This is all bullshit and you guys know it.
Here's why non-lawyers can't own law firms: lawyers make the laws!
Let's say we allowed non-lawyers to own law firms the way we allow non-anything else to own anything else firms. These firms would surely be taken over by more savvy investors who were able to cut the fat at a law firm, and compete in the law firm industry more effectively. They'd be better at marketing, hr, fucking everything.
The first firms to have non lawyer ownership would have a large competitive advantage and this would threaten lawyer owned firms. Especially the big ones. Suddenly tallented lawyers at small firms could have a chance to access investor capital to attract marketing, research, paralegals, not to mention the client list that a big time investor can bring.
So what are some of the effects of these changes:
A more efficient law firm industry.
But more importantly, the share of profits would shift away from the lawyers to the non-lawyer owners. Because the non-lawyer owners would be providing an economic service and their input and additional competition would be valued.
The system, as it is now, resembles a cartel. Lawyers don't have to compete in this manner because they aren't allowed to. It's in the lawyers' interest for the system to remain inefficient.
|