Organized lawyerdom is gung-ho for stringent enforcement of UPL (unauthorized practice of law) laws — their own version of occupational licensure — but consumers fare less well when paralegals, automated forms providers, accountants and others are kept from offering competitive services [George Leef, Forbes] As I’ve argued before, part of the key to sorting out the UPL issue is to distinguish between lawyerly capacities which involve the power to wield compulsion or force against others — the capacity to initiate litigation being paramount among these — and less coercive capacities such as the performing of research and giving of client advice.
3 Comments
> “As I’ve argued before, part of the key to sorting out the UPL issue is to distinguish between lawyerly capacities which involve the power to wield compulsion or force against others — the capacity to initiate litigation being paramount among these — and less coercive capacities such as the performing of research and giving of client advice. ”
–
… such a tortuous, incorrect statement.
Private lawyers have NO independent “power to wield compulsion or force” . Any alleged “coercive capacities” stem entirely from the government court/legal system, which is corrupt from top to bottom. Litigation can only be actually initiated with court approval.
All government control and licensing of lawyers should be abolished. Malicious government action is the root problem, made much worse because it boldly cloaks itself under the color of law.
Not all individual lawyers are corrupt, but those that are give the other five percent a very bad reputation.
But Fleisher, lawyers DO in fact have independent power to compel. No court approval is needed for the filing of a lawsuit.
Another UPL issue to add: those private, for-profit companies that send out dunning letters on prosecutor letterhead to bad check writers. How is THAT not the “unauthorized practice of law”?
[…] Lawyers vs. Their Competition […]