Lawyers have clinched the market of legal services for themselves and do not allow anybody else to do anything in it.
Does not matter that "the practice of law" - the subject of regulation is not clearly defined by statute in any of the 255+ court jurisdictions across the United States, and that such regulation, under a standing and, supposedly, binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, is unconstitutional based not on just one, but on several points.
Does not matter that it is non-sensical to allow the fox to regulate themselves for the benefit of the chickens (consumers) - without letting chickens have a say in the regulation, that is, supposedly, for their benefit.
Does not matter that the chickens may want to choose their own foxy to represent themselves in court - and, possibly, not from the pack approved by big bad foxes (the government).
Does not matter that there are - in abundance - situations when the "outside foxies" are knowledgeable in how to defend chickens against the big bad fox, while the "inside foxies" are not. The big bad fox still tells the chickens then - you must choose the dumb inside foxies to represent yourself against me in my court, rather than the outside smart foxies, because I said so.
Does not matter that big bad foxes have long ruled that lack of a law license (not being a member of the monopoly) does not mean that services of such a person are ineffective
- in Texas - Henson v State, 915 S.W.2d 186 (Tex. App. 1996);
- in California - People v. Ngo, 14 Cal.4th 30 , 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 456; 924 P.2d 97 (1996);
- in Michigan - People v. Pubrat, 548 N.W.2d 595, 451 Mich. 589 (1996).
Does not matter that big bad foxes have long been punishing the outside foxies, for doing HIGH QUALITY, GOOD work for indigent chickens - because they were doing that GOOD work for the indigent chickens that no inside foxies wanted to do, but without permission from the big bad fox, and without paying their ways through the required "golden path" (see below).
That is a criminal offense in the United States, doing good work ("practice of law") without permission of the big bad fox - who cannot define what the practice of law is in the first place, but will put you in jail if you practice it without its permission.
Does not matter that it makes no sense, when the big bad fox (the government) sues the chicken, that the chicken's rights (the big bad fox says) are protected in the best way only (supposedly) if their own opponent, the big bad fox, chooses a foxy for the chicken, out of a list of foxies pre-approved by the big bad fox.
Does not matter that it makes no sense to allow the big bad fox (courts) to regulate all foxies while the absolute majority of foxies do not litigate (do not work in courts).
Does not matter that any monopoly - and attorney monopoly is no exception:
- increases prices for consumer;
- cuts diversity of products and services;
- cuts quality of products and services - all by reducing competition,
- stifles innovation,
- stifles social progress by putting a high price on entry into the monopoly by requiring every new foxy to pay his way through a "golden path":