ChadD Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Going into college, I had law ambitions and to > gain real experience I spent most of my college > days working for a personal injury attorney and > then an estate planning firm. I eventually > realized that while I enjoyed law, I didn’t have a > passion for it. > > Form my perspective, I think there are two > fundamental issues that a part of a systematic > problem that cause a good deal of distaste for the > profession. First, the billing expectations of > large firms promote wheel-spinning. Attorneys are > expected to bill out 40 hours a week but not all > work is billable. So people spend time doing > wheel-spinning work to boost their billable hours. > Second, a good deal of time is spent covering > their asses. One of the biggest problems with the > law profession is greedy clients who can’t accept > a judge/jury decision. Anymore, after the a final > decision is handed down, it isn’t a loss on the > merits of the case but either because of a failure > of counsel. They will then immediately will turn > to another attorney to sue their first attorney > for malpractice. That response, IMO is the biggest > problem in the legal profession. This drags out > cases, racks up more fees and is slowly > disintegrating our legal structure. And while it > is good to have a system of checks and a method of > compensation for those wrong by incompetence, this > system is out-of-control. Actually, one of the ways to deal with the problem of lawyers is legislative reform. The best example is no-fault car insurance. Instead of arguing who is at fault and assigning blame (a very exepnsive process) we just have each insurance company pay up and move on. Divorce ought to be like that - you know how many people I know who are essentially black-mailed by divorce lawyers (well, if you don’t pay 4 times child support, we’re going to bring up how damaging it was for your wife when you used to dress up in women’s clothes and go to the transvestite bar, etc.) If legislatures would just say that property division, child support and alimony are based on cold hard formulas everyone would be in much better shape and we would spend vastly less money on lawyers. Nearly everyone would get more money and the kids would be spared their parents trying to kill each other. From my own experience, I thinkall these non-compete agreements should be illegal ala California. They are obnoxious and just enrich lawyers and promote economic inefficiency. Tort reform is another important area that needs to be addressed but I don’t know so much about that.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From my own experience, I thinkall these > non-compete agreements should be illegal ala > California. They are obnoxious and just enrich > lawyers and promote economic inefficiency. > > Tort reform is another important area that needs > to be addressed but I don’t know so much about > that. Re non-compete, do you mean in general? There is nothing wrong with freedom to contract. There is nothing wrong with two private parties entering into an agreement where one promises not to compete, as a cost to a the transaction. There is a problem, however, when the Government makes non-compete arrangements based upon their special interests (i.e., lobbyists, votes, etc). The English system makes the losing party pay all attorney fees. This is an interesting way to reform the system because lawyers would definately think twice about a bad case if they might have to pay for it.
JDV, non compete agreements do not reduce economic efficiency. well, it depends on your assumptions but conventional econ theory (econ of patent laws) say that it promotes economic development.
Yeah right. Give me the argument.
BosyBillups Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeyDVivre Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > From my own experience, I thinkall these > > non-compete agreements should be illegal ala > > California. They are obnoxious and just enrich > > lawyers and promote economic inefficiency. > > > > Tort reform is another important area that > needs > > to be addressed but I don’t know so much about > > that. > > Re non-compete, do you mean in general? Yep > There is > nothing wrong with freedom to contract. That’s what I told the cop when he busted me with those three hookers > There is > nothing wrong with two private parties entering > into an agreement where one promises not to > compete, as a cost to a the transaction. Among other problems, its a contract between multiple third party particpants including future employers and your family and they are almost always given under the coercion of needing a job. > There is > a problem, however, when the Government makes > non-compete arrangements based upon their special > interests (i.e., lobbyists, votes, etc). > > The English system makes the losing party pay all > attorney fees. This is an interesting way to > reform the system because lawyers would definately > think twice about a bad case if they might have to > pay for it. I like that system a lot.
> > Re non-compete, do you mean in general? > Yep > > There is > > nothing wrong with freedom to contract. > > That’s what I told the cop when he busted me with > those three hookers There are obvious public policy reasons why that is illegal, but many people do think that consenting adults should make their own decisions as long as it doesn’t harm others (isn’t it legal in parts of nevada?). > > There is > > nothing wrong with two private parties entering > > into an agreement where one promises not to > > compete, as a cost to a the transaction. > > Among other problems, its a contract between > multiple third party particpants including future > employers and your family and they are almost > always given under the coercion of needing a job. Again, not all non-compete clauses are legal/enforceable. I know that if you have an “unreasonable” clause, such as, you cannot ever work in the US again, that will not be enforced by the courts. However, if you buy my medical practice, I promise not to open up a rival practice across the street, is obviously okay. > > There is > > a problem, however, when the Government makes > > non-compete arrangements based upon their > special > > interests (i.e., lobbyists, votes, etc). > > > > The English system makes the losing party pay > all > > attorney fees. This is an interesting way to > > reform the system because lawyers would > definately > > think twice about a bad case if they might have > to > > pay for it. > > I like that system a lot. The problem is that it restrict access to poorer people. Poor people do not have access to representation, often times, without the contingency fee. And, if the lawyer would have to pay a losers fee, they may not bring a claim since it would be out of their pocket. Thus, this could preclude meritorious claims from entering the courts. Regarding patents, without protection, there would be no incentive to spend millions in r&d if your competitor can rip off your research one week later.
BosyBillups Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Re non-compete, do you mean in general? > > Yep > > > There is > > > nothing wrong with freedom to contract. > > > > That’s what I told the cop when he busted me > with > > those three hookers > > There are obvious public policy reasons why that > is illegal, but many people do think that > consenting adults should make their own decisions > as long as it doesn’t harm others (isn’t it legal > in parts of nevada?). > > > > > There is > > > nothing wrong with two private parties > entering > > > into an agreement where one promises not to > > > compete, as a cost to a the transaction. > > > > Among other problems, its a contract between > > multiple third party particpants including > future > > employers and your family and they are almost > > always given under the coercion of needing a > job. > > Again, not all non-compete clauses are > legal/enforceable. I know that if you have an > “unreasonable” clause, such as, you cannot ever > work in the US again, that will not be enforced by > the courts. However, if you buy my medical > practice, I promise not to open up a rival > practice across the street, is obviously okay. I’m glad that everyone knows this. How many of you have fought it and know what it entails? (I have) It’s very very draining and expensive and not nearly as clear as you think. I had a non-compete that said I couldn’t work anywhere in the world. I hear this stuff all the time around the street. Don’t ever try it. You wouldn’t believe the stuff that happens to you if your boss really wants to fight about it and has a million dollars to spend doing it (my situation). > > > > There is > > > a problem, however, when the Government makes > > > non-compete arrangements based upon their > > special > > > interests (i.e., lobbyists, votes, etc). > > > > > > The English system makes the losing party pay > > all > > > attorney fees. This is an interesting way to > > > reform the system because lawyers would > > definately > > > think twice about a bad case if they might > have > > to > > > pay for it. > > > > I like that system a lot. > > The problem is that it restrict access to poorer > people. Poor people do not have access to > representation, often times, without the > contingency fee. And, if the lawyer would have to > pay a losers fee, they may not bring a claim since > it would be out of their pocket. Thus, this could > preclude meritorious claims from entering the > courts. > > Regarding patents, without protection, there would > be no incentive to spend millions in r&d if your > competitor can rip off your research one week > later.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ChadD Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Going into college, I had law ambitions and to > > gain real experience I spent most of my college > > days working for a personal injury attorney and > > then an estate planning firm. I eventually > > realized that while I enjoyed law, I didn’t have > a > > passion for it. > > > > Form my perspective, I think there are two > > fundamental issues that a part of a systematic > > problem that cause a good deal of distaste for > the > > profession. First, the billing expectations of > > large firms promote wheel-spinning. Attorneys > are > > expected to bill out 40 hours a week but not > all > > work is billable. So people spend time doing > > wheel-spinning work to boost their billable > hours. > > Second, a good deal of time is spent covering > > their asses. One of the biggest problems with > the > > law profession is greedy clients who can’t > accept > > a judge/jury decision. Anymore, after the a > final > > decision is handed down, it isn’t a loss on the > > merits of the case but either because of a > failure > > of counsel. They will then immediately will > turn > > to another attorney to sue their first attorney > > for malpractice. That response, IMO is the > biggest > > problem in the legal profession. This drags out > > cases, racks up more fees and is slowly > > disintegrating our legal structure. And while > it > > is good to have a system of checks and a method > of > > compensation for those wrong by incompetence, > this > > system is out-of-control. > > Actually, one of the ways to deal with the problem > of lawyers is legislative reform. The best > example is no-fault car insurance. Instead of > arguing who is at fault and assigning blame (a > very exepnsive process) we just have each > insurance company pay up and move on. Divorce > ought to be like that - you know how many people I > know who are essentially black-mailed by divorce > lawyers (well, if you don’t pay 4 times child > support, we’re going to bring up how damaging it > was for your wife when you used to dress up in > women’s clothes and go to the transvestite bar, > etc.) If legislatures would just say that property > division, child support and alimony are based on > cold hard formulas everyone would be in much > better shape and we would spend vastly less money > on lawyers. Nearly everyone would get more money > and the kids would be spared their parents trying > to kill each other. > > From my own experience, I thinkall these > non-compete agreements should be illegal ala > California. They are obnoxious and just enrich > lawyers and promote economic inefficiency. > > Tort reform is another important area that needs > to be addressed but I don’t know so much about > that. Actually, I don’t see how no fault would reduce the two problems I mentioned and while I agree that tort reform is a good thing, the problems of malpractice abuse and billing requirements by firms are not going to be changed. Further, my legal time was spent in Iowa, a no fault divorce state. Trust me on this, there are just as many bickering assholes in no fault cases than in fault. Clients become greedy bickering bitches about little things and direct their attorneys to be assholes. We once had a client who filed a motion to modify the terms of their dissolution because of an incident over a birthday card. In the end, it’s clients who suck so the system sucks. Attorneys share some of the blame but it’s clients and system that’s the real problem. People don’t take responsibility, it is always someone else’s fault. To be honest Joey, you’re pulling a lot of arm chair legal knowledge out of your ass right now. You are Monday morning QBing the legal world with no real experience of the inner workings of law offices. You have friends of friends or one or two run ins with the legal world and you’ve formulated the same opinion of the legal profession that we bash some of the general public for their understanding of the markets. And while my ears pick up when you start talking stats, math, FI and derivatives, this really isn’t your area of expertise.
This thread is hilarious. Whats next? CFA vs the MD? Ok, I’ll start…Doctors are idiots!!..
I’m a young lawyer and actively pursuing a CFA designation and I don’t think of myself as an idiot, haha. I never had any intention of practicing law, I just wanted to learn how the system works to further my career in business or banking. And then there is the added credibility of having a JD in your resume, it may not always help you, but I don’t see why it would hurt you. Between two employees, one with a JD/CFA and another one with a CFA with equal experience, the JD/CFA seems more like for a promotion no? In short, with all of the competition out there, it’s difficult to stand out, so perhaps a JD/CFA would give you the extra edge to beat your CFA colleague. I’ve always believed that in the wilderness, doctors are king, but in society, lawyers rule because if society is a complex game with complex rules, the only ones that actually know what the rules of the game are are the lawyers. I think that the first step to increasing your odds at winning a game is to understand the rules as well as you can. That’s my take on the benefits of being a lawyer. About 50% of US Senators are lawyers and about 60% of US Presidents are lawyers, so I figure a law degree can’t do any harm and you’re in good company too. Lawyers however, don’t make very good CEO’s usually, they don’t have the risk tolerance that businessmen usually have. About 10% of Fortune 500 CEO’s are lawyers if I recall correctly. How does the CFA compare to the bar exam and law school? If we’re just looking at pure hours of studying involved, law school and the bar would require a lot more studying time. If we’re looking at pages that have to be read, I think that 1 or 2 years of law school requires as much reading as all 3 CFA exams, but which one is harder? Difficult to say, depends on the person. As a lawyer, I have a lot of respect for CFA charterholders, because the exams are indeed very tough and demand a lot of dedication. I respect CFA charterholders a lot more than MBA grads, MBA is easy in comparison, but that’s not going to stop me from going to business school though, hahahaa. The more letters after your name, the better I say.
So your aspiration is JD, MBA, CFA? Then you must worship Dr. Anton, CEO of two IM firms. He’s a Ph.D, JD, MBA, CFA, CPA, CIA, CMA, CAIA with all securities licenses tested and passed. Stanford finance phd, harvard law school, Stanford MBA, etc. You have a rather idealized version of things…I don’t understand how having a JD along with a CFA is so great in investment management? I’m sure the added knowledge helps a lot, but it seems like such titanic effort for marginal benefits…isn’t the B-law section of the CPA more than enough for most aspiring leaders in IM?
I’m not saying that JD/CFA is so great, I’m just saying that it doesn’t hurt. I don’t think that law school is necessary for people in business or banking, I did simply because I wanted to be different and I wanted a different perspective on things. It is a titanic effort, that is true, perhaps even a waste of time and money depending on one’s view. Hahaa, I have heard of Dr. Anton, that is indeed a lot of letters after his name, his business card must be in very small font or maybe it wraps around the back of the card, hahahaa Qualifications and degrees don’t guarantee success by any means, but I think that it increases your odds.
Kaizen is a nice name for the search for multiple qualifications…
ChadD Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be honest Joey, you’re pulling a lot of arm > chair legal knowledge out of your ass right now. > You are Monday morning QBing the legal world with > no real experience of the inner workings of law > offices. You have friends of friends or one or two > run ins with the legal world and you’ve formulated > the same opinion of the legal profession that we > bash some of the general public for their > understanding of the markets. And while my ears > pick up when you start talking stats, math, FI and > derivatives, this really isn’t your area of > expertise. And legal bills myself that are ocnsiderably above your net worth.
JDV, check out any economics and law text and you’ll see the argument for efficiency. its a pretty simple argument. true or not, i don’t know, but the argument for non-compete is grounded on property rights as done by Robert Coase. the only people getting a JD and CFA are people with too much time and money on their hands or people with a career change. for the time you’re putting into a JD, you might as well go and get a PHD instead. i think the PHD/CFA combo is way better.
BUMP 6 seeeething pages of lawyer hatred. Don’t let the flame die!
virgin, why do you hate lawyers so much? did a lawyer take away a g/f or something from you? this kind of hatred is over the top.
FrankArabia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JDV, check out any economics and law text and > you’ll see the argument for efficiency. its a > pretty simple argument. true or not, i don’t know, > but the argument for non-compete is grounded on > property rights as done by Robert Coase. > Yeah, yeah. Two people have a right to make whatever contract they want. Here are the problems with it: 1) The discount factor on a non-compete agreement is unknown and impossible to estimate. People sign those agreements because they need to pay their bills right now. This is way more compelling than what might happen at some distant unknown point. The very nature of the agreement makes them coercive. 2) The agreement has other parties involved. For example, divorce judges don’t seem to acknowledge that a non-compete agreement can be a significant impediment to making money. As far as I know there is no such law. 3) The enforceability of a non-compete depends enormously on the relative resources of the two parties. 4) Non-competition agreements allow abusive labor practices. Everyone always has their “well get a lawyer and go to court and be done with it” approach. It just doesn’t work that way. > the only people getting a JD and CFA are people > with too much time and money on their hands or > people with a career change. for the time you’re > putting into a JD, you might as well go and get a > PHD instead. i think the PHD/CFA combo is way > better.
Non-compete clauses are very typical in any business sale, and in fact, are crucial to many M&A deals for obvious reasons. Would you buy my automotive business if I can open up one right across the street, or in the same state, and take all of my old customers with me? What about if I hire you, and you poach all of my company’s clients that you met through your employment with me. Granted, one might sign a bad contract, a bad non-compete clause if you will. BUT, that is not the “non-compete clause” fault, its the fault of the one who AGREED to be bound by the clause by singing it. If you don’t agree to it, don’t enter into the transaction or sign it. But this is a moot point, as those practicing law and living in the real world of M&A and business know the value of this. Those living in the library may not.
^ PS - perhaps a JD/CFA is a great combo 