COURT SYSTEMS AND LAWhighly prominent individuals who have the re-
sources and will to fight, intimidate, and otherwise
bring up issues, subsidiary issues, and more of
what Damaska (1978, p. 240) has called ‘‘compan-
ion litigation’’ where, along with the main case,
separate suits are filed on discovery, on legal fees,
on standing, and on other issues, which lengthen
proceedings and often do little more than harass
the other side or both sides into exhaustion. Such
cases take the form of a ‘‘prolonged clinch and...
settlement’’ (Galanter 1983, p. 163) while rarely
ever ending up in court. Meanwhile, such cases
contribute to the image of the United States as a
‘‘litigious’’ society.
Yet, even granting all such cases, very few
lawyers are involved in doing such things. Only a
small minority of all dealings of U. S. lawyers ever
result in a contested court action. Most legal prac-
tice takes place in offices for the benefit of busi-
ness firms, and only a small minority deal with
individual clients at all. Even in those cases, law-
yers spend much of their time persuading suit-
eager clients not to go to court but to work out a
settlement. Lawyers generally limit themselves to
cases they think they can win. Often filing a case is
symbolic of seriousness of intent, forcing a re-
sponse from the other party; but the cases are
settled, sometimes on the very eve of the court
date or even as the trial, if there is one, is in
process.
What all this amounts to is that the legal
profession in the United States is ‘‘split.’’ Most
lawyers quietly carry on the journeymen work of
settling disputes and assisting persons to compro-
mise so that they can carry on with their lives. A
very, very few carry out the courtroom battles of
the O. J. Simpson type that dominate the front
pages of the nation’s newspapers. In such cases,
lawyers are not seen as settling disputes but they
are seen by many people as ‘‘getting people off,’’
leading to cynicism or to despising lawyers, even
when or even because they win. Many cases take
place outside the large law firm, but the reputation
of lawyers created by the sensational cases affects
the public image of all lawyers, wherever located.
One special feature of the split deserves atten-
tion; namely, income. Solo and small-firm lawyers
carry out much of the work of helping persons set
up partnerships, get a divorce or settlement from
an insurance company, draw up wills, and deal
with persons who are in minor trouble with the
law. On the other hand, work in a large law office is
carried out by specialists who do the complex work
of big business. Large businesses often make use
of their own ‘‘in-house counsel’’ for the routine
work of contracts, labor-management negotiation,
and other repetitive legal activities. The company
turns to outside law firms for the unusual, once-
only activity, such as mergers and acquisitions,
floating new securities, takeovers, and bankrupt-
cies. Such activities call for the highest degree of
expertise and knowledge, far beyond what a solo
lawyer might be called upon to have. A major study
of Chicago lawyers (Heinz and Laumann 1982)
asked them to rank legal specialties in prestige. At
the top were securities, tax, antitrust, patents,
banking, and public utilities—the activities in which
large law firms are involved. At the bottom were
criminal defense and prosecution, personal injury,
consumer debt, landlord-tenant, divorce, and fami-
ly—the concerns of the solo and small-firm lawyer.
The income differentials between the two clusters
are equally impressive. A major study reported
salaries from large firms in Indianapolis and New
York to average around $300,000 per partner for
the year, but many make much more. A New York
law firm reported that each of its 121 lawyers
(sixty-one equity partners) earned over $1 million.
Many others were not far behind. Lawyers in solo
and small firms are not poor but make a good deal
less. A 1995 survey reported that those lawyers
earn somewhere between $75,000 and $100,000 a
year, assuming they work a full two-thousand billable
hours, which some do not. Associates (that is,
nonpartners) start out, according to a 1996 study,
from lows of $40,000 to as high as $70,000, but
then rise with each year in the larger firms to
$150,000 and up, plus bonuses. Stories of such
incomes add little to offset the low esteem in which
lawyers are held, especially since most persons
who deal with lawyers find the lawyer wants money
‘‘up front’’ or on a retainer basis, unless a contin-
gency arrangement is made, and often even then.
(Note: The preceding section draws from the au-
thor’s paper, Gross 1998.)TOO MANY LAWYERS?A final issue that troubles many observers
both in common law and civil law countries is