[jacques_chester]

The careful decomposition of problem domain into solution domain followed by recursive search of the solution domain is the lawyer's job. If they don't analyse to death, they are breaching their fiduciary duty.

Don't like the legal method? Don't hire a lawyer. Try doing it yourself. See how far you get when the other guy's lawyers have done the exhaustive analysis and found the deciding element buried in a logical node on a distant subgraph you didn't even know was there to be explored.

[OGinparadise]

Yeah, other developed countries are all going downhill for not being overlawyered up like in US.

It's a system set by lawyers for lawyers so of course you need a lawyer more than in many other countries. "Everyone" sues over everything

[jacques_chester]

The overlawyered US is the richest and most powerful country on Earth by a country mile.

[OGinparadise]

"The overlawyered US is the richest and most powerful country on Earth by a country mile."

Thanks to the lawyers, no doubt. I am sure you didn't meant to say that if we pass some tort reform and limit some nonsense lawsuits (IP, malpractice etc) the country will lose it's wealth /power rank.

[jacques_chester]

The rule of law is a key part of the mix of institutions, geography, culture and luck that have made the USA the richest country that has ever been.

And with the rule of law comes lawyers. I know it's fashionable to hate lawyers, but they're a necessary profession.

Law is a field in which small details can have very large consequences once the full line of reasoning is unfolded. Because of the importance of exhaustively covering all lines of argument to the maximal possible depth, lawyers are required to do so.

They don't do it to bill you more. It is their legal duty.

If you don't like that lawyers are required on pain of loss of income, loss of profession and potentially loss of personal liberty to give you the fullest and most complete service that they are able to give you, then you are entitled to represent yourself.

[notahacker]

Let's be honest, it isn't this firm's legal duty to set up a marketing website to try to find a plaintiff to launch a lucrative lawsuit. Law firms seek to offer the level of service that maximises their returns, just like any other corporation.

[jacques_chester]

No, but once they have a client for a lawsuit, they're still bound by fiduciary duty.

[zcrar70]

Not all that is a part of the US is a reason for its success. Whilst the US does a lot of things well, there is always room for improvement, and some of the aspects of its legal framework is one of the areas that could benefit. The US spends 2-3 times as much on tort as other developed economies; this is clearly a problem, not an advantage.

For more examples, see: http://www.economist.com/node/21541423 - on attempts to reform tort law

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571141-cheaper-legal... - on how US legal education can be reformed to reduce the cost of legal counsel

http://www.economist.com/node/18389167 - on problems with the US' patent laws

[jacques_chester]

Sure, there's room for improvement. But torts law reform is no the original point I was arguing. The root of this thread is a suggestion that lawyers deliberately complicate the law in order to maximise their bill.

I was explaining why lawyers spend so much time minutely examining every tiny bit of a case for their clients. They have to. A lawyer who doesn't could find themselves in breach of fiduciary duty.

Also, read what I've said again. Nowhere have I said that the USA is rich and powerful because of lawyering. But neither has it stopped the USA from being so.