If you remember, regulation of all occupations by the government, and that includes attorney licensing, is done under the pretext of protecting the consumer of legal services. That's why we have attorney monopoly in this country.
That's why you have to pay through your nose not for a service provider of your choice, but to a service provider approved for you by the licensing government if you need a will, a deed, a court representative - or go without that will, that deed, or that court representation.
Approval of your court representative, through attorney licensing, by the very government that sues you in civil or criminal cases, or who you yourself are suing in civil rights cases is especially precious.
So, here are the 4 "disruptions" that a legal professional cannot afford to ignore, in the opinion of innovator Michael McQueen:
- The Age of Automation;
- Empowered Consumers;
- Unconventional Competition; and
- Emerging Generations.
- laws about attorney regulation are "sponsored" and promoted by lawyer senators, many of them practicing licensed attorneys, guess who they are going to benefit - consumers or themselves?
- lawyer-legislators put lawyer-judges in charge of lawyer-regulation;
- lawyer-judges make rules so that only super-majority of lawyers "regulate" other lawyers, eliminating any source of dissent and any possibility of having, among providers of legal services, any lawyers who are out of step with the monopolistic legal establishment;
- lawyers issue ethical opinions for themselves and judges, who are also lawyers;
- lawyers overpower Commissions for Judicial Conduct -
- are more knowledgeable about the law, and can meaningfully participate in the choice of provider by considering not just the presence of a license, but the actual performance track of the provider;
- consumers demand the provider to explain to them what the hell he is doing after he's got their retainer money - not allowing attorneys to operate "under a cone of silence".
- refusing to fund indigent defense services;
- refusing to define what the hell they are regulating as "practice of law", but at the same time
- prosecuting those who engage in "practice of law" without a state approval/ license as a crime;
- yanking law licenses of those who do their jobs in the under-served areas of the law well, and refusing to reinstate those licenses on contrived grounds, expanding the meaning of UPL for such attorneys, as compared to never-licensed public; and
- throwing the public a bone of uneducated surrogates to "bridge the justice gap", and
- fighting lawsuits of consumers trying to assert their right to pick their own providers of legal services with psychiatric evaluations,
How to drown them?
How to attack them in court?
How to harass them, pursue them in criminal UPL prosecutions - ostensibly, to "protect the consumers", but in reality, to protect lawyers' own exclusive turf and captive-consumer markets?
Of having to actually change with times, use their brains, work and depend, like anybody working in the market should, upon market fluctuations and market prices, and to deliver value for consumer's money.