Clifford Winston in NYT on deregulating lawyers

by Walter Olson on October 26, 2011

The Brookings scholar has an op-ed outlining his idea of deregulating entry to the legal profession, and I have a brief response up at Cato, drawing on my longer symposium response last month. Carolyn Elefant and Elie Mystal have somewhat different objections to Winston’s argument.

{ 1 trackback }

October 27 roundup
10.27.11 at 7:42 am

{ 4 comments }

1 Nicolas Martin 10.26.11 at 9:06 am

How unfortunate to find a quasi-libertarian arguing against the rights of legal services consumers.

2 David Waranch 10.26.11 at 9:56 am

The main problem is that even “simple” document preparation and run of the mill legal services are rarely straightforward. There’s just too much going on with people. Although I don’t think what he’s proposing is outlandish, its just not reality. Life is complicated. Is a simple will ever a simple will? Sometimes, but no a lot.

3 Nancy 10.26.11 at 4:20 pm

The suggestion about breaking legal services into two fields sounds similar to the English practice of having solicitors handle some areas, while barristers deal with high court matters. And both are still required to learn their profession. They can’t simply announce that they are qualified to write complicated wills or trying murder cases and start taking clients. One problem I also foresee is that state bars often have funds that are used to reimburse clients who have been robbed by their lawyers. And I doubt that state bars would be willing to extend this benefit to people who are not members of the bar.

4 Paul 10.26.11 at 7:58 pm

I just want them to lower the barriers to expulsion.

Comments on this entry are closed.