Why an economist works with lawyers?

A year ago, I started working with WKB as the first in-house economist on the Polish legal market. Although privately I like to travel far away and off the beaten track, entering this 'new world' was a risky decision. On the other hand, it is still the world of consulting. My friends often ask me "what it's like to work with lawyers?" - so I decided to share some insights.

This entry will be in two parts - today a few sentences about what we - economists and lawyers - have in common. In a week's time, I will point out some important differences.

Today's post is also the launch of the WKB Competition Economics Issues series, where I will share with you some thoughts on competition economics and regulation?with a focus on practice, some interesting research and its relevance to business.

What we have in common - the ubiquity of law and economics, logic and evidence (Part 1)

I remember my first day at WKB when I had the opportunity to meet lawyers from many different teams. These brief conversations further reinforced my belief that collaboration of lawyers and economists in consulting is something to be taken for granted. Given the ubiquity of law and economics in every aspect of business, but also in the lives of consumers or regulators, it is impossible to escape from it. The sheer beauty of economics, like law, is that it applies to both the daily lives of individuals and the functioning of entire sectors and economies. One can deal with very practical, down-to-earth problems, as well as completely abstract and complex ones that are detached from everyday life. Both are necessary, because an abstract issue today, or tomorrow, could be the source of “pain” for Mr Smith or some business down the road. Economics and law are like matching pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, which is why, after a year of working with WKB, I am even more intrigued as to why there are so few practitioners from both fields working together on the Polish market.

It should come as no surprise that lawyers, like economists, attach great importance to logical correctness and the use of accurate terms. This greatly facilitates communication and overall cooperation. Sometimes both operate in an overly hermetic language, trying to be as 'correct' as possible throughout their argument, while for many clients this is not a crucial thing - they expect answers to specific questions in simple and understandable language. Personally, however, I prefer working with lawyers who choose every word carefully, rather than working with some media or marketing representatives, because of their dangerous habit of juggling words and over-simplification. I remember one ex-journalist who did not distinguish between the terms 'state budget' and 'GDP', using them interchangeably in the context of the impact of an economic phenomenon.

In advisory work, evidence, i.e. any verified information or analytical results that are relevant to the case, is - and should be - crucial. Economists usually start their work by reviewing empirical, i.e. data-driven, studies; lawyers, on the other hand, study decisions of authorities in similar cases. Sometimes, both reach out to theory or doctrine if it can help to better understand the available evidence. Both groups face the same challenges with respect to inductive inference - imperfect available data, difficulties in measuring different phenomena, alternative methods of analysis or the presence of human and random factors that can significantly impede inference. Rarely in the area of competition or regulation will simple deductive reasoning suffice - something that business, grappling with a mass of difficult and ambiguous regulations, understands very well. Simply, it cannot delay decision-making.?

I would be happy to hear your thoughts and interesting experiences of collaboration between lawyers and economists.