Production of lawyers (and doctors for that matter) is NOT governed by supply and demand.

You have a lot to learn.

Of course I do. But at least I realize that.

So, being unlearned as I am, I am anxious to hear why lawyers (and doctors, for that matter) enter their fields if not for the profits they anticipate earning, or how many would stay in their fields if those profits were removed. And since I am under the quite possibly mistaken impression that profits dictate how many people will enter into a certain line of work, I look forward to learning what dictates what kinds of profits one might expect, since supply and demand are apparently not the forces at work. I'd also appreciate it if somebody could explain to me why the most common means of compensating for hyper-saturation in a line of business, insufficient profits, does not apply to lawyers.

lawyers can create their own demand. get creative in finding ways to sue.

Sure, and they can be disbarred for frivolous lawsuits.

But the act of suing somebody in and of itself isn't going to net long term profits, either. Ultimately, the only way you can make money by suing somebody is to have a judge or jury affirm somebody's legal rights.

Lawyers create their own markets.

Look at medico-legal. In some countries, medico-legal is huge business (USA). In other countries, it is almost non-existant.

In Texas, medico-legal cratered with the passage of tort reform. Lawyers had to literally get out of the business of medical malpractice (both prosec. and defense).

So what are lawyers working on now? Getting the law changed to create business.

do you have to win to get paid?

Boy are you naive.

Grow up, boy, there is a big, bad world out there.

A lawsuit is a threat--it is the announcement of "I am here for your money." "We can fight over this for years, and you will be ruined, or you can pay a little now, and I will go away."

Show me this list of lawyers disbarred for frivolous suits, and then tell me what % of lawyers in the USA can expect to be disbarred for frivolous suits.

And you maintain that this alone entirely accounts for the hyper-inflated number of lawyers and their outrageously excessive salaries? What of the appreciable number of lawyers who have nothing to do with the litigation proccess at all?

A lawyer does not necessarily have to win to get paid, no, but a client has to win, or settle, to get paid. And if the odds are stacked against him winning or settling, he's not likely to hire a lawyer in the first place.

what r u gonna do grad school in?