A non-lawyers who practices law will harm consumers.

The argument for the conclusion that consumers will be harmed if non-lawyers are allowed to practice law is as follows:

1. A non-lawyer does not have a deep understanding of state and federal laws.
2. If someone does not have a deep understanding of state and federal laws, then they will not be able to fully protect the rights of the litigant.
3. If someone cannot fully protect the rights of the litigant, then the litigant is harmed.
4. Therefore, a non-lawyer will harm a litigant.

Support for claim #1

TODO

1. Claims where these harms would occur
   1. "paraprofessionals will not be able to give consumers the same leverage in protecting their rights against creditors and debt collectors" as attorneys (p31)
   3. "The import of these ancillary consumer statutes is not just that paraprofessionals will not have the same education on them as consumer attorneys, but the fact that consumer attorneys can use them (Specifically in federal courts – which paraprofessionals will not be able to do)." (p31)
   4. "only a very real threat of an attorney willing to take the debt buyer to trial will lead them to dismiss their claim against the consumer" (p32)
   5. "Consumer debt and creditor harassment require a deep understanding of not only state laws but also, numerous federal laws including: the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), a federal law which prohibits untrue or misleading representations and requires certain affirmative disclosures in the offering or sale of "credit repair" services, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692), which governs how debt collectors may try to get you to pay back a debt." (p28)

1. Identify the faulty logic.