A recent column in Above the Law reflects on the regulation of the profession. It concludes that "the legal profession is one of the best-regulated professions out there, and we can all kind of be happy that we have more safeguards against bad actors than other professions."
I generally agree with the underlying sentiment but the conclusion needs to be more nuanced than that. It is true that the legal profession is highly regulated and that much of that regulation is in place for good reasons, but it is debatable whether all regulation is needed. For example, I think there are good arguments to suggest that it is time to revise the limits to multijurisdictional practice, for example. Also, whether we can be "happy" depends on how the regulation is implemented, which varies a lot from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
No comments:
Post a Comment