I had it brought to my attention recently, by a recently bar-certified attorney who has ethical qualms about it, that members of the American Bar Association and its state franchises have a monopoly on legal representation services in the US. You cannot be represented in court by someone not certified by the bar. Lawyers are the only privately licensed group that receive this level of market protection; doctors are similarly protected, but it is by a governmental entity (and one might argue that it's in even worse shape because of it).
One could very easily argue that these barriers to entry lead to pricing pressure and artificial scarcity that has no direct relationship to the "current market rate". I'm only recently becoming familiar with this topic, as it's one of those things that Just Is. But, the more I learn about it, the more hesitant I become to just write off high legal fees as a result of a free market. And, the more I wonder why it is that lawyers, of all people, receive such a strong defense against competition...it couldn't possibly be that the majority of politicians are also lawyers, many of whom will return to practice after holding office, could it?
Note that I'm not arguing against the idea that a great attorney is deserving of high rates, merely the idea that attorneys fees represent anything like an actual free market rate.
The "barriers" you describe amount to nearly nothing. The salary a lawyer commands fresh after passing the Bar is not significant enough to be relevant to this conversation.
Just like most other industries, it's experience, deep knowledge of their field and skill that commands the high prices.
It's market driven because, despite $500/hour rates, you can still find a lawyer for $50. Both of whom passed the Bar but they're massively different in terms of their knowledge and experience.
Edit: one more thing, if you're looking for professional legal help from someone who couldn't pass the "barrier" of the Bar exam, you're probably going to get poor legal advice.
But you cannot represent a company of which you are the owner and sole employee. So when a patent lawsuit appears, you can choose to try and fight it with a $50/hour lawyer... or pay the demands.
The thing is that it is not the barrier to entry of the bar that is creating the expense. It is instead the nature of the law itself. Perhaps the ethical issue here is not the fees that lawyers charge or the licensing process, but the fact that you need them at all in so many situations. The ethical issue is that there are too many laws.
During my (admittedly brief) research into this topic, I began to wonder if perhaps there isn't a self-reinforcing process at work. Lawyers make the laws (because lawyers make up more of the law-making bodies in the US than any other profession by a huge amount), determine who is qualified to both prosecute and defend, determine the restrictions on who can compete with them, and determine how complex the laws will be. The people making the laws thus have a vested interest in them being too complex for the layperson to understand.
I'm genuinely not anti-lawyer. But, I can't help but think the system we have has many unintended consequences, and contributes to a legal system in which only the very wealthy can participate in a meaningful way. This may explain why, for example, polluters always seem to end up in the neighborhoods of poor people. If they set up shop next to a billionaire, they'd be sued out of existence; poor folks simply don't have the funds to fight a big legal battle like that. I'm pretty sure the bar is not the biggest cause of any of this, but it does seem obvious to me that disallowing anyone other than members of the bar from participating directly in the legal process definitely manipulates the market.
The more vicious part is the way the bar system prevents offshoring of work. More tedious legal stuff would be some of the best to offshore, but unsurprisingly it's very difficult to do so.
One could very easily argue that these barriers to entry lead to pricing pressure and artificial scarcity that has no direct relationship to the "current market rate". I'm only recently becoming familiar with this topic, as it's one of those things that Just Is. But, the more I learn about it, the more hesitant I become to just write off high legal fees as a result of a free market. And, the more I wonder why it is that lawyers, of all people, receive such a strong defense against competition...it couldn't possibly be that the majority of politicians are also lawyers, many of whom will return to practice after holding office, could it?
Note that I'm not arguing against the idea that a great attorney is deserving of high rates, merely the idea that attorneys fees represent anything like an actual free market rate.