AP Quits

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by DJ FC

I will thoroughly respond to this tomorrow when I'm sober, but I don't have to be sober to tell you that when only one group of people is allowed to own stock in an industry and that industry is mandated to exist by law (which lawyers esentially are) that group is minted. Lawyers need to exist by law, the law requires that lawyers own law firms, and lawyers keep it that way. You guys should really be more like doctors, working hard for the big man earing what you deserve. Imagine what it would be like if the law said only doctors could own hospitals. Doctors would be king shit.

"Lawyers" don't want to keep it as is, mostly because there is no single uniting ideology for such a diverse group.

The fact that lawyers are suing for the ability to sell equity in their firms makes it pretty clear that some lawyers would like to be able to sell equity in their firms.

Also laws aren't necessarily made by lawyers; whip up some public outrage, have some product of a political machine in a safe district introduce the bill, put a good sounding name like "the bill to prevent child rape and outside ownership of law firms", and boom, there is your law.

[angry pancake]

Beebs is correct in general. Most of the rules were the result of shutting down ambulance chasing and case selling from referral mills.

I'm all for an influx of cash that investors would bring. I just don't know how FC thinks anything would change. A savvy investor probably isn't better at advertising than the guys on Madison Ave. The same regulations are still in place. I have no idea what your going to cut out to be more efficient. Sometimes cutting corners and being inefficient is what determines if a guy gets lethal injected or not. Usually the guys who can spend the most on those inefficient things win. I bet OJ is glad somebody spent the time and money checking out Mark Furman.

Edit: and no, lawyers don't make the law. The legislature does. If we made the laws there would not have tort reform to reign in "runaway jury verdicts." We would allow the sale of equity. I gotta think FC is just trolling. This is absurd shit coming out of his keyboard.

[angry pancake]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

Blue Cross does not decide if I get an MRI, my doctor does.

Blue Cross just doesn't fucking pay for it, my parents do.

You're technically correct. But give it a shot sometime. A lot of people say that they can't get in once the insurance denies it. This is much more common at pharmacies when BCBS only covers something like 15 pills per month, but the MD prescribed 20 and you're willing to pay out of pocket for the difference. It's like the spinal tap "but this one goes to 11" schtick. DDTempest might be able shed more light on this. I hope we just have stupid employees here. But yeah, the pharmacist overruled my doctor.

[Mr. Blonde]

Can somebody give me the TL;DR of what AP Beebs and FC are discussing plz?

[DJ FC]

I'm not trolling but did go on a drunken tangent. All I'm saying is that when you mandate that only one group of people can do a thing that group is benefited. On the whole lawyers benefit from not having competition for ownership. Legal services are more or less inelastic in their demand.

[thekremlin]

Huh. I also need a TLDR, but doesn't this law basically massively limit the number of buyers lawyers like AP can find for their firms?

[angry pancake]

Originally Posted by thekremlin

Huh. I also need a TLDR, but doesn't this law basically massively limit the number of buyers lawyers like AP can find for their firms?

Yes. And I can't think of a single lawyer who is on board with it.

FC sees it as a competetive benefit. AP sees it as just one of hundreds of rules that restrict what we do.

[DJ FC]

AP you need to imagine a world where this rule hasn't existed. In that world you wouldn't own a law firm. You don't want the rule now because you want to sell the law firm you already have. But without the rule you might never have owned in the first place.

[Ugly Bastard]

Originally Posted by DJ FC

This is all bullshit and you guys know it.

Here's why non-lawyers can't own law firms: lawyers make the laws!

Let's say we allowed non-lawyers to own law firms the way we allow non-anything else to own anything else firms. These firms would surely be taken over by more savvy investors who were able to cut the fat at a law firm, and compete in the law firm industry more effectively. They'd be better at marketing, hr, fucking everything.

The first firms to have non lawyer ownership would have a large competitive advantage and this would threaten lawyer owned firms. Especially the big ones. Suddenly tallented lawyers at small firms could have a chance to access investor capital to attract marketing, research, paralegals, not to mention the client list that a big time investor can bring.

So what are some of the effects of these changes:

A more efficient law firm industry.

But more importantly, the share of profits would shift away from the lawyers to the non-lawyer owners. Because the non-lawyer owners would be providing an economic service and their input and additional competition would be valued.

The system, as it is now, resembles a cartel. Lawyers don't have to compete in this manner because they aren't allowed to. It's in the lawyers' interest for the system to remain inefficient.

[thekremlin]

Is that Ann Frank?

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by thekremlin

Is that Ann Frank?

I think it's Rand Paul.

[Orgazmo]

Right Click => Tineye => Randall Cunningham

[DJ FC]

So understanding fundamentals of economics > Ayn Rand > Nutjob.

OK.

[angry pancake]

Originally Posted by DJ FC

AP you need to imagine a world where this rule hasn't existed.

Like Texas circa 1998?

[thekremlin]

[Mr. Blonde]

Still waiting on that tl;dr guys

[DJ FC]

I spouted my mouth about things I know nothing about. (like usual)

[Mr. Blonde]

Guys tl;dr please?

[Beebs]

Mother Fucker.

Non-Lawyers can't buy law firms. AP is a Lawyer. AP wishes he could sell his law firm. Nobody will buy AP's law firm, since the pool of potential buyers is so small. AP is considering saying "fuck it all".

FC had a few too many Zima's. FC tried to make a somewhat valid point, stepped over the line. AP informed him of this. FC is now habitually line-stepping. AP sits FC the fuck down.

[SinisterKid]

AP wants to sell his law firm. Law firms, by law, can only be owned by lawyers. This means two things: one, the pool of people qualified to buy AP's law firm is limited, and two, because only lawyers can own law firms, the practice of owning a law firm is inhibitive to owners as well as non-lawyers who want to own a law firm but can't.

FC views the existing system as a cartel and believes "outside" ownership might increase efficiency. AP disagrees, but dislikes the restrictions that exist on who can and cannot own law firms.

[Mr. Blonde]

I'd give you both posrep but Gaz abolished it for me only, so, thanks I guess.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

I'd give you both posrep but Gaz abolished it for me only, so, thanks I guess.

He still hasn't reset my internets to zero as requested ... glad we have a double standard around here about requests

[thekremlin]

Way to ruin a thread, guys.

AP, I am actually really curious how this works out for you, please continue if there are developments.

[angry pancake]

Met with some folks last week to discuss a merger. The biggest concern is that my two main corporate clients might not stick around if I leave. If these two follow me out the door when I walk away, then there's no point in merging from their perspective.

I've already informed all of the attorneys here that this place will be defunct one way or another within two years.

[SittinOnDubsWGW]

Which would you prefer happen, merger or quit?