> So, yeah having a relationship with a lawyer in the same way you have a favorite dentist is worth it.
> costs me 375 usd an hour
> budget a small percentage of your income on this every year
What you are saying is that for those with enough disposable income to throw 375 per hour at minor annoyances, going straight to that nuclear option is often preferable to settling for a cheaper secondary or backup option. This is the "simply buy Twitter if the way it's run annoys you so much" of legal advice.
This doesn't apply to 99.999% of people on this planet. It is "worth it" in the sense that $800 / oz gold plated caviar is better food than McDonalds. If the median American decided to "find out if [your] lawyer is any good" by hiring them for a 1 hour task, they have already spent more than 1% of their yearly income. In a single hour.
It seems pretty silly to throw $375 at mildly inconveniencing a website operator with the input form thing.
On the other hand, I guess we'd all probably be better off if we'd have a lawyer look over things like our employment contracts, renting contracts, etc (I just sign the dang things though).
Most of those people don't have contracts they want a lawyer to review.
For other needs, people who can't afford lawyers and need help use family, acquaintances, church members, etc. who are lawyers, either free or at a sliding scale. They also sometimes subscribe to prepaid legal plans which do add up to a few hundred dollars, but over the course of a year.
Big cases (like the sudden need for a defense attorney) are funded by passing the hat (or GoFundMe et al, these days.) There are also public defenders.
The truly destitute don't even have that, of course, but other needs are pressing. Aid and social safety net programs do offer charity legal services where they can, but reach and benefit is limited.
People with and without the disposable income blow $300 an hour on all kinds of stuff.
Unless you have never spent $300 on something, i'm absolutely sure you've spent $300 on something that median family would call a waste too.
But I can't figure out what your point is. Its a waste to call out these sites? Lawyers are too expensive? The lower classes don't make enough? Don't give advice if it doesn't apply to %100 of people?
I'm saying, if you're a US software engineer/contractor earning 100k+ a year like a lot of people on HN, then reserving 2% of your income (2,000) for legal fees is worth it. Doesn't have to be for what the OP suggest, but definitely to check any contracts you get into (including employment contract).
The advice I wrote applies in the context of consultants/contractors on HN which I'm pretty sure tends to earn quite a bit more than the median income.
When I was in private practice at a small firm, I would often take care of things like this at no charge for good clients if I could knock it out in a few minutes. It's the old "ounce of prevention" bit. Not every engagement with a lawyer has to be a "nuclear option."
That said, at a big firm, lawyers often don't have that flexibility.
> costs me 375 usd an hour
> budget a small percentage of your income on this every year
What you are saying is that for those with enough disposable income to throw 375 per hour at minor annoyances, going straight to that nuclear option is often preferable to settling for a cheaper secondary or backup option. This is the "simply buy Twitter if the way it's run annoys you so much" of legal advice.
This doesn't apply to 99.999% of people on this planet. It is "worth it" in the sense that $800 / oz gold plated caviar is better food than McDonalds. If the median American decided to "find out if [your] lawyer is any good" by hiring them for a 1 hour task, they have already spent more than 1% of their yearly income. In a single hour.