How strong is the consumer protection case for lawyer licensing? Consumers can shop around for lawyers (unlike, say, ER doctors) and there is a lot of information about lawyer quality available. For things like traffic tickets and other legal issues when the penalty is small in dollar terms, the cost of hiring a lawyer almost certainly exceeds the expected penalty, which makes it rational just to pay even when you know you could successfully challenge the ticket/citation. The deadweight loss in this context strikes me as very significant. Outside of criminal proceedings (where the defendant faces the threat of prison) or divorce/family law proceedings (where child custody/protection is often at stake), I think society would likely be better off with a higher quantity of cheaper lawyers.
The consumer protection case for licensing physicians and other health care professionals is, of course, much stronger. But in those fields the game the professional associations play is not "licensing vs. no licensing," it's "scope of practice" laws. The associations seek to get legislatures to define their "scope of practice" as broadly as possible, which is why there are no "teeth cleaning only" practices run by dental hygienists. The American Dental Association works hard to make sure that a dentist must be involved in every teeth cleaning transaction in every state of the country...
All fair points. I point to examples like lawyers and physicians as the “obvious” cases where licensing makes the most sense for many people. Lawyers and physicians being among those that every state already licenses. Colorado is lighter on licensing outside occupations like those and I’m trying to argue that this is good even if you think the state should be in the business of licensing.
I agree you could start looking at the “obvious” cases and find rent seeking that would hurt the consumer protection case of licenses in practice.
How strong is the consumer protection case for lawyer licensing? Consumers can shop around for lawyers (unlike, say, ER doctors) and there is a lot of information about lawyer quality available. For things like traffic tickets and other legal issues when the penalty is small in dollar terms, the cost of hiring a lawyer almost certainly exceeds the expected penalty, which makes it rational just to pay even when you know you could successfully challenge the ticket/citation. The deadweight loss in this context strikes me as very significant. Outside of criminal proceedings (where the defendant faces the threat of prison) or divorce/family law proceedings (where child custody/protection is often at stake), I think society would likely be better off with a higher quantity of cheaper lawyers.
The consumer protection case for licensing physicians and other health care professionals is, of course, much stronger. But in those fields the game the professional associations play is not "licensing vs. no licensing," it's "scope of practice" laws. The associations seek to get legislatures to define their "scope of practice" as broadly as possible, which is why there are no "teeth cleaning only" practices run by dental hygienists. The American Dental Association works hard to make sure that a dentist must be involved in every teeth cleaning transaction in every state of the country...
All fair points. I point to examples like lawyers and physicians as the “obvious” cases where licensing makes the most sense for many people. Lawyers and physicians being among those that every state already licenses. Colorado is lighter on licensing outside occupations like those and I’m trying to argue that this is good even if you think the state should be in the business of licensing.
I agree you could start looking at the “obvious” cases and find rent seeking that would hurt the consumer protection case of licenses in practice.