Former trial attorney here...Would really like to know the source of those claims. $20k would cover most civil litigation cases not involving serious injury or death. $100k would cover pretty much any civil or criminal action. Beyond that, you'd have to be employing some extremely expensive specialists.

And that assumes that the lawyer isn't handling the case on contingency.

Generally, the reason people overestimate the costs of trials is because standard contingency fees are 30%-40% of judgements.

My divorce should have been an open/shut deal and never went to trial - still cost me > $12,000. I have another pending business lawsuit that I fully expect to cost ~$10,000 for what should be open/shut contract dispute. Lawyers are really good at wasting time while pretending to be doing something meaningful, and as a lay-person I have little recourse other than to play "Go fish!" and try to find another lawyer. So, $20K for anything of any substance doesn't surprise me.

If lawyers are like programmers, the fees can easily be 10x different from one to another. I'll bet there are some $50/hr lawyers and some $5,000/hr lawyers.

Serious question that I feel I already know the answer to but, how do people afford to defend themselves if the costs are that high?!

Serious, and depressing, answer. They don't. This is why plea bargaining is rampant in America. It isn't necessarily very fair, because for many people this ends up ruining their lives. But facing the choice of POTENTIALLY going to prison for a number of years, and to jail for weeks awaiting trial, or pleading guilty to something that does not put them jail at all, they choose the latter (since a few weeks of absence from the world messes your life up quite a bit if you didn't prepare - you'd lose your job, maybe apartment). Even if that plea forever taints them in the eyes of employers

This is a civil case obviously, so all that jail stuff won't apply to this, but just curious... If cheap litigation is 20K, and "battling out with a judge" is 100K how come the first time I'm hearing about this is in a HN comment? Seems like no one is going up to bat against this stuff until it affects them.

Reminds me of that famous poem "First they came for the ..."

Peter Thiel got a lot of flak for this comment: "If you’re middle class, if you’re upper middle class, if you’re a single digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system. It costs too much. This was the modus operandi of Gawker in large part, to go after people who had no chance of fighting back."

It's somewhat hard to square with "litigious culture" criticisms of some parts of the country. But the details matter. Filing & defending in small-claims court is pretty cheap without a lawyer (and even with one is "only" in the small thousands) and person-vs-person cases won't be too terrible compared to companies-vs-individuals...

Good point. In civil cases the equivalent is a "settlement offer". Made famous my the RIAA. Pay us $5000/song you downloaded or we'll sue you for $5 million, and you cannot afford that. We might not win, but if we do, you're boned!

> We might not win, but if we do, you're boned!

Isn't it worse than that -- more like 'we might not win, but you're probably boned either way'? I may be wrong but I have the impression that it's relatively rare to be awarded full costs, and anyway you'll have to pay your lawyers up front.

Ok thanks, kind of what I guessed but as I’m not in the US I wasn’t certain.

And another question: why is the market failing here?

One (modest) force that coerces the market: you nearly always must attend law school. Unlike Lincoln, John Adams, Marshall, et al, you have to get a degree from a law school in order to become an attorney. Apprenticeship is peanuts compared to getting a degree (provided you can find a sponsor). There's a handful of US states that still permit apprenticeship, but most do not.

Ok, then why is law school so expensive? It seems to me that classes could be offered online without practical problems, and exams could be organized on a national level.

The market isn't failing; that's the market rate!

The market is not failing to determine a market rate. The market is certainly failing to provide equal access to the legal system.

Or rather, the legal system is preventing the market from accessing it, e.g. there are something like 2 U.S. states in which one can currently sit for the state bar without having been awarded a JD.

This is the market working; the market itself is thus a problem too.