discovery requests are apparently mass-produced.

I am torn on report also because as much as the Plaintiff's law firm are apparently (and backed up by a Better Business Bureau and Google search total lowlives) there is a real problem of access to legal services for people of limited means. These people cannot afford attorneys such as myself that bill out at roughly $400 per hour, or even the $200 per hour I charge when my firm doesn't want to be involved.

Many regulations and laws are well-intentioned but put necessities out of reach. Examples outside of legal services may be automobiles. Things such as airbags, requirements of safety in crashes and the like and environmental requirements have raised car prices measurably. A mid-level car costing $3000 in 1972, an example being a Ford Mustang (inflation adjusted at $17,400 now) obviously costs a lot more than then.

I believe that a careful balancing of costs against benefits of regulations should be required. I do not believe that we should adopt the mentality that "we have to start somewhere" or "we have to do something." I want to make sure that the cure isn't worse than the disease.

Absolutely - minimum lot sizes and square footage values have the effect of making housing unaffordable for the poor in many cities.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by ncole1

Absolutely - minimum lot sizes and square footage values have the effect of making housing unaffordable for the poor in many cities.

Add to it the length and complexity of the development process. In my neck of the woods we have an unused office which is being converted to a supermarket. ETA, 2 1/2 years from now.