3 ms·

Grellas, you're one of my favorite commentors here and always insightful. I'm with you on your points - do you have any ideas for reform? I'm particularly agai

Grellas, you're one of my favorite commentors here and always insightful. I'm with you on your points - do you have any ideas for reform? I'm particularly against mandatory licensing requirements as they tend to be sold as a shield to protect consumers, but are frequently used as a weapon to drive prices up and deter otherwise qualified competition entering the field. How could we do away with in the States? Some sort of constitutional amendment barring discrimination on the basis of being a member of an organization or having attended a university? Restrict licensing requirements to being competent with a very flexible way of proving that? I spend a bit of time thinking about this, and I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the way forward.

andreyf 17y ago
Some sort of constitutional amendment barring discrimination... Since when is amending the constitution the coolest thing since Hanna Montana? Yes, "Congress Shall make no law discriminating on the basis of being a member of an organization or having attended a university", that sounds like a grand idea :)
JulianMorrison 17y ago
Start with "loser pays the fees".
grellas 17y ago
Easing licensing restrictions, or eliminating them, would certainly open up the field in our information age for large companies to offer services more easily to broader numbers of people at lower prices. For example, many on this forum have undoubtedly used online incorporation services to some advantage. But such services truly are limited in what they can do precisely because they would otherwise come under fire for illegal "practice of law." Thus, such outfits cannot in any way perform legal services but can only facilitate the filing process and provide customers with canned kits that consist solely of standard paperwork suitable for the generalized case on and not for any specific situation. This makes such services helpful for the right cases but highly limited. And the same applies to any other area (contracts, trusts, etc.) where entrepreneurs try to set up enterprises whose aim is to provide easy-to-use, low-cost legal services for specific areas. The trade-off here is that loosening restrictions would of course make it easier for unscrupulous or incompetent types to prey upon unsuspecting clients - this problem is what gives impetus to the current system. I personally think that we should strike the balance in favor of easing the restrictions and trusting in clients to make good judgments about whom to hire for what purpose. But I am a working lawyer in the trenches and have not given much thought to the particular form such easing might take. An abolition of all licensing would certainly make it all more "free market" and lead to a significant lowering of prices but I can just imagine the collective gasp that would arise from all sorts of quarters were such a proposal to be floated seriously. So, I think we are stuck with the current system, with all its limitations, for some time to come.

andreyf 17y ago

Some sort of constitutional amendment barring discrimination... Since when is amending the constitution the coolest thing since Hanna Montana? Yes, "Congress Shall make no law discriminating on the basis of being a member of an organization or having attended a university", that sounds like a grand idea :)

JulianMorrison 17y ago

Start with "loser pays the fees".

grellas 17y ago

Easing licensing restrictions, or eliminating them, would certainly open up the field in our information age for large companies to offer services more easily to broader numbers of people at lower prices. For example, many on this forum have undoubtedly used online incorporation services to some advantage. But such services truly are limited in what they can do precisely because they would otherwise come under fire for illegal "practice of law." Thus, such outfits cannot in any way perform legal services but can only facilitate the filing process and provide customers with canned kits that consist solely of standard paperwork suitable for the generalized case on and not for any specific situation. This makes such services helpful for the right cases but highly limited. And the same applies to any other area (contracts, trusts, etc.) where entrepreneurs try to set up enterprises whose aim is to provide easy-to-use, low-cost legal services for specific areas. The trade-off here is that loosening restrictions would of course make it easier for unscrupulous or incompetent types to prey upon unsuspecting clients - this problem is what gives impetus to the current system. I personally think that we should strike the balance in favor of easing the restrictions and trusting in clients to make good judgments about whom to hire for what purpose. But I am a working lawyer in the trenches and have not given much thought to the particular form such easing might take. An abolition of all licensing would certainly make it all more "free market" and lead to a significant lowering of prices but I can just imagine the collective gasp that would arise from all sorts of quarters were such a proposal to be floated seriously. So, I think we are stuck with the current system, with all its limitations, for some time to come.