Showing posts with label lawyers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawyers. Show all posts

Monday, September 18, 2017

Data is the New Gold, but Not Everywhere

"We are largely collaborative –except when institutions get in the way." -- Nassim Taleb

If data is the new gold, how do developing countries compete when their homegrown companies don't typically own popular social media or other data-capturing apps? Let me tell you how not to do it. 

I wrote before how foreign capital from rule-oriented, developed nations is changing cultures in more communal nations; however, I did not predict the strange hybrid culture that would result from the tug-of-war between the old and new values. Unsurprisingly, I suspect the lawyers are to blame.

In the Philippines, I rented a condo through Airbnb. Though Airbnb is known for allowing you to stay in someone else's house or room, hotels and absentee owners of multiple condos also use it to generate revenue. When I rent through Airbnb, the advantage is I know Airbnb--they're based in S.F.--and if anything happens, I can go through a trusted intermediary. It's not the inventory or the technology that gives Airbnb its value--it's the fact that users can book a room online and know if they show up and unexpected problems arise, Airbnb will be there to assist. For a hearing-impaired traveler like myself, the need for a trusted intermediary is extremely valuable.

In the Philippines, as foreign capital and foreign-built condo residences have flourished, I saw a three-part comedy of errors:

1) condo associations are demanding additional, non-negotiated terms from their owners to keep track of Airbnb demand. I was asked to sign two legal contracts upon arriving at my condo (I initialed one innocuous one but refused to sign the other one until I'd had a chance to review the terms);

2) condo staff appear to have a new requirement to register with local governments rental contracts, especially for long-term visitors (perhaps to gain data the old-fashioned way about visitors?); and 


3) private security is asking guests to add details to a sign-in sheet every time we use the pool or other amenities, indicating a lack of trust due to few owner-occupied units or an attempt by the condo association to generate additional revenue from guests at the expense of common sense.

Elsewhere, Proctor & Gamble is cutting online ad spending, indicating the "new" digital world isn't always superior over its analog counterpart: 


“What it reflected was a choice to cut spending from a digital standpoint where it was ineffective, where either we were serving bots as opposed to human beings or where the placement of ads was not facilitating the equity of our brands."

Even with the Nasdaq near all-time highs, some observers can still differentiate between useful and non-useful technology. To sum up, when technology reduces human error and opportunities for hijinks--such as in food preparation--or improves customer service and trust, it is valuable. When it does not do these things, technology is not very useful. For all the talk of a new, new world, Airbnb's value isn't technology per se; it's the trust it builds between renters and owners and the opportunity for a human connection. In fact, Airbnb has a straightforward policy in case landlords or owners demand additional legal terms upon arrival: 
Policy as of July 31, 2017.

Just as I thought, I was right not to sign the additional legal terms given to me when I checked in. After some back-and-forth between the owner and myself, everything turned out fine, but few people and local governments will learn the appropriate lesson: people want to collaborate freely, and requiring terms or actions that do not increase trust or that do not reduce human error will backfire. 

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Legal Rights without Economic Access are Worthless

"You can have all the rights in the world, but if you can't enforce them, they're not worth very much." -- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 

Too many people confuse written laws with actual implementation.  If a law is passed saying that men and women must be paid equally, it does not mean men and women will be paid equally.  The person who believes he or she is being paid unequally has to find a lawyer; convince the lawyer to take his or her case; pay the fees to the lawyer and the courthouse; and then wait months or years to get a result, which will--in a best case scenario--most likely be some money minus fees and expenses.  If you're interested in meaningful, lasting change, you should see obvious problems with such a system.

First, if law school tuition is 35,000 USD to 55,000 USD a year, and law graduates have 100,000 USD in student loans, how likely is it that the lawyer can or will help front the costs to the person who believes s/he is suffering illegal discrimination?  Litigation costs even before trial can easily run around 8,000 USD, depending on the number of depositions and motions filed.  In almost all civil cases, the losing party pays the costs of the prevailing party, which may sometimes require payment of the other side's attorneys' fees.  What about nonprofit legal aid centers?  They usually rely on volunteer lawyers, and you're dependent on whether they choose to take your case--which depends a lot on their funding, staffing levels, and random assignment to a particular employee or volunteer of varying skill level. Lesson: at the end of the day, the law needs money to work and even with money, may do little to actually fix underlying problems.

Second, how does the lawyer know whether the plaintiff's belief is objective or subjective? In most cases, the potential plaintiff will not arrive with printouts of everyone else's salaries or benefits, and the lawyer must initially evaluate the plaintiff at his or her word.  Even if the plaintiff is correct, where will the costs and fees come from to file a complaint and get the necessary documents and evidence if the plaintiff has been terminated or does not have enough savings? If the lawyer fronts the costs out of his or her own pocket and realizes the plaintiff is wrong, should the lawyer be able to sue the client for the costs, knowing that doing so will increase the chances of receiving a malpractice or state bar complaint? Lesson: at the end of the day, the law needs money to work and even with money, may do little to actually increase substantive rights.

Third, how does the new lawyer know which judge will be assigned to the case, and whether the judge is inclined to be more open minded or close minded?  Cases are randomly assigned to judges when filed.  The judge may not know the new lawyer, and the new lawyer may be against a lawyer well-known to the court.  Even if the plaintiff is correct, what if the judge doesn't believe the type of evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a jury trial? Lesson: the law is often dependent on randomness.

More examples to ponder:

1.  Many states have the death penalty on the books.  In 2016, however, only 5 states actually executed criminals.  Within those 5 states, 20 people were put to death.  The death penalty in America is now basically a taxpayer-funded lawyer, investigator, and prison guard employment act than a deterrent. The cost to house a death row inmate in California is $90,000 more per year than for other inmates, with much of the cost arising from state legal requirements relating to government-funded lawyers. Lesson: the lawyers always get paid, regardless of results. [Update on June 20, 2017: California has not actually executed anyone since 2006.]

2.  After Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) outlawed segregation, many cities and states passed laws trying to evade the impact of the case. To challenge such laws required more lawyers and more lawsuits.  Now, it appears we're back to square one: a 2016 report released by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office "shows that the number of schools segregated along racial and financial lines more than doubled over a 13-year period ending in the 2013-14 school year." Lesson: the teachers, administrators, and lawyers always get paid, regardless of results.

3.  Abortion is legal in America.  In 2011, 94% of abortion procedures, including both surgical and medication, took place in clinics. As of 2015, there were 517 surgical abortion clinics and 213 medication abortion clinics in the entire country, and some states had no clinics.  The cost of an abortion is about 500 to 600 USD.  You are a teenager who has an unplanned pregnancy and want an abortion.  You do not have 500 to 600 USD.  You can apply for indigent healthcare programs, but your ability to get coverage depends on the random assignment of at least one person to assist you.  Lesson: the law, even when it's funded in your favor, makes you dependent on random government or nonprofit employees.

The overall lesson is not to scrap our legal system, but to realize if given a choice, voters should think of taxes as a way to create a certain society.  For example, would you rather your taxes create a society with predictability and higher welfare payments in the event of a job loss, or one where terminated employees experience more randomness with a larger potential payoff? 

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Little Boxes

And the people in the houses
All go to the university,
And they all get put in boxes,
Little boxes, all the same.
And there's doctors and there's lawyers
And business executives,
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same.

It's a modification of this Malvina Reynolds song, made famous by Pete Seeger.

Speaking of boxes, H. L. Mencken wrote in The American Mercury (April 1924) that the aim of public education is not

to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence...Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim...is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States.

The more things change, the more they stay the same? Sigh.

Saturday, June 5, 2010

For Aspiring Lawyers and Law Students

The blog, Not a Potted Plant, recently had an interesting post about law school:


If you are in law school right now, in California, chances are pretty good that by the time you get your J.D. you're going to have spent $100,000 on your legal education. And if you're like I was, you've borrowed that money. In some parts of the country, that's what it costs to buy a house. Only you can't default on student loans; you can't even bankrupt out of them.

The sad reality of it is, the majority of you law students aren't going to be getting $100K+ jobs.

If you're going to law school because you want to make lots and lots of money, you can do it, but there are better avenues if money is your primary goal.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

A Gentleman and a Scholar

I have not laughed so hard in so long. HERE's an article on dating an attorney. My favorite tip:

Don’t be surprised when your lawyer sweetheart nitpicks everything. When it happens, don’t accuse him of splitting hairs. That would be like accusing a dolphin of swimming. Instead, thank him for being both a gentleman and a scholar.

Hilarious, isn't it? And so true.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Lawyers and Depression/Pessimism

From Daniel Lukasik:

Pessimism is seen as a plus among lawyers, because seeing troubles as pervasive and permanent is a component of what the law profession deems prudence. They have to foresee every possible snare and catastrophe. While this might help them be better lawyers, this trait does not always make them happy human beings.

More here. Hat tip to Alison B.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Law Students: Caveat Emptor

This WSJ article, from 9/24/08, has information for aspiring attorneys:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119040786780835602.html

He's making less money than at his last job and has thought about moving back to his parents' house. "I didn't think three years out I'd be uninsured, thinking it's a great day when a crackhead brings me $500."