Good point. I expected arguments would range from the dangers of ineffective counsel to "but think of the children". You are correct that I did not anticipate t

Good point. I expected arguments would range from the dangers of ineffective counsel to "but think of the children". You are correct that I did not anticipate to hear "but think of the poor lawyers". That's because even lawyers understand that that's an ineffective argument. Lawyers running government have allowed buggy repairmen, secretaries, and telephone operators to be automated out of jobs in the past, and now we're seeing cashiers, call center support staff, and writers have their numbers reduced due to automation. If lawyers use "but think of the poor lawyers" reasoning to suddenly take a stand and pass laws further guaranteeing their legal monopoly, they would rightfully be called out as selfish hypocrites. I think lawyers know they're better off with the "ineffective counsel", "but think of the children", and similar types of arguments.