What is the Difference Between Attorney vs. Lawyer?
A lawyer is essentially one who is just educated in law, for example, graduated from law school. An attorney is a law graduate who also passed the bar exam and obtained a license to practice law from the state’s highest body overseeing lawyers/attorneys – usually the supreme court of the state.
Part I. Attorney vs. Lawyer – an easy explanation for laypeople
Attorney vs. lawyer – these two terms in the USA are considered synonyms. But I think it legally incorrect. A “lawyer” is a parent term of “attorney.” A lawyer can be an attorney or not, but an attorney must be a lawyer first to become an attorney. Therefore, a “lawyer” is a parent term.
It sounds confusing, so let me clarify. But before I do – this article has two parts. The first, regular, easy to digest for laypeople explanation of the difference between lawyer and attorney.
The second part of the article, I suspect, is more controversial, because I will try to show why many lawyers, bar associations, and even state legislatures use the term “lawyer” incorrectly. Read on.
Disclaimer: Do not treat this article, or this blog, as legal advice in any way, shape, or form, and consult your licensed attorney if you have any legal questions or shall you decide to do, or not to do something after reading it.))) This article, and this blog is just my personal opinion.
Here is how it works:
In many countries, there is a clear and distinct difference between lawyers and attorneys. A lawyer is most countries around the world, and in some way in the USA, is someone who graduated from law school and holds appropriate degree called “Juris Doctor” in the USA.
But unlike in many other countries, Juris Doctor degree alone is not enough to practice law in the USA. Such a graduate must sit for one of the states’ bar exams and pass it to obtain permission from the state to practice law in that state.
Just a note: that in the beginning, such a young attorney is allowed to practice law only in the state which issued a license. After a certain number of years – usually 5 to 7 years – or keeping his or her license and practicing law, he or she can “waive in” into the bar of some other state.
They are still called “attorneys” in all US states, but…can consult and represent clients only in the one where they are licensed.
Eventually, after 5 to 7 years of practice and good standing with the bar of the original state, an attorney can apply for a license in another state and quite often receive license – permission to practice law there too.
Now he or she is a member of the bar in two states and can work as an attorney in both of them. Some attorneys hold bar licenses from several states where they can freely consult clients and represent them in courts there.
Let’s recap: the difference between lawyer and attorney:
- Law student graduates from law school and obtains Juris Doctor degree, and is now a lawyer. He or she cannot practice law by representing clients in courts or by consulting them.
- Graduate with Juris Doctor (lawyer?) now sits for the bar exam in one of the states, passes it, and become an attorney in that state. Now he or she can represent clients in courts and consult them.
Unbarred attorney? Who’s that?
“Unbarred attorney” is another term occasionally used by some in the legal industry – I have heard it myself. Essentially, it is the one who holds a Juris Doctor degree but is not a member of the bar in any state – does not hold a license to practice law in any state.
The same here – such an unbarred attorney is still a lawyer in the eyes of some, including employers, but is unlicensed and cannot practice law as an attorney. Therefore, confirming the difference between the lawyer and the attorney.
That is why young graduates who either did not pass the bar or have not taken it yet sometimes during a job interview for lower-level positions of a paralegal or legal secretary may be told that they are overqualified for the position because they are considered “a lawyer”, and/or “unbarred attorneys.”
Please do not confuse them with “disbarred” attorneys – when a licensed attorney loses his or her license by a decision of the state bar/court, usually for violation of the law, rules, and legal ethics rules.
The misery of being an unlicensed lawyer
So, once a law student graduated from law school, he or she is considered a lawyer. They are also called a “JD” – short for Juris Doctor. But what does it give a JD to have a law degree without a license?
Well, when the US economy was good and robust – until about 2008-2009, a JD could find a decently paying job in several capacities from publishing, document review, and more.
Not anymore. The legal market is in the dire straits and there are plenty of young hungry barred attorneys competing for low paying non-attorney positions.
If JD has some special skills which are required by an employer, he or she may work in the capacity of an advisor, technical advisor, or just consultant – or any other capacity, except for representing employer as an attorney.
In the absence of such skills, JD is in trouble and may not be able to find a job. And working as a law clerk pays noticeably less than working as an attorney – I know that because I worked as a law clerk for a law firm while in and after graduation from law school.
Essentially, you are paralegal on steroids but paid sometimes even less than a paralegal, depending on the level of experience. But it depends on the employer. Hence, the difference between lawyer and attorney is that attorney has a better chance to get paid better in the career.
What Unlicensed Attorneys (lawyers?) or Even Non-lawyers Can Still Do Independently?
- Work as paralegal
- Prepare some paperwork in the capacity of bankruptcy preparer, immigration, but without advising clients on legal strategy and tactics. State laws may restrict such activities or allow them. For example, in Illinois, non-attorneys may represent clients in small claims courts and front of the boards of few state agencies. https://www.isba.org/committees/governmentlawyers/newsletter/2002/08/unauthorizedpracticeoflawinadminist
- Similar rules can be found in many other states. If I am not mistaken, California allows non-attorney representation in small claims too. Many states have exceptions for non-attorneys to act as advocates in some matters.
- This is also complicated because the line is blurred between advocating for someone and practicing law without a license, for which there may be a criminal penalty under state law.
- So, maybe they can represent people as an advocate in small claims courts in very few states, where anyone can represent person – California, I think, is one example. But, without consulting clients on legal strategy and tactics.
- Represent clients as an advocate in some administrative agencies – state and federal agencies – by advocating for them and their interests. But, without consulting clients on legal strategy and tactics.
Please refer to ABA legal ethics rules for details. And also for legal rules in each of the states – because those may differ from state to state.
Therefore, the difference between lawyer and attorney is that attorney can do any independent legal work in the state where he or she is licensed, and “lawyer” (unlicensed) has serious limitations on what he or she can do independently.
Essentially, an attorney’s license gives the possibility to open own legal business.
Becoming an attorney without graduating from law school
Yes, there are few states where it is possible to sit for the bar exam without ever going to law school. Those states are California, for example. I think, New York too.
The next question in the realm of lawyer vs. attorney then becomes as follows: is the one who only took a bar review course from one of the bar review courses without going to law school a lawyer (the one educated in law) or not?
California Bar Association rules also require people who never went to law school to work for the law office for two years to sit for the bar exam (read rules). So, are those people “lawyers”? Without even ever going to law school? We are on a dangerous path here, because the difference between lawyer and attorney may get a little bit more blurry.
Part II. Attorney vs. Lawyer: How the whole legal industry got it wrong: Why ABA, State Bars and Many Attorneys in the USA Incorrectly Use the Terms “Lawyer” and “Attorney” Interchangeably
Most laypeople and attorneys think attorney vs. lawyer meaning simply as meaning the same thing, and they use both terms interchangeably. Essentially, the difference is historical, where the difference already washed away an attorney vs. lawyer debate kind of lost its meaning.
Most people think there is no difference between lawyer and attorney. At the same time, informally and even legally, there may still be a legal difference. Even formally, if we dig in the language in opinions of the courts in the United States, I will show you here that THERE IS a difference.
The historical difference between lawyer vs. attorney is that an attorney is usually a lawyer who is a member of the bar and is licensed by the state bar (in the USA) to practice law in that state.
And just lawyer can be unlicensed – not a member of the bar – and can work in limited legal capacities at law firms, organizations, and government agencies, without the right to advise third parties on legal issues or to represent them in legal matters.
At this point, you should have learned that legally speaking, there used to be and still is a difference between lawyer and attorney. An unlicensed lawyer is not an attorney and has no right to practice law by consulting to third parties or representing them in legal matters. A licensed lawyer is an attorney and could do all the above.
ABA Rules Incorrectly Use Lawyer vs. Attorney Interchangeably?
ABA rules do not see the difference between lawyer and attorney. American Bar Association is defining a lawyer in a way a lawyer vs. attorney would be the same thing. I think they are mistaken – essentially misusing the term “lawyer.” Or, they just did not give it a thought. Either way – this is probably incorrect.
ABA on its website states that a lawyer can also be called attorney, counsel, or counselor (further in this article I will show you why this mixing them may be incorrect) and is a licensed professional who advises and represents others in legal matters. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/public-information/what-is-a-lawyer-/
What does the law say about the difference between lawyer and attorney?
US legal scholars and US law generally may suggest that things are not so simple, and lawyers and attorneys are different categories of legal professionals.
This is from Harvard Law Review – one of the most prestigious law journals of the country:
“But even if Sixth Amendment counsel could include some unlicensed representation, any such advocate would need to be “sufficiently learned in the law to be able adequately to represent his client in court.”( United States v. Whitesel, 543 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1976))
Whitesel has never been overruled and has been cited as good law for its interpretation of the Sixth Amendment as recently as 1995 — seven years after the Supreme Court’s assertion in Wheat that defendants had no right to be represented by advocates who were not members of the bar.
But there is more from Harvard Law article about Whitesel:
“The history of legal practice in the United States strongly suggests that the Sixth Amendment should not be read to fully incorporate bar exclusionary practices in their current form. To begin with, a reader simply cannot escape the text of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which distinguished between “counsel” and “attorneys at law.”104”
“As the Sixth Circuit in Whitesel acknowledged, this distinction suggests that the terms were understood to have different meanings.105 Such a distinction would make sense in light of the colonial conception of the lawyer class as an arm of English tyranny.106”
https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol124_rethinking_the_boundaries.pdf
Wow! The history of law in the US states that such terms as “counsel” and “attorneys” are different terms, and counsel is not necessarily an attorney. By the way, I am not against representation by attorneys – attorneys are specialists in law and a person in court and legal matters should rightfully be represented by an experienced attorney. But I am for truth. And truth requires some digging in.
More case law about the difference between lawyer and attorney – a counsel
Specifically, here is a relevant wording that can be found in this case mentioned above:
Sec. 35. And be it further enacted, That in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their causes personally or by the assistance of such counsel or attorneys at law as by the rules of the said courts respectively shall be permitted to manage and conduct causes therein. Judiciary Act of 1789, Ch. 20, § 35, 1 Stat. 92 (Now codified as 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (1970)).
….
First, since in the statute the terms “counsel or attorneys at law” are employed alternatively, it seems probable that the proposers of the Sixth Amendment did not mean to limit representation exclusively to “attorneys at law.”
…
But for a District Judge to exercise his discretion to allow a person to try a case who was not a member of the bar of the court and who had not qualified by taking the required examination, would at a minimum require a showing that such person was sufficiently learned in the law to be able adequately to represent his client in court.
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-whitesel
This wording confirms that “counsel” is not necessarily a member of the bar, but can be someone who is trained in the law, like Juris Doctor graduate from law school. I have seen this case cited as near as in 2005. So, most likely it is still good law. I think this is a major role in the law which should be addressed eventually.
Let’s look at some historical opinions form the 1800s. I am not sure that this opinion by the US Supreme Court is still good law because it restricts the right of women to be members of the bar. I did not do heavy research, but I suspect that it was overruled but overruled for different reasons.
“The statute of Illinois on the subject of admissions to the bar, enacts that no person shall be permitted to practice as an attorney or counselor at law, or to commence, conduct, or defend any action, suit, or complaint, in which he is not a party concerned, in any court of record within the state, either by using or subscribing his name or the name of any other person, without having previously obtained a license for that purpose from some two of the justices of the Supreme Court, which license shall constitute the person receiving the same an attorney and counselor at law, and shall authorize him to appear in all the courts of record within the state, and there to practice as an attorney and counselor at law, according to the laws and customs thereof.” Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872)
It looks like such terms were historically differentiated
But what about lawyer vs. attorney? In fact, contrary to popular opinion among attorneys and bar associations, the law suggests that terms “counsel” and “lawyer,” rather than “lawyer” and “attorney,” are used interchangeably. Then, “counsel” (like “lawyer”) is another parent term for “attorney”. Essentially, an attorney is always a counsel, but counsel is not always an attorney. At least, it was not always historically.
United States v. Marion, supra, at 404 U. S. 321-322. In holding that the appointment of counsel or the release of the inmate from segregation could remedy its concerns, the Court of Appeals must have concluded, quite illogically, we believe, that the presence of the inmate in the general prison population or the appointment of a lawyer could somehow prevent the deterioration of physical evidence, or that the inmate or his counsel could begin an effective investigation of the crime within the restricted prison walls before even being able to discover the nature of the Government’s case.
…
Thus, according to the Court of Appeals’ holding, an indigent inmate isolated in administrative detention while the subject of a felony investigation must be afforded counsel after 90 days, or else be released back into the prison population, in order to ensure that he or his lawyer will be able to take preindictment investigatory steps to preserve his defense at trial. 704 F.2d at 1124
…
…. JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN joins, concurring in the judgment.
“Whatever else it may mean, the right to counsel granted by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments means at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him — ‘whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.'”
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387, 430 U. S. 398 (1977) (emphasis supplied) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U. S. 682, 406 U. S. 689 (1972) (plurality opinion)).
United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180 (1984)
Here the court uses “counsel” and a “lawyer” as synonyms, most likely meaning that they meant attorney. But considering cases already mentioned above, this creates confusion, because that opinion I cited earlier clearly differentiates between attorney and counsel.
But, this essentially equates counsel = lawyer, while another law differentiates between counsel and attorney. Did you study logic in college? Using logic, in such a case lawyer must be differentiated from an attorney. Otherwise, why do we study logic at all?
Seriously, how clearer it could be stated that there is a difference between lawyer and attorney?
Do you think I am just using philosophy mumbo-jumbo here? Oops…Another case law, and even well-respected Black’s Law Dictionary, explicitly show a difference in lawyer vs. attorney:
See e.g., Black’s Law Dictionary 129 (6th ed.1990). A lawyer is a person learned in the law or in the business of giving advice, see e.g., id. at 888; Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 680 (1994), while an attorney is a lawyer who has been retained to assist a client, see e.g., Black’s, supra at 128-29; Webster’s II, supra, at 136. Freedom Trust, 38 F.Supp.2d 1170 (1999) (California)
If someone still insists that courts do not imply here that there is a difference between “lawyer”, one who is learned in the law, and “attorney”, one who passed the bar and is member of the state bar, then we can throw out half of US jurisprudence, legal history and logic (and Black’s Law Dictionary) in the trash.
Because US legal precedents and legal authorities more than on one occasion do differentiate between counsel (lawyer) who is just educated in law, and counsel (attorney), who passed the bar and is an active member of the state bar.
I seriously suspect, that if someone would dig in the law to find confirmation that lawyer is not necessarily someone who holds attorney’s license, but is the one “learned in law” – they most likely would find it. Because I did only a quick investigation and found all this stuff.
Here is another example. In United States v. Stockheimer, 385 F. Supp. 979 (W.D. Wis. 1974), The judge then wrote that he was “not prepared to hold that the term ‘counsel’ . . . includes only persons licensed by some state to practice law, and that the federal constitutional provision is thus limited by what the various states may choose to do about licensing.” https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol124_rethinking_the_boundaries.pdf
Again, how clearer that could be stated???
What this supposed to mean? The judge simply declined to resolve the issue. Because, a district court should have some knowledge about the Constitution and its interpretation, don’t you think?
But by declining to hold on the issue, the judge essentially implied that Constitution may allow non-attorney (or unlicensed lawyer) to practice law and represent a defendant in criminal proceedings. Otherwise, the judge would simply state that it is prohibited, period.
Attorney vs. lawyer difference may have serious implications
And, such caselaw language essentially is throwing a shadow on the ability to require by states that lawyers must be a licensed attorney to represent a client in court. (OMG, I just angered one million licensed attorneys!!!) Just kidding, just kidding, folks!!!
But, are such requirements by state bar associations violating the Constitution of the United States, then? Just kidding!
This is very confusing. These issues must be defined. Someone must start taking responsibility and stop shifting decision-making around by circle.
By the way, the Constitution allows a criminal defendant to represent himself or herself in court. While it is not advised to do that (attorney representation is highly advised), it means that in most such cases self-representing the defendant is not a licensed attorney, and, essentially, in such a case criminal defendant is represented by an unlicensed non-attorney and even non-lawyer.
Oh, that is why the judge, in that case, declined to rule that only a licensed attorney can represent a criminal defendant. Because then, well, the defendant will not be allowed self-representation. I see. Ow complicated. Catch 22. With real massive implications in terms of lawyer vs. attorney definition.
Overall
It looks like… Just maybe… ABA may be incorrect…. All state bars which use these two terms interchangeably may be incorrect… And all attorneys, who argue that there is no difference between two terms, may also be wrong about it.
Don’t get mad, I am just using logic and US legal precedents and authorities here. Spinning the staff. I know, I know, only lawyers, politicians, and media is allowed to spin the facts. But, well…
Because real, active, not overruled, valid and not so old precedents of the US Supreme Court are indicating lawyer vs. attorney difference!
Is ABA, state bars and licensed attorney are going to disregard opinions by the Supreme Courts of the United States of America? I do not think so. Here you go. Now you deal with it.
By the way, did you know that Justices of the Supreme Court historically are not required to be attorneys or even law school, graduates? https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx
Lawyer vs. Attorney – Legislative Definitions
That is why the legislature in some states had to address this issue to remove confusion.
The Illinois Attorney Act says: “No person shall be permitted to practice as an attorney or counselor at law within this State without having previously obtained a license for that purpose from the Supreme Court of this State.” (705 ILCS 205/1) (from Ch. 13, par. 1)
Still, Act does not define the term “lawyer” and does not use it at all. The Act uses the term “attorney” and “counselor at law,” but does not define them either. Please, correct me, if I am wrong.
California Bar Association says, “Practicing lawyers in California must be licensed by the State Bar. The State Bar’s admission requirements are set by the California Business and Professions Code.” Bus & Prof Code § 6125 – no person can practice law in California unless a member of the state bar. Even this definition itself suggests that “lawyer” maybe someone who is not licensed by the state bar.
Where in CA Business and Professions Code Section 6125 does it specifically say that lawyer who does not practice law must be a licensed attorney to consider being a “lawyer”? Maybe you will find that? I also did not find the definition of “lawyer”. And any term regularly used in the law is usually defined in that law in the beginning. https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/State_Bar_Act.pdf
But not all states did even that, and one may very well argue that a lawyer is simply the one who obtained legal training and educated himself or herself in law.
This is a slippery slope of course, but it does not say that to be considered “lawyer’ one must be a licensed attorney. Attorney vs. lawyer is not the same. The difference between lawyer and attorney is getting more distinctly clear once we start digging in.
More about attorney vs. lawyer
But, while most use both terms as synonyms, the few act as a voice of reason and explain that these two terms are different. Here is an article by Texas attorney, who differentiates between attorney vs. lawyer and explains the difference. https://www.kielichlawfirm.com/difference-between-attorney-and-lawyer-in-the-united-states/
Interestingly, while terms attorney vs. lawyer is different, some state statutes using terms interchangeably by prohibiting holding oneself as a lawyer if not licensed may be technically incorrect and wrong, potentially opening the doors to challenging those provisions.
They should say that holding oneself out as an attorney, if not licensed, is prohibited. But holding as a lawyer – why not? Only because people incorrectly think that attorney vs. lawyer is the same thing? https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.38.htm#38.122
I am not going to discuss what is the unauthorized practice of law – this is beyond the scope of this blog post. You can read a well-detailed article about that here https://www.crperrylaw.com/2012/11/the-unauthorized-practice-of-law-in-california-and-the-jobs-reserved-for-lawyers/
The Case for Importance of Properly Defining Both terms
The point is, ABA, bar associations, most lawyers use the term “lawyer” instead of “attorney” without giving it much thought. Attorneys, states, bar associations are vehemently defending their use of these two terms as synonyms not only without much legal basis to support it but also despite some law that suggests attorney vs. lawyer are terms having different meanings.
If so, not only ABA and state bar associations, but also many state statutes are plain incorrect in their plain wording and, well, must have been revised.
I am not going to devote my life to pursue clarification on this matter by top courts or legislatures. But if they are wrong – then we have a massive problem and the whole country uses terms incorrectly.
I think all the above is the best-kept secret in the legal industry. Essentially, this strict approach may interfere with the right to counsel and the right to receive legal aid or legal service. According to ABA itself, about 80% of legal needs in the US go unmet because people cannot afford legal fees. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/blt/2020/04/civil-needs-unmet/
What has been done about it? Practically nothing. Legal fees may still make people and businesses go bankrupt, costing jobs and increasing debt. All this is an inefficient bad system that needs to be fixed. But the legal industry does not want to fix it because there is no financial incentive for anyone.
So, what? Attorney vs. lawyer – big deal?
If everyone is using two terms as synonyms it does not make it right. So, either fix the law or fix how you use terms. Or, prove me wrong in the comments below.
Now, I am all for proper bar test to ensure that attorney licenses are issued to sufficiently smart people. However, law school does not prepare for the bar exam. Yes, four + three years and $100,000 – $150,000 in education debt, and law student is not prepared to sit for most bar exams in the country. Smells like a massive problem.
The third year of law school should be devoted solely to prepare for the bar exam. So that law graduates could take the bar exam the next day after graduation and pass it.
And must limit the number of law schools in the country to 100. We have just too many lawyers who for lack of opportunities in the legal world turn into ambulance chasers and predatory small-business attackers. They turn like vampires and spoil the whole industry and put the profession in a very negative light.
I have seen jobs for young attorneys offering $10-$15 an hour. Are you kidding me? People, smart people, who spent 4 years in college, 3 years in grueling law school, then prepared for one of the hardest exams in the country and passed it, are now offered $15 an hour???
What is the point of all these strict rules if young attorneys receive this slap in the face by such offers because there are just too many of them?
What’s the point of being a “licensed attorney” if you can flip burgers for this money and can just do two years of law work office in California, get certified as a paralegal, and get your $10-$15 an hour without all this law school and bar exam staff? And under the law, kind of still feel like a “lawyer.”
Why is this important to know for all?
The scary thing is that an abundance of attorneys and unclear vague definitions, or absence of them, resulted in the fact that these days essentially any matter became legal matter, even the smallest thing like buying groceries. People are afraid to talk to each other.
It came to a point that many other professionals are afraid to give advice even in their relevant fields for fear of accidentally be taken to criminal court for unauthorized practice of law – from recruiters, managers to accountants, doctors, or other professionals.
It is ridiculous that instead of focusing on productive work we have to spend 90% of our time and money on CYA (“cover your ass”) to make sure we do not violate some kind of rule, prohibition, restriction, limitation, and that we cover our ars somehow. I think billions of dollars and millions of hours are wasted just on those activities each year.
It came to a point that lawyers, oops, attorneys themselves became afraid of giving legal answers to questions, because all this restrictive tsunami caught up with them and they can out of nowhere become liable for malpractice.
I think this is one large huge BULLSHIT. Like one of my law school professors said: “It sucks to be an attorney.” You will not see that in law schools’ promotional materials)))
Total Global Waste of Time and Money
I think it results in a major waste of human and financial resources. For we have to strictly define some borders which cannot be crossed (crap, I did not mean southern US border – I meant societal borders – have to qualify everything these days), and that starts by defining major terms industry uses.
As I said, it is all about access to the law. I mean, paying an attorney $150-$250 for drafting one response letter to a frivolous allegation is serious money for some. And, quite often, due to legal ethics rules attorneys will not even take such small matters, because their risk of liability is much higher than their financial reward.
The systems that exist essentially deprives millions of people from legal representation and legal services in millions of small legal matters which are nevertheless important.
In short, people simply forgo their rights because the legal profession is too restrictive and restricts access to legal services for literally millions of people on millions of occasions every single year. This is a BAD system and it must be fixed. It restricts not only freedoms but restricts business, innovation, and development of the economy.
Even attorneys complain about increasing stress load due to potential malpractice lawsuit or disciplinary action, because even experienced attorney can’t know each regulation or law or precedent he or she may accidentally violate. And that, in turn, results in increased legal fees which are already unaffordable for many regular people.
The legal business is collapsing on itself like a black hole, because people cannot afford it, and lawyers become ambulance chasers and burden on society while people’s needs go unmet. Why? Because essentially industry rules are contrary to the free market.
The system is unsustainable, and we came back to the middle age system, where only rich and affluent can afford legal representation and, therefore, can afford justice. As to the rest – out of luck. As some lawyers say: “you get as much justice as you can pay for.”
The approach is outdated and hurts many young attorneys too because the potential clients are discouraged to seek legal advice for the high cost of legal services.
The system could be overhauled to allow the provision of micro-legal services by young attorneys or by non-licensed legal professionals in collaborating with licensed lawyers, where licensed lawyers and those unlicensed legal professionals would avoid the risks associated with either legal malpractice or unauthorized practice of law.
This would allow many more people access to legal services, which would increase total revenues base don the stream of micro-revenues from such micro-legal services.
All I am trying to say is that there is a difference between lawyer and attorney, or lawyer vs. attorney, or attorney vs. lawyer. That’s it.