I appreciate the passion with which you advocate for decreased barriers to legal information. In many respects, I could not agree more; U.S. jurisprudence is synonymous with hyper-technical mutability, and the public is kept in the dark because of pay walls. But, that marks the full extent to which you and I agree on this matter.

In terms of "institutionalized fraud," you are totally wrong. The legal profession is one of the most heavily-regulated professions that exists today. The duties imposed on lawyers--which are legal obligations to act or refrain from acting--should not be taken lightly. For example, Rule 8.3 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct[1] (adopted in whole or in part by 49 states) provides:

(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer
has committed a violation of the Rules
of Professional Conduct that raises a
substantial question as to that
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or
fitness as a lawyer in other respects,
*shall* inform the appropriate
professional authority.

(emphasis added). Note the word "shall:" it means that a lawyer who has actual knowledge that another lawyer (regardless of jurisdiction!) violated the rules MUST report the violation to the appropriate authority.

The reason I explain this rule in particular is because of Rule 1.5, which provides in excruciating detail a lawyer's ability to collect fees from a client.[2] Everything you said is wrong.

Here's the short, plain English version of Rule 1.5: the lawyer must communicate the fee arrangement to the client before the start of representation (except when charging an ongoing client the same rate in subsequent matters). There's a blanket prohibition against "excessive fees" and "minimum fees," and a set of factors used to determine whether a fee is reasonable.

Reasonable fees are judged by time and labor, the issues' difficulty/novelty, the lawyer's experience/reputation/abilities, the nature and length of the lawyer-client relationship, whether the lawyer must turn away other cases, whether it's a fixed or contingent fee basis, and the customarily charged fees. When dealing with contingent fee arrangements, they MUST be reasonable and signed by the client, but may not be used in criminal cases. Similarly in criminal cases, a lawyer may not ask for incentive fees, and is proscribed from taking a percentage of publication rights (i.e. Casey Anthony's lawyer asking for a percentage of any subsequent book deal in exchange for his time) until after all appeals have been exhausted. Contingent fees also may not be used in domestic relations.

When dealing with division of fees in law firms, it's not actually a "division of fees" in the legal sense. The lawyers are salaried employees of the law firm, which is hired to represent the client. Again, when you hire a law firm, you are not hiring a single lawyer; you're hiring the entire firm. Division of fees occurs when a single billing client is covering the fees of two or more lawyers who are not in the same firm. When this happens, division is permitted as long as it's proportional to the services each lawyer (or firm) provides to the client, and the client must agree to this allotment in writing.

Further in this thread, you announced that you should have a right to represent your company in litigation. That's absolutely ridiculous, and in criminal matters in the United States, is dissonant with the Sixth Amendment. In such cases, the corporation has a right to assistance from counsel. Because corporations are fictitious entities incapable of self-representation and thus incompetent, corporate pro se representation is impossible.

But, there are good reasons why a client shouldn't have a right to non-lawyer representation. The Model Rules
of Professional Conduct attach an enormous burden to lawyers by compelling them to disclose to the authorities another lawyer's violation therefrom. Without strong industry self-regulation in this form, there would be no way to protect clients from invidious representation.

---

[1] http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibilit...

[2] http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibilit...