Jay,

I would have to disagree with you. First of all abstracting is an occupation, not one of the learned professions (Medicine, Dentistry, Law, Divinity), all of which require years of schooling and in most cases post exam licensing. While an attorney's income may be greater than an abstractors...so also are his expenses (Employee attorney's salaries, malpractice insurance, etc. ). Whether he pays the investment off any faster than the abstractor is irrelevant. If it is lost, it does not matter if it was paid any faster. $100,000 is a lot on money to anyone...even attorneys as hard as it may be for you believe, not to mention three years of his/her life. With respect to how attorneys operate their firms, income, expenses, training, liabilities, obligations to both the client and justice system, .you really don't know what you are talking about


You seem to have a rather cavaliere attitude with respect to your assumptions of the dollar amounts in your anology, of which I am not convinced of at all. Where does the lay abstractor compare with respect to the three years of time that an attorney undergoes, and the further preparation (intensive 3 months) for the Bar exam. So far I have seen discussion on SOT of only  the 3 to 6 months of on the job training discussed here...some of it better than others...no licensing  (and please don't tell me the Naltea certification is going to be the equivalent).

There is really very little an attorney can do after disbarrment. The abstractor's are no where nearly as threatened. While word may "get around" the abstractor has the option of moving to another area, and opening his doors again under another corporate name or go into business offering different work product. On the other hand once the attorney's license is lifted that's is it for him. The gravity of that situation does not seem to registering with you. Try and explain that in a job interview. The possibility of "word getting around" about an abstractor's shortcomings can not possibly compare with it.