Politicalprof

October 26, 2011

"To protect clients from bad lawyers, current barriers to entry try to separate the wheat from the chaff among potential legal practitioners. A market for information, though, would let consumers identify the chaff more precisely, saving more of the wheat. It is worth recalling that two of the finest lawyers and civil rights advocates our country has ever produced, Abraham Lincoln and Clarence Darrow, would not be allowed to practice law today under current rules. (Lincoln was self-taught; Darrow attended the University of Michigan Law School but did not graduate.) Eliminating entry barriers and allowing non-lawyers to perform legal services would, among many other gains, ensure that such talents have a place within our legal system."

—

I’m with Ilya here. For example: in many states there are higher requirements for becoming a beautician than for becoming a state trooper—and police are the only agency of government legally sanctioned to kill US citizens as a regular part of their duties. The licensing standards for many professions like beautician are really state supports for particular schools, licensing boards and the like.

Oh, and I’d like my police officers to be really well educated and trained, please! At least as well as my masseuse.

Are Law Schools and Bar Exams Necessary? - NYTimes.com (via jeffmiller)

Okay, sure. But let’s start by getting rid of licensing for interior decorators first and worry about lawyers second. At least there are some objective standards for what makes for good legal advice…and the consequences for bad legal representation are very severe. Interior design, barbering, et al. are mostly a matter of taste and the consequences for poor performance are merely Crimes Against Good Taste. On the other hand, I feel silly arguing against the Barber Cartel (avg. salary something like 20K/year) while preserving the much more lucrative legal cartel, so maybe this dude is right.

(via ilyagerner)

9:13am | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZPUuPyB8FF_z

(Notes: 31)