Florida lawyers put yet another nail into the declaration that attorney licensing is for protection of consumers of legal services

Attorney licensing exists - as consumers of legal services, 80% of whom cannot afford an attorney - are told time and again from high pulpits, to protect consumers from bad lawyers.

If that is so, then why Florida lawyers are so adamant against allowing multi-jurisdictional practice, specifically, against relaxing rules for out-of-state attorneys to get admitted to practice in the State?

They are adamant to the point of applying pressure to the President of the Florida Bar Association to go back on his prior word that he will support rules that will allow more out-of-state attorneys to practice law in the state of Florida.

Are out-of-state attorneys presumed to know Florida law worse and represent the local consumers worse than in-state lawyers?

Or are Florida lawyers afraid that out-of-staters will be attorneys of choice for legal consumers concerned that the local attorneys got too cozy with local judges and will not represent them independently and zealously?

Reaction of Florida lawyers to the potential "invasion" of out-of-state attorneys can be called only as an anticompetitive move to protect their market, and market protection, with the accompanying fewer provider of services, higher prices and less choice for the consumer, is a clear antitrust violation.

Is it any surprise?  Of course, not.

Licensing of court representation should be repealed throughout the United States as unconstitutional and preventing independent representation in court.

And Florida snake-pit fights are only a confirmation of that requirement of modern times.