Because the times is trying to get millions or billions in compensation if they win, why would you lower your odds of winning by getting cheaper lawyers just to save a few 100 k?
They have, let’s not call it a union to not upset people, but let’s say a collective agreement that they won’t work for capital. They will only work for other lawyers. So there’s no Walmart Law or other enterprise selling legal services for cheap.
I'm trying to parse the idea of "a collective agreement" but can't fully wrap my head around how that would work.
It seems to me more like the lack of a "Walmart Law" is a result of e.g. lack of economies of scale and other economic structure, rather than some collective agreement. (If it was profitable to break out of that agreement and start a "Walmart Law", it seems we'd see that happen pretty quickly?)
But if you know more about this and I'm off the mark I'd love to learn
Median lawyer rates are more like $200-300/h, with variations depending on locality--a lawyer in NYC is going to be much more expensive than a lawyer in middle-of-nowhere, Kentucky.
As for why they're expensive, part of the answer is because legal training (i.e., law school) is expensive, and lawyers have to pay their student debt.
My understanding of the price/scarcity dynamics here are that people want lawyers with significant experience, there are a relatively small number of openings every year for BigLaw associates that provide access to that kind of experience, and they hire almost exclusively from the T14 schools.
If you want a random lawyer, you can get them very cheap. But if you're doing M&A or serious corp litigation, you're looking at a much smaller and more expensive pool of candidates. I was shocked by how much our M&A lawyers cost.
All this is to say: the median might not be telling most of the story here.
$10.8 ~ 135 days * 8 hours * $1000/h x10