3 ms·

They advocate for consumers, not lawyers, and they're a non-profit. Not sure what the conflict of interest there is.

• unclebucknasty 9y ago
  Well, in theory, to the extent that people need lawyers but can't afford them, at least part of Public Citizen's existence is justified. So, for some, to say they need a lawyer is to say they need an organization like Public Citizen. That's not at all a value judgement about Public Citizen or their statement. Just pointing out the potential conflict.
• RandomInteger4 9y ago
  Like that other person said, I was just pointing out a potential conflict in that statement. The last thing anybody wants is for their profession to be automated away, so the conflict of interest is justified, but worth noting. Also worth noting that you can still get paid if you work for a nonprofit. Regardless, I think we could use a bit more automation in the legal field given how disproportionately distributed representation seems to be from my perspective as a relatively poor person.
  • SwellJoe 9y ago
    "Regardless, I think we could use a bit more automation in the legal field given how disproportionately distributed representation seems to be from my perspective as a relatively poor person." On that, we're agreed. I was raised with no conception that there were legal options; attorneys were just too far outside the realm of affordability to be a thing my parents would have considered under any but the direst circumstances. I have the same mindset, even when it's been detrimental to my own economic situation.