It only takes  one year of law school to know all you really need to know about the law, which is what makes Daniel Fischer qualified to pronounce the obvious :  People don’t really need lawyers.  Even computers can do it, at $249 a pop.

In 2008 Missouri residents Gerald T. Ardey and Chad M. Ferrell decided to form a remodeling company. They paid an online service called LegalZoom $249 to draw up the paperwork. By all accounts, they have no complaints about the documents.

But Ardley and Ferrell want money from LegalZoom anyway. They have sued the Los Angeles provider of online legal documents on behalf of themselves and every other LegalZoom customer in Missouri for triple what they paid, under the theory the service has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

A set up?  Apparently so, as the greedy lawyers descended like vultures on the treble damage carcass.

Like most class actions, this is about the money. Specifically, the treble damages and presumably rich fees available to the lawyers who are really behind this case. But there’s another wrinkle to the LegalZoom litigation: By suing an automated document-preparation firm, these lawyers are trying to protect themselves from competition.

A double whammy, not only the big payday from a class action, but the death of the inexpensive alternative that could put the avaricious out on the street.  Evil lawyers. 

Fischer invokes the name of USC lawprof Gillian Hadfield, who has sought ways for the law to be less expensive, more accessible to ordinary people.  

My research suggests that Americans have a much higher rate of simply giving up in the face of legal difficulties, with effectively nowhere to turn if they cannot afford a lawyer who comes at a minimum price of $150 an hour. This means giving up on seeing their children or saving their homes or credit ratings or jobs.

But Hadfield isn’t a hater.  She’s a lover, a person who seeks to find a way to solve a dilemma, not merely point the finger of blame at the evildoer and encourage the citizenry to storm the castle with torches a’blazing.  Fischer, on the other hand, just hates lawyers, and ascribes all manner of venal intent.

As proof, Fischer points to the ABA’s effort to redraft the rules as regards the unauthorized practice of law.

Among other things, it would prohibit non-lawyers from “giving advice or counsel to persons as to their legal rights or responsibilities,” and “selecting, drafting or completing legal documents or agreements that affect the legal rights of a person.”

That could stifle the competition between lawyers and nonlawyers, for sure.  And really, isn’t the law all about enhancing competition with non-lawyers, because, you know, law is easy.

The ABA and lawyers like Van Ronzalen maintain that unauthorized practice of law rules are there to protect consumers. But the FTC, in its 2002 letter, said there is “no evidence” consumers are hurt by competition for legal services in areas such as real estate transactions, wills and trusts, taxes, labor regulations and investments.

No evidence?  I bet this comes as a surprise to all those litigants fighting over the busted homes deals, will contests, IRS jeopardy assessments and brokerage houses wasting investments accounts in bad buys and heavy fees. 

Gillian Hadfield tries to stretch the boundaries to find a way that the law isn’t financially out of reach for regular folks who do regular things that the law, in the great wisdom of legislators, judges and, yes, lawyers, touches.  There isn’t much that happens to people every day that doesn’t come within the law’s tentacles, and that presents a problem.  But Hadfield isn’t foolish about it, and tests her ideas against the reality that disputes do arise, legal problems do exist, and people, left to their own devices, do end up getting horribly entangled in very real legal issues.  She seeks a way out, but doesn’t rush blindly in the abyss.

Daniel Fischer shuts his eyes and takes a leap.  Fischer’s article should appeal well to his target audience, people who want legal services without having to pay without the slightest thought of what it means to be on the receiving end of an unpleasant transaction.  Nobody needs lawyers when there’s no problem at the end of the rainbow.  When there is, all the hand-wringing, second-guessing and teeth-gnashing in the world won’t let a person go back and do it right the first time.

In a sense, criminal defense lawyers have no horse in this race, as LegalZoom can’t touch my business and has no interest in trying.  If it was just about money, then I wouldn’t waste a second of my time worrying about them stealing business from those lawyers whose livelihoods depend on real estate closings or drafting wills.  Hey, let the other guy fight for his bread and butter. It’s not my problem.

But being a lawyer means that we don’t suspend our concern for others when there’s no discernible hit on our own wallets.  At least that’s what it’s supposed to mean.  It makes a whole lot of difference to nice young family on the corner whether they understand and appreciate why they should choose Uncle Sam rather than good buddy Lou (or vice versa) to be the executor of their Last Will and Testament, rather than have their sweet children learn after they’re gone that they won’t be going to college. 

There is no question but that Hadfield is right, that we need to address the unaffordability problem, given the pervasiveness of the law in everyday life.  This is a discussion that must be had.  But we don’t need simplistic fools pandering to the angry and ignorant.

Ironically, Daniel Fischer may well prove to be one of the best shills for greedy lawyers around, since the natural by-product of his position will be massive, needless, litigation down the road, when all the computer driven papers turn out to fail to serve their purpose, fail to protect people from themselves, and generate this great avalanche of lawsuits that will suffice to pay for a new car for every lawyer in America.

And all of this could be avoided with a little bit of thought and a lot less simple-minded anti-lawyer demagoguery.