Main Page: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<h1>Arguments to Debunk</h1> | <h1>Arguments to Debunk</h1> | ||
* Non-lawyers | * Non-lawyers who practices law will harms consumers. | ||
* A two-tier legal system is bad for consumers. | * A two-tier legal system is bad for consumers. | ||
* Non-lawyer owners will cause lawyer-employees to violate their ethical code of conduct. | * Non-lawyer owners will cause lawyer-employees to violate their ethical code of conduct. | ||
Revision as of 21:39, 13 July 2023
This wiki was setup to spread ideas that will bring about policy changes needed to solve the access to justice problem. We do so by debunking false arguments that have been used for the continued restrictions of the practice of law. We are also promoting new arguments that haven't been offered before to lift those restrictions.
Arguments to Debunk
- Non-lawyers who practices law will harms consumers.
- A two-tier legal system is bad for consumers.
- Non-lawyer owners will cause lawyer-employees to violate their ethical code of conduct.
- The access to justice problem is where indigents do not have attorney representation in court.
Arguments to Promote
- What access to justice really means?
- Legal technology companies such as LegalZoom provide people with access to justice.
- Non-lawyers can be legally required to comply with the ethical code of conduct.